Coun. Green’s case undone by his own words

In the end, it appears one of city council’s most voluble members was undone by his own words.

Hearing officer Terence Kelly not only doubted Coun. Matthew Green’s assertion that he felt “psychologically detained” when he was stopped by Hamilton police Const. Andrew Pfeifer, who Green accused of racial profiling. Kelly also noted that under vigorous questioning during the Police Services Act hearing Green seemed to resent questions and was given to making speeches.

“I have no confidence in Mr. Green’s account,” Kelly concluded in clearing Pfeifer of discreditable conduct for allegedly conducting an improper street check on the city’s first black councillor.

But though Green lost the case, he clearly believes he’s struck an important blow for advancing the discussion about policing disparities in the community. Certainly in defeat he raises some relevant questions. Let’s quickly recap.

The high-profile incident happened two years ago while Green, after concluding a visit to a constituent, was seeking shelter under an overpass from the chilly wind while waiting for a bus ride home.

Pfeifer, who had just finished dealing with a mental health call in the Victoria Avenue and Stinson Street area, rolled up in his cruiser, stopped in a live lane of traffic with his emergency lights on and began an exchange that lasted for a minute or more.

The tribunal heard Green felt arbitrarily “targeted,” “harassed,” “criminalized” and “psychologically detained” by what he characterized as an antagonistic encounter that was all about “power” and “intimidation.”

On the other side, Pfeifer said he was merely doing a standard “wellbeing” check that was informed by the presence of mental health lodging homes in the area.

Pfeifer claimed that Green, characterized as angry and hostile from the get-go, drew his attention because he was looking left and right while standing in a puddle dressed in a blazer and slacks, which seemed too light for the weather.

In running through the evidence, Kelly appeared to be flagging inconsistencies in Green’s testimony.

He noted that Green testified that he’s not “anti-police,” that he works closely with them on community issues and has great relationships with front-line officers. Nothing was said by Kelly, but those positive interactions were clearly MIA during Green’s encounter with Pfeifer.

Though at one point Green said “in all probability he could have walked away and left” he didn’t because he felt “psychologically detained.”

But under examination Green also said he felt if he had left he would have escalated the situation and likely would have been arrested or in a physical altercation with the officer.

Well, which was it?

On top of that, Kelly noted that Green invited Pfeifer to get out of his cruiser and come over to the sidewalk to have a conversation, which, the defence observed, does not sound like someone “psychologically detained.”

Kelly found Green’s explanation that the encounter was about power and intimidation “beyond belief.” He concluded Pfeifer’s questioning was not arbitrary, that checking on Green’s welfare given the location and circumstances was reasonable.

In the media mop-up after the ruling, Bernard Cummins, Pfeifer’s lawyer, claimed the trial was “an utter ego trip” by Green.

Green himself said he never expected to win, that he’s banking on his related human rights complaint as the best way to make his case that he was stopped because of racial profiling.

He also rightly points to flaws in the process underlining the Police Service Act hearing. To wit: It’s the police chief who designates the prosecutor and the hearing officer.

Kelly, a retired deputy chief with York Regional Police, has certainly lowered a heavy boom on accused officers at other hearings.

But Green is right that something is amiss when the de facto judge is steeped in the very culture under investigation.

Green claims a hearing officer who isn’t “racialized” can’t understand what it’s like to be “racially targeted.” That’s too extreme for me. But there must be a better way of choosing who gets to weigh the evidence.