Sault OPP Officer facing a charge of Neglect of Duty

4
OPP

Editors Notes:

The author of this story erred in the original opening paragraph of this story “An OPP officer in the Sault Ste. Marie area has been charged with neglect of duty under the Police Services Act.” where he stated that this officer was charged. In fact, an investigation was conducted by the OPP Professional Standards Bureau where on conclusion, a report was issued where the allegation of discreditable conduct was substantiated. The Police Services Act now directs the commissioner to hold a hearing at which time there is reasonable grounds to believe that the officer has committed a misconduct and will soon be charged.

This story has been since edited to read “An OPP officer in the Sault Ste. Marie area may be soon facing a charge with neglect of duty under the Police Services Act.” in the opening paragraph in addition to the title edited to read “Sault OPP Officer facing a charge of Neglect of Duty”.

An OPP officer in the Sault Ste. Marie area may be soon facing a charge with neglect of duty under the Police Services Act.

It is alleged that Police Constable Peter Van Den Diepstraten unlawfully entered a residence off Highway 563 in Fisher Township, north of Sault Ste. Marie.

The officer attended a residence in Batchewana Bay on November 12, 2019. The officer was there to present a subpoena to the occupant of the dwelling. However, according to a document received by SaultOnline, the OPP officer erred in the execution.

Van Den Diepstraten when arriving at the location noticed foot prints in the snow and followed the prints around the house. He noticed a person crunched down in a room and decided to go to the front door and knocked with no answer. The Officer then noticed the second door was not locked and walked into the home.

The common law recognizes an implied license for all members of the public, including police officers, to approach the door of a residence and to knock. The complainant says that Van Den Diepstraten had walked the property before identifying himself and proceeded through the front door. The complainant said she did not answer the door due to the time of night and not sure who was at the door.

Van Den Diepstraten believed there was someone unlawfully in the dwelling. According to court documents, this is contrary to the sequence of events. A woman referred to as witness 1 contradicts the officer’s account. The officer said he had called on his portable radio for backup after walking the perimeter of the dwelling. However the witness, who’s evidence is backed up by a recording of the radio call said the opposite was true.

Related Story: Officer Not Charged Say OPP

4 COMMENTS

  1. Pretty sure the one charged should be Mr. Charney for leading the news outlet to believe that the documents that he submitted were court documents provided by the OPP.
    Are these actually even facts that are published? Or are they the so called “facts” that the complainant who felt the need to hide from an officer told his/her lawyer?

Comments are closed.