Judge rebukes Regina police for recording a woman peeing

A provincial court judge in Regina is criticizing the Regina Police Service and throwing out an impaired driving charge after a woman was recorded using a toilet in a detention area.

It started on a Friday night last May. According to court documents, Christine Paterson was arrested on suspicion of having care and control of a vehicle while impaired.

In court, an officer gave evidence that Paterson was found passed out in the drivers’ seat of a vehicle in a parking lot. The vehicle wasn’t on, but it was set in reverse.

In her decision, Judge Carol Snell said if it were just for the evidence given on the offense at trial, then Paterson would have been found guilty. However, something else happened while she was at the police station.

Paterson had to use the washroom and was escorted by two female police officers to a toilet in a cell in the detention area.

She used the toilet and then the proceedings continued on as normal, but unbeknownst to Paterson, there is a surveillance camera pointed directly at that area, which feeds to a bank of monitors that any police officer can have access to at any time.

“The camera essentially showed her in some form of nudity — frontal nudity — that was recorded and it was kept on video,” explained Ron Piché, Paterson’s lawyer in the case.

Piché said he’d never seen anything like that before.

“I’ve seen males urinating in the corner on these cell block videos, but to see a female in a state of undress like that … yeah, I was shocked and felt, frankly felt very bad for my client,” he said.

In court, Piché argued that the incident, having been recorded and shown on monitors in a relatively public area, violated Paterson’s Charter rights. Snell ultimately agreed and ordered a judicial stay of proceedings. Piché said that’s rare.

Snell explained her reasoning, writing that this would fall under the category of cases which involve “state conduct that contravenes fundamental notions of justice, which undermines the integrity of the judicial process.”

Snell referenced other similar cases in her decision, including one from Saskatoon in 2015. The judge, in that case, found the accused’s rights were violated but decided not to order a stay, because it was a “first instance” of this coming up in Saskatchewan. So that judge said it would serve as a warning to police to take a look at their policies.

“Judge Snell in the Regina case seized on that and said police have had the benefit of that decision … for some three years and simply have done nothing to change their ways and to respect the privacy interests of not only females but males as well,” Piché said.

Snell said police have known about the decision out of Saskatoon for three years, and this recent incident reflects a lack of diligence on the part of police.

Remedies to this situation that had been brought up in other cases, were mentioned by Snell, like having a privacy screen or providing a blanket for the accused.

Snell commented in her decision and Piché mentioned as well that police didn’t put up much of a defence of their surveillance procedures.

“Quite frankly I don’t know what they could put forward to try to tamp down the sledgehammer of a remedy, of a stay,” said Piché.

Regina police respond

The Regina Police Service didn’t appear to be contrite about the situation.

An interview request for someone with the Regina police service was declined, but a statement from the acting deputy chief, Corey Zaharuk, was provided.

He said the service is aware of the decision and has been researching best practices when it comes to privacy. However, he also said in his statement that police need to balance privacy and safety.

“It is a difficult balance to find, especially in circumstances where people are distressed, intoxicated or possibly even having suicidal thoughts.”

Zaharuk said police also have to keep in mind recommendations for increased monitoring of people in detention that have come out of coroner’s inquests into in-custody deaths.

“We need to be sure that any solutions we come up with ensure prisoner privacy, but also meeting our legal obligations to keep those in our custody and care safe.”