Police Kelowna's 'tent city'

Open letter to Kelowna’s mayor and councillors

Re: Kelowna's “tent city” and RCMP responsiveness to property crime reports

Thank you for taking the time to review this letter. I enclose several emails I have received from (residents) who are victims, or family members who all have similar stories to share, and are distressed about the state of policing in our city.

It seems that, when it comes to property crimes, the police are not interested in putting in much effort. Let's change this mentality. Let's get the police (officers) to do their jobs and let's not let homelessness become synonymous with lawlessness. We can support those in need without turning a blind eye to property crimes.

I am a veteran criminal defence lawyer in this city, having moved here from Vancouver in 1997. I have raised my five children in Kelowna and love this city and the growth of the downtown core, where I have my small business. I have been in the news lately because of some steps I took to attempt to get the RCMP to investigate a property offence against a good friend of mine, whose car was broken into and his belongings taken, including a Garmin satellite communication device.

We had good evidence to prove where the belongings were but the police did nothing. I left messages with the RCMP dispatch and left messages with the number provided by the investigating constable, but none were responded to until after I went to the (media). I am not going to repeat here my conversations with the various reporters interested in this “lack of justice” story, but they can be found on Castanet and elsewhere online.

As a result of my experience, and the experience of countless others, I offer some suggestions for the city and the RCMP, which are intended to help solve property crimes and reduce property crimes in our city. Please discuss these with your colleagues and any legal counsel as to their efficacy and constitutionality.

Time is of the essence

The RCMP advised they have one officer assigned to the file. If he is away on days off, sick or on holiday, the file will not be dealt with. In this case I was not told the officer was away and would not return to work the next day. I finally got a return call days later.

With property crimes, time is of the essence. Stolen property gets moved, sold, and transported to who knows where (in this case Kelowna’s tent city).

I recommend the RCMP officer who initially takes a complaint and is the assigned officer, provide this information to the next officer on duty so investigations can move forward and are not sit at a standstill awaiting a certain officer to return.

Much like a team of doctors, when one is off work, somebody must be there to continue handling a patient's medical condition. There is no point giving a complainant a cell phone number that the officer doesn't (answer) while he is off duty. In fact, there should be a team of police officers who all deal with tent city and the criminal element therein.

Dispatchers must make sure messages that come in to the RCMP from victims or their representatives get to an officer and that officer responds. In this case, I called more than once, both to dispatch and the number provided by the officer, and got no responses until Feb. 10. The dispatcher told me he would pass the message on to the watch commander and the shift leader.

In fact, I left a message with the officer indicating we were going down to tent city to try to locate my friend's belongings and could we get police back up. No response was received. I eventually got a text message back from the investigating officer where he acknowledged that it can be frustrating when the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. A team approach to property crimes is necessary.

Tent city—search warrants? Really?

Section 8 of the Canadian Constitution protects (Canadians) from unreasonable search and seizure, whether this is a search of our person, our computer, our phone or our home, such as it is. The courts have said in most circumstances a search warrant authorized by a (judge) is a requirement for a search of a home. That is because we, as a society, agree it's reasonable to require police to get search warrants before they come into our homes. They say we have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

(We) don't want the police acting like break-and-enter artists. We need to be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys. But the courts have said a reasonable expectation of privacy depends on the circumstances.

Kelowna, of course, like many cities has the problem of homelessness. Homelessness is caused by a number of factors including unemployment, mental illness and substance abuse. I don't purport to set out an exhaustive list of those factors.

Do the police need a search warrant to search a tent on public land or do tent dwellers have a reduced expectation of privacy? In my own opinion, I don't believe people living on city property—in an alcove in front of a business on Bernard Avenue or in a tent city, have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

A reasonable expectation of privacy has an objective component and a subjective component. The subjective component is what the person expects. The objective component is what we as a society expect.

Constitutional expects may disagree with me about whether we as a society want to give squatters certain privacy rights but I have a solution to this issue which council may find useful in helping police fight crime. The courts will find this useful in determining whether a person in tent city expects privacy and whether we, as the community, offer privacy.

I suggest we post signs at entrances to tent city, advising all occupants that this is a city-sponsored tenting area. There is a warming tent and porta-potties and good (residents) bring meals to people there. The condition of having your tent in this area is that property crimes are prohibited. Crimes against persons are prohibited and if you wish to tent (there) you have a reduced expectation of privacy.

If police have a suspicion that (a tent city resident) has committed a crime against a person or a property crime, including possession of stolen property (the person) may be subject to police search and seizure.

A notice of that sort explains to the tent-living community that it is a crime-free zone. If they choose to live there and commit crimes against other people, they will be investigated and charged.

There is no question policing is a tough job. Let's support the police officers who do a good job and let's help them do a good job.

Does my friend really care that the guy goes to jail, or for how long? Maybe. But what he really wants is to get his property back. Let's give the officers the tools to do the job. Let's have police patrol those areas of the city where the stolen property ends up. Let's get it back for the (residents), the men and women who need to go to work so they don't end up in a tent.

Let's encourage the support of the community to help solve these crimes. Let's be better citizens and report property crimes as they occur and, when a police officer does a good job, let's acknowledge that good work and support those officers.

With police on the ground getting to know the inhabitants of tent city, and other outreach facilities in the city, they will develop the database to identify the thieves and fences, and will be more likely to solve these crimes, and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Without having to go through the process of obtaining a search warrant, the police can act swiftly to recover stolen property and return it to its rightful owner. It’s a strategy to support victims of property crimes, to solve property crimes, and to prevent city property from becoming an enforcement-free zone.

My letter only deals with enforcement. Obviously homelessness raises so many issues, including mental health, substance abuse, unemployment, and criminality. Now is the time to make a change.

Thank you for considering these suggestions.

Stanley Tessmer