Cop justified in punching teen twice
A police officer who believed a 16-year-old’s concealed ‘‘favourite bong’’ could have been a weapon was justified in striking him twice in the face to cause ‘‘distraction pain’’, according to the Independent Police Conduct Authority.
The IPCA review into the events that followed a traffic stop conducted in Tokoroa on May 29 last year came in the wake of a complaint by one of the youth’s family to the IPCA that he was ‘‘beaten by police’’.
IPCA chair Judge Colin Doherty said the youth, referred to in the report as ‘‘Mr X’’, was spotted driving on State Highway 1 in Tokoroa in a car in poor condition, with no front number plate, tinted windows and crash damage.
Mr X, who lives in Hamilton, was unlicensed and initially failed to stop when police activated their sirens and lights.
When he did stop one of the officers involved, referred to as ‘‘Officer A’’, said he became ‘‘immediately aggressive’’.
‘‘[Mr X] yelled words to the effect that he was only 16, so couldn’t be arrested for failing to stop the car’’.
Officer A said Mr X hit out at his arms, pushed him away and ‘‘reached for something underneath his hooded sweatshirt’’.
‘‘I’ve pulled metal bars off people, I’ve pulled baseball bats off people,’’ Officer A told the IPCA.
‘‘I’ve known people to have firearms down their waistbands. It could’ve been a number of things. It was just a long cylinder object, that’s the way it appeared.’’
Fearing it was a weapon, Officer A said he then used a closed first to strike Mr X twice in the face.
‘‘I didn’t hit that hard . . . it was more to, distraction pain, you know, to take his focus away from what he was doing.’’
Mr X was then pulled from the car and later handcuffed.
‘‘The object was removed and discovered to be a glass bong, about 35cm in length and 7cm across,’’ the report said.
In a later police interview Mr X acknowledged it could have been mistaken for a weapon, and that ‘‘it was his favourite bong, and he did not want it to be taken by police’’.
The other officer on the scene, referred to as ‘‘Officer B’’, also told the IPCA he saw the object under Mr X’s clothes, ‘‘almost like a bat’’.
The IPCA found the officers were justified in both stopping
Mr X, and the use for force.
‘‘The officer told us he struck Mr X twice in the face with halfstrength blows which were intended to shock and distract him in response to Mr X reaching for what he thought may have been a weapon,’’ the report said.
‘‘We accept Officer A was acting to defend himself and the other officers present, in acting to prevent Mr X from accessing a then unknown object.’’
The report noted options such as pepper spray and a Taser were not appropriate due to the officer’s proximity to Mr X.
‘‘We consider that the two strikes used by Officer A to ensure compliance and avoid Mr X gaining access to the unknown object, was proportionate to the level of perceived threat,’’ the report said.
‘‘The strikes were not at full force, and the perceived threat was high.’’
The report also noted the IPCA ‘‘tried several times to speak to Mr X but were unsuccessful’’, and that the bong was later destroyed.
In acknowledging the findings, Bay of Plenty district commander Superintendent Tim Anderson said they trust police officers to make the best decisions possible to ensure people’s safety and wellbeing, and routinely look at what lessons can be learned.