Greg Mercer
therecord.com
KITCHENER — A judge has blasted the Waterloo Regional Police for their unlawful arrest of a Kitchener man and the search of his Ottawa Street home more than four years ago.
In April 2007, Joel Elliot, 32, was placed in a holding cell, strip searched and had his home ransacked by officers looking for firearms connected to a street gang investigation.
They found none. After his arrest, he sued the police.
This week, Justice Jane Milanetti sided with Elliot, saying the police were “inexcusably inappropriate” and that a detective had provided “misleading evidence” to a justice of the peace as the basis for the search warrant.
She awarded Elliot, who has no criminal record, $32,000 in damages and ordered police to immediately return personal items, including a photo album and coin collection, seized in the raid.
Waterloo Regional Police say they’re reviewing the judge’s decision.
“With any decision affecting our service, we are going to review the matter with the goal of addressing any issues that may have arisen from the case,” said Insp. Greg Lamport, spokesperson for the service.
“If there are things we need to address, we will address them.”
It appears Elliot’s only crime was being related to two cousins who had gang connections. One of them, Jason Lamka, was renting a room at Elliot’s house and also sued police for his own gunpoint arrest that day.
Lamka was awarded $8,500 in damages earlier this year after a judge ruled police had overstepped their bounds during his arrest.
On April 12, 2007, Elliot was called after his shift at a septic services company and told heavily armed tactical officers were breaking down his front door. When he went home, he was arrested in his driveway for “possession of firearms,” the judge wrote.
Milanetti said Elliot should have been immediately released after no weapons were found in his home.
Instead, he was kept in a holding cell, told to remove his clothes and threatened with a stun gun. Officers made “insulting and degrading comments” about his naked body and refused to allow Elliot to speak with a lawyer, the court heard.
“Even if the arrest had been lawful, I was not convinced that a strip search and its forced compliance via Taser were reasonable or necessary steps to have taken,” the judge wrote in her decision.
Close to midnight, Elliot was finally released, charged with nothing, and returned home to a ransacked house. His front door had been smashed open, his TV broken and there were burn marks around his house from the flash grenades used by the police, the judge wrote.
Drawers and bins were emptied out onto the floor and tiles had been blown off the living room fireplace.
“Much of the house was left in complete shambles,” Milanetti wrote.
Elliot argued the arrest and its coverage by TV news caused many problems for him. He was eventually laid off from his job, and lost another job because a man recognized him from the news, lawyer Davin Charney said.
Despite the judge’s ruling, Elliot is still angry about what happened and unsatisfied with the decision. He wants suspensions for the officers involved.
He said he had to put down a dog that was traumatized by the raid, has lost countless personal items, is out thousands in damages and his neighbours eye him with suspicion.
“I still live with my neighbours putting their heads down when they see me, like they’re ashamed,” Elliot said. “I pray to God the police do things differently now. They could have knocked on my door and I would have gladly shown them my house.”
Elliot, who has a history of run-ins with police but no criminal record, also believes he’s been under unfair police focus ever since he filed the lawsuit. He said he’s been pulled over dozens of times and found officers parked outside his home.
Charney, a social activist and University of Waterloo grad who specializes in lawsuits against the police, said he hopes the case will change the way police use search warrants.
“We want them to stop using search warrants as de facto arrest warrants. They’re using them to scoop up everyone in the house and take them down to the station,” he said. “That’s a terrible abuse of power.”
According to court documents, police told the judge they intended to arrest anyone found at the home on the day of their search. It was part of an extensive investigation into the Stick Up Kids gang, which had begun in December 2006.
Members of the gang were being investigated after a brawl at a Waterloo house party in which a young man almost died of a stab wound to the neck. Police said they obtained the search warrant out of concern for public safety.
According to the warrant, investigators were acting on information from a relative who said a leader of the street gang had moved in with his cousin Elliot. That cousin, who can’t be named because he was a youth, was in custody at the time — but police believed they would find weapons at the house.
gmercer@therecord.com
In April 2007, Joel Elliot, 32, was placed in a holding cell, strip searched and had his home ransacked by officers looking for firearms connected to a street gang investigation.
They found none. After his arrest, he sued the police.
This week, Justice Jane Milanetti sided with Elliot, saying the police were “inexcusably inappropriate” and that a detective had provided “misleading evidence” to a justice of the peace as the basis for the search warrant.
She awarded Elliot, who has no criminal record, $32,000 in damages and ordered police to immediately return personal items, including a photo album and coin collection, seized in the raid.
Waterloo Regional Police say they’re reviewing the judge’s decision.
“With any decision affecting our service, we are going to review the matter with the goal of addressing any issues that may have arisen from the case,” said Insp. Greg Lamport, spokesperson for the service.
“If there are things we need to address, we will address them.”
It appears Elliot’s only crime was being related to two cousins who had gang connections. One of them, Jason Lamka, was renting a room at Elliot’s house and also sued police for his own gunpoint arrest that day.
Lamka was awarded $8,500 in damages earlier this year after a judge ruled police had overstepped their bounds during his arrest.
On April 12, 2007, Elliot was called after his shift at a septic services company and told heavily armed tactical officers were breaking down his front door. When he went home, he was arrested in his driveway for “possession of firearms,” the judge wrote.
Milanetti said Elliot should have been immediately released after no weapons were found in his home.
Instead, he was kept in a holding cell, told to remove his clothes and threatened with a stun gun. Officers made “insulting and degrading comments” about his naked body and refused to allow Elliot to speak with a lawyer, the court heard.
“Even if the arrest had been lawful, I was not convinced that a strip search and its forced compliance via Taser were reasonable or necessary steps to have taken,” the judge wrote in her decision.
Close to midnight, Elliot was finally released, charged with nothing, and returned home to a ransacked house. His front door had been smashed open, his TV broken and there were burn marks around his house from the flash grenades used by the police, the judge wrote.
Drawers and bins were emptied out onto the floor and tiles had been blown off the living room fireplace.
“Much of the house was left in complete shambles,” Milanetti wrote.
Elliot argued the arrest and its coverage by TV news caused many problems for him. He was eventually laid off from his job, and lost another job because a man recognized him from the news, lawyer Davin Charney said.
Despite the judge’s ruling, Elliot is still angry about what happened and unsatisfied with the decision. He wants suspensions for the officers involved.
He said he had to put down a dog that was traumatized by the raid, has lost countless personal items, is out thousands in damages and his neighbours eye him with suspicion.
“I still live with my neighbours putting their heads down when they see me, like they’re ashamed,” Elliot said. “I pray to God the police do things differently now. They could have knocked on my door and I would have gladly shown them my house.”
Elliot, who has a history of run-ins with police but no criminal record, also believes he’s been under unfair police focus ever since he filed the lawsuit. He said he’s been pulled over dozens of times and found officers parked outside his home.
Charney, a social activist and University of Waterloo grad who specializes in lawsuits against the police, said he hopes the case will change the way police use search warrants.
“We want them to stop using search warrants as de facto arrest warrants. They’re using them to scoop up everyone in the house and take them down to the station,” he said. “That’s a terrible abuse of power.”
According to court documents, police told the judge they intended to arrest anyone found at the home on the day of their search. It was part of an extensive investigation into the Stick Up Kids gang, which had begun in December 2006.
Members of the gang were being investigated after a brawl at a Waterloo house party in which a young man almost died of a stab wound to the neck. Police said they obtained the search warrant out of concern for public safety.
According to the warrant, investigators were acting on information from a relative who said a leader of the street gang had moved in with his cousin Elliot. That cousin, who can’t be named because he was a youth, was in custody at the time — but police believed they would find weapons at the house.
gmercer@therecord.com
