Edmonton constable’s dismissal reversed
An Edmonton police officer and former Canadian Forces sniper who lost his job for several disciplinary offences, including urinating on another officer, should be allowed to go back to work, says the Law Enforcement Review Board.
Const. Robert Furlong was dismissed from the Edmonton Police Services on April 26 after pleading guilty in a disciplinary hearing to discreditable conduct.
A Dec. 4 decision by the Law Enforcement Review Board reversed that dismissal and instead demoted Furlong in rank for the equivalent of two years of seniority.
“The board does not wish to minimize the serious nature of (Furlong’s) conduct, but nevertheless it cannot be said that his behaviours ever posed a danger to the public,” reads the decision, signed by acting board chairwoman Charlene Kilburn.
Tony Simioni, president of the Edmonton Police Association, said the Board’s decision justified and vindicated the Association’s position that the dismissal went too far.
“We think that the LERB got it completely correct,” Simioni said.
The Edmonton Police Service, however, said in a statement that they are disappointed in the decision.
“The EPS sought dismissal as the penalty for Cst. Furlong’s misconducts. The EPS respectfully disagrees, and is seeking leave to appeal the LERB’s decision.”
In the decision, Kilburn said Furlong realized “within minutes” that he had gone too far when he was belligerent and urinated on an officer.
“Given this acknowledgment,” Kilburn wrote, “the Board questions how it can be concluded that (Furlong) was so lacking in character that he was unfit to continue as a police officer with the EPS?”
Kilburn said the presiding officer at the original disciplinary hearing had no evidence to suggest “that (Furlong’s) character was so flawed that he was not fit to continue as a police officer, notwithstanding that he had seven years of service with no complaints from the public.”
The charges stem from an out-of-town training exercise on riot control in September 2011. After a day of training, Furlong and several other officers went out to socialize and drink in Red Deer, then returned to the bunks at 2:30 a.m. to “set about rousting those sleeping and cajoling them to join with other officers for a drink,” according to the Law Enforcement Review Board decision.
One officer refused to get up, since he had gone to bed earlier in preparation for an early morning. When he swore at Furlong to go away, Furlong swore and threatened to urinate on him. When the officer turned his back, Furlong “un- zipped his fly and urinated” on the officer’s sleeping bag. When the officer leaped up to push Furlong back, some of the urine splashed up onto the officer’s leg.
Furlong later berated the officer, saying “he was not a team player and he had performed poorly at the G-20” when the two had previously worked together in Toronto.
When the officers returned to Edmonton, Furlong was suspended, and eventually dismissed.
Furlong appealed the dismissal decision to the Law Enforcement Review Board, saying the decision was unreasonably harsh.
His lawyer argued Furlong had sought help from the employee assistance program for alcohol addiction and had successfully completed a rehabilitation program.
Furlong “recognized his behaviour was unacceptable and recognized that he had a problem with alcohol and took steps to address that,” reads the summary of the arguments made during the original disciplinary hearing. “Although disgusting and unacceptable, (Furlong’s) behaviour did not injure, either physically or psychologically, the complainant. (Furlong) had been an outstanding officer for seven years.”
There was no premeditation on Furlong’s part, his lawyer argued. In a previous discipline case, Edmonton Police Services suspended an officer for 100 hours without pay and gave him a reprimand instead of firing him.
The complaining officer’s lawyer disagreed, noting Furlong was in a supervisory role over the complainant and deliberately found the officer in a separate dorm room the night of the incident. Furlong “intended to inflict permanent reputational damage” upon the officer among his peers, the lawyer argued.
Kilburn said the incident happened over a short 15-minute period and exhibited behaviour at least tolerated, if not encouraged, by supervisors to build camaraderie.
“Pranks and horseplay were part to the culture,” reads the decision, before describing another incident in which a group of officers dropped ice down the pants of another officer who had passed out from drinking, then drew obscene and offensive images on his body before taking photos.
Criminal defence lawyer Tom Engel said he thinks that incident is the reason Furlong’s original disciplinary hearing was held in-camera, meaning the public could not attend.
“You take a look at it: all these supervisors involved, renting a van so they can take these guys out to get hammered, and all this stuff,” he said. “I think the police service is trying to protect their own reputation, not Furlong’s.”
Closing the doors to a disciplinary hearing goes against its purpose, Engel said.
“An overriding principle in the discipline of police officers is transparency and the public interest,” he said. “To me, it’s antithetical to that principal to have a closed hearing in this case. It just doesn’t make sense.”
An Edmonton Police Service spokesman said Furlong is still an employee while the matter is being resolved.
Simioni said Furlong is suspended without pay, which the Police Association considers unfair following the Board’s decision.
“This changes everything,” Simioni said.
Furlong was once a sniper with Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry.