Constable says he was professional when stopping councillor
A Hamilton police constable accused of arbitrarily stopping a black city councillor told his disciplinary hearing he was calm and professional that day, making the stop out of concern for Coun. Matthew Green’s well-being.
Const. Andrew Pfeifer’s version of events, heard in detail for the first time during his Police Services Act hearing Thursday, conflicts significantly with Green’s ver- sion of events, with each side accusing the other of being the aggressor.
Green says “how are you” was the last thing asked, only after Pfeifer realized he was a councillor. Pfeifer said Thursday it was the first.
Pfeifer is facing a discreditable conduct charge in connection with Green’s complaint about being stopped while he waited for a bus April 26, 2016.
Green and his lawyer say the incident was not just an arbitrary stop, but also a case of “racial profiling.” Green previously testified to feeling “psychologically detained.”
Pfeifer told the hearing Thursday he had just finished his notes for an unrelated call when he turned onto Stinson Street at Victoria Avenue South and noticed a well-dressed man standing “in a puddle of mud ... hiding next to a bridge ... and looking back and forth.”
Pfeifer said he was concerned for the man’s well-being, noting that concern was heightened by his responses, which he described as “unnecessarily hostile.”
“I was taken aback at how angry he was,” Pfeifer said.
Police prosecutor Brian Duxbury peppered Pfeifer with questions on cross-examination, pointing out differences between his notes and what he testified, including the use of the word “hiding.” Green said he was standing next to an underpass to shield himself from the wind while he kept an eye out for his bus.
Duxbury suggested the officer shifted his language to try to legitimize stopping Green. “You’re trying to create justification.”
Pfeifer denied this.
During cross-examination, Green’s lawyer, Wade Poziomka, highlighted apparent flaws in the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) probe, pointing to a transcript of Pfeifer’s interview and noting only one question was asked about whether the stop was racially motivated. Poziomka repeatedly questioned Pfeifer about how he could have possibly thought Green may have been mentally ill.
Pfeifer said part of his concern was because of the number of lodging homes for those with mental illness in that neighbourhood. He described it as “saturated” with mentally ill people.
Then Poziomka asked what he called the “jackpot” question: Why, if Green’s angry demeanour never changed, did he stop his questions and leave him alone?
Pfeifer said when he learned who Green was, he trusted that because “he’s a city councillor, he’s OK.”
He was then worried Green might complain and went back to the station after the incident. He admitted to searching for Green’s name on Google to confirm he was a city councillor and seeking advice from his supervisor, who told him to “make good notes.”
He drove to a parking lot with the other officer who was with him during the interaction. Pfeifer said he remarked to that officer something to the effect of “Oh my God, I can’t believe that happened.” They parked for half an hour, window to window, and did their notes.
Four days after the incident, Pfeifer made more notes from that day, observing that he believed Green may have tried to “bait” him into doing something unprofessional.
Two witnesses have told the hearing Green did not look distressed. Pfeifer alleged one of the witnesses, Shazi Bokhari, was lying. He said she never drove by when the encounter took place because he would have noticed the car.
The hearing continues Friday at the Sheraton Hamilton Hotel.