[ad_1]
Andy Jackson / Stuff
The woman had asked the police to leave her home, but they did not. (File photo)
A police officer pepper-sprayed a woman’s eyes during an illegal search of her home, the police watchdog said.
The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) found that the police had no legal authority to enter the home and search for a cell phone without a court order to do so.
It also determined that the seizure of a second cell phone was illegal.
On December 15, 2018, police entered the property to search for stolen property that had been electronically traced to the address.
READ MORE:
* Police officers discovered illegally pepper sprayed and arrested Northland man
* The police officer who collided head-on with the fleeing driver violated pursuit rules, according to IPCA
* Police ‘careless’ in motorcycle chase in Christchurch, according to report
The door was open, so they went inside. The woman who lived there told police to leave, but they did not, according to a report released Thursday.
They incorrectly warned her that she was obstructing them and could be arrested, she said.
An officer tried to restrain the woman, who resisted. During the arrest, the officer sprayed pepper spray on his hand and wiped it on the woman’s eyes, according to the report.
They then took the woman out and put her in the back of a police car.
She alleged that an officer struck her while she was in the car.
During the arrest, a relative of the woman said he videotaped the arrest on a cell phone, which police took from him, according to the report.
The next day, the woman went to the Whangārei Police Station to file a complaint and pick up the phone.
Police denied having the phone and told him not to file a complaint, according to the report.
The police then returned the phone two days after the arrest, and there was no video of the arrest.
The IPCA could not determine if a video was taken in the first place, so it is impossible to confirm whether the police removed it.
“The initial use of force during the arrest would have been justified, if the arrest had been legal. However, since the police should not have been looking for the address, the woman was justified in resisting, ”said the authority’s chairman, Judge Colin Doherty.
“She should not have been arrested for obstruction and any use of force on her constitutes assault.
Furthermore, it was illegal for the police to confiscate the cell phone of his relative, who said he was filming the arrest. We could not identify the officer who took the cell phone.
“The police did not administer custody of this cell phone in accordance with their ownership policy,” said Doherty.
Northland District Commander Superintendent Tony Hill said police acknowledged the findings and said the situation could have been handled differently.
“This has provided a learning opportunity about using search powers in rare circumstances.
“We have recently reminded our staff about the necessary care around the use of search powers. Police conducted a criminal investigation and legal review of this incident and no charges were filed. “
The agents involved were also the subject of a labor investigation, the details of which were confidential, Hill said.
Three of the officers involved continued to work for the police.
