New Bylaw will grant Langford Officers and Inspectors the right to enter your home and use force when necessary
Posted by Cheryl McLachlan on September 8, 2009
Langford’s new Officer and Peace Officer Bylaw 1243 receiving 1st, 2nd and 3rd reading at Tuesday night’s Council meeting will grant Langford Bylaw and Community Safety Officers, Building Inspectors, Plumbing Inspectors, and even Animal Control Officers the right to enter your property and your home, and if you obstruct them in the performance of their job you can be fined $250.00 per incident, restrained or removed through physical force or arrested as obstruction of the officer in the performance of their duty is a criminal offence.
Excerpts from Officer and Peace Officer Bylaw 1243:
It is acknowledged by the Council of the City of the Langford that by virtue of their appointment Bylaw Enforcement Officers are “Peace Officers” which empowers them with the authority to:
i) Serve subpoenas in respect of an alleged offence under a Bylaw of the Council of the City of the Langford as prescribed by Section 46 of the offence Act.
ii) Execute a search warrant in respect with the alleged offence under a Bylaw of the Council of the City of the Langford as prescribed by Section 21 of the Offence Act and Section 275 of the Community Charter respectively.
iii) Use force when necessary during the course of their duties as prescribed by Section 25 of the Criminal Code of Canada.Authority to:
Animal Controller Officers (and Auxiliary), Bylaw Enforcement Officers, Community Safety Officers, Minicipal Enforcement Officers, Building Inspectors, Plumbing Inspectors.to enter at all reasonable times. on any property, to ascertain whether the regulations as prescribed in the following bylaws and any subsequent amendments are being observed:
Soil removal & Deposit Bylaw,
Smoke Alarm Bylaw,
Sanitary Sewer Utility Bylaw,
House Numbering Bylaw,
Zoning Bylaw,
Sprinkler Bylaw,
Sign Bylaw,
Nuisance (Controlled Substance) Bylaw,
Building Bylaw,
Business License & Regulation Bylaw,
Noise Suppression Bylaw,
Animal Regulation & Impounding,
Unsightly Premises Bylaw,
Commercial Vehicle Licensing Bylaw,
Traffic Bylaw,
Burning & Fire Regulation Bylaw,
Municipal Park Bylaw,
False Alarm Dispatch Bylaw,
Fireworks Regulation Bylaw,
Firearms & Bow Use Bylaw,
Watercourse Protection Bylaw,
Truck Route Bylaw,
Subdivision & Development Servicing Bylaw.The Council of the City of the Langford acknowledges that it is a criminal offence to:
i) Obstruct a Peace Officer as prescribed by Section 129 of the Criminal Code of Canada.7. No person shall interfere with, hinder or obstruct a City of the Langford Bylaw Enforcement Officer or employee in the exercise or performance of his or her powers, duties, or functions as prescribed in Section 153 of the Community Charter.
8. Any person who fails to comply with Section 7 (above) of this Bylaw may receive a fine in the amount of $250.00 per incident.
The only step left for the City of Langford, after presenting this bylaw in a staff report, and completing 1st, 2nd and 3rd readings all at the same meeting, would be to adopt the bylaw at a subsequent council meeting. This step can not legally be done at the same meeting as 1st and 2nd reading. Any changes that might be made to the bylaw as it moves through the steps before it is adopted as law must be made prior to 3rd reading. The bylaw must be adopted as it was read at 3rd reading, so any sober second thought about a bylaw must happen prior to 3rd reading. This means consideration should be given to a bylaw that stripes away private property rights and gives non-police officers many, and in some cases more rights, than a police officer, and will have to happen at the Tues. Sept. 8th Langford Council Meeting. The meeting usually begins promptly at 7PM in Council Chambers. The only opportunity members of the public will have to speak to this Officer and Peace Officer Bylaw 1243 will be during Public Participation since there is no Public Hearing for this bylaw.
Yevgeny Zamyatin said
While all Bylaw Enforcement Officers are “Peace Officers” in BC this bylaw is really just one skewed interpretation of how much power the various regulations actually give them. Some of these powers (especially those pertaining to the community charter) including the right to enter your home at anytime are completely untested in the courts and are in clear violation of the Charter Of Rights And Freedoms.
Fred Bloggs said
I don’t understand why everyone is in such a panic. Any student of the law will tell you that Bylaw Enforcment Officers already have the power to enter property to conduct an inspection and can also enter a dwelling after 24hrs notice. Any Use of Force has to be in keeping with the National Use of Force Model and so nobody is going to be breaking down any doors!
All the obstruction fine does is give the Officer the discretion of giving you a fine instead of criminally charging you if you prevent him from performing his duty.
Furthermore, not all Bylaw Enforcement Officers are required to be sworn in, although Langford chooses to do this in order to demonstrate that they hold thier offciers to a higher standard of conduct.
I would reccomend people making comments research the facts instead of spreading misinformation and fearmongering.
Sam Snipes said
My question is “what problem are we trying to solve here”? Are peace officers currently have issues with access to buildings or properties that cannot be resolved under our current bylaws?
Ted Truscott said
[quote]Authority to:
Animal Controller Officers (and Auxiliary), Bylaw Enforcement Officers, Community Safety Officers, Minicipal Enforcement Officers, Building Inspectors, Plumbing Inspectors.
[b]to enter at all reasonable times.[/b] on any property, to ascertain whether the regulations as prescribed in the following bylaws and any subsequent amendments are being observed:[/quote]
Question: Who decides what is reasonable? Me? Them? A judge?
(typos are theirs, questions are mine.
T
Ballistic said
City Council’s decision to turn Langford Bylaw Enforcement and Community Safety Officers into full-fledged, or even more than, police officers carries with it a number of foreseeable (as well as unpredictable) negative consequences.
The “Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms” circumscribes the rights that all people in Canada possess, and with it curtails some of the powers of police officers, such as obtaining a warrant before insisting on entering a person’s property or dwelling without invitation or consent, and also such as giving a valid reason before demanding one’s personal information, i.e. name, age, sex, or address. Obtaining a warrant from a judge or justice, who is considered to be a tower of defence of the Canadian “Charter” under our constitution, prevents the exercise of intrusive power on a whim, or based on appearance or prejudice.
From a staff presentation to Langford Protective Services Committee on the job performance of Bylaw Enforcement Officers at an open meeting on Tuesday, February 23rd last, it is clear that one of the purposes of Bylaw #1243 is to by-pass some of the restrictions imposed on police officers by the Canadian “Charter” and our constitution and not have them apply to Langford Bylaw Enforcement Officers and Community Safety Officers in their course of work. From this presentation to the committee two things became apparent. One is that the Bylaw Enforcement Officers of Langford have already been acting in this expanded scope for some time, and this bylaw only tightens the legal framework that covers the officers in a court of law. The other thing that became apparent from this presentation is that while entering private properties and dwellings without a warrant in order to ascertain that the regulations of some 24 listed Langford bylaws are being adhered to (even including some bylaws like Truck Route Bylaw #617!!!) the officers very conveniently keep their eyes & noses open (of course not search, mind you!) for drugs, plants, & grow-ops. When they find any sign of these they signal the police (often waiting around the corner) who can then legally enter without a warrant and then carry on from there.
This stronger legal framework that I mentioned, which is depending on some new sections added to BC’s Community Charter and a couple of other BC laws, has a number of consequences that are not favourable to the civil rights & liberties of people living in Langford (by the way, Surrey has done the same thing). First of all, the changed framework invalidates current case law, and overrides much of common law. Secondly, it allows Bylaw Enforcement Officers and Community Safety Officers to assume some hitherto exclusive police officers’ tasks while enforcing bylaws. Thirdly, police forces are more independent and impartial because they are separated from municipal councils either by a Police Board with the mayor and provincial appointees, or by the federal status of the RCMP. Peace Officers, by contrast, are municipal employees and do as they are told by (ultimately) city council, which is then able to invade people’s constitutional rights & freedoms, by means of their bylaw officers, on a whim or with prejudice which can either be institutional or personal. Fourthly, and finally, bylaw officers are a lot cheaper than police officers, but have received considerably less training which will at times be clearly evidenced.
One great difference between police officers and other peace officers, that many people are not aware of, is that police officers can exercise their special powers at all times until they retire or are suspended, while other peace officers can only exercise their empowered authority while on duty in their employment by the city; not while off-duty.
The average residents of Langford have reason to be concerned about their civil liberties, and the other residents of Langford have reason to be scared.
Jes said
Great post Ballistic. I completely agree, very concerning. It doesn’t suprise me in the least that the major and council are taking this approach however and I doubt they will change their course. I guess it will have to be challenged in the courts as they are clearly overstepping their authority.
Herman Surkis said
I can see some of the rational for doing it, at least in Surrey. I really have to wonder if crime really is so rampant in Langford that it is necessary to go this route.
Anybody remember my past comments about the fear of the Surreyfication of Langford.
But my real fear is the potential for abuse by council, councillors, bylaw officers, or even neighbours. If it has not happened yet, I guarantee that there will be abuse. It would have been so easy to just add police-board style oversight and restrictions. My question is WHY NOT?
They have confirmed greater then police powers, with none of the limitations.
And when something happens, and it will, and is possibly challenged on constitutional grounds, and it will, and it loses, which it will, guess who ends up paying the enormous bill? Certainly not the current councillors who are immune from lawsuits, at least while acting as councillors. But yours truly, you and I. The lowly bear the brunt of it all, taxpayers.
Herman Surkis said
Also I forgot to add. Several municipalities restrict the powers of their by-law officers. The Highlands is the closest and one of many.
Some municipalities actually believe in constitutional and charter rights, even if other municipalities and governments try to do an end run aound them.
If you do not make the effort to protect your rights, even when you do not need them, then you will have none when you do need them.
Anonymous said
how does? The charter of rights & freedoms apply to facism? Sadly, the LAW was ment to protect the innocent! Now I see only oppertunists& corrupt indivduals misleading it’s porpose .
Anonymous said
Wat?
Fred Bloggs said
To reiterate my earlier comment. There is nothing new here.The Community Charter and other statutes already provide the legal authorities articulated in this bylaw. The Peace Officer Bylaw is merely an updated version of a previous document which drew it’s authorities from the now Defunct Municipal Act.Oh and by the way, some of these authorities and subsequent fears that bylaw officers are acting as agents of the police were recently put to the test in a criminal trial without issue.
Naturally, if a bylaw officer was conducting an inspection of an illegal suite for example, and observed a grow operation or something else of concern he is going to report it.Who would not? It seems to me that this issue is less about civil rights and freedoms and more about and anti-development types who dislike the changing flavor of the city from a backwater community where people could get away with everything to a more urban centre with a greater expectation for law and order.
Anonymous said
Is it not true that in order for a person to be given “peace officer’ status, they must have the office created by a senior level of govenment? For instance, municipal police officers are peace officers by virtue of the fact that there is a provincial piece of legislation, the Police Act that designates them as such. Same is true for members of the RCMP, but the Criminal Code and RCMP Acts designate them. BC Corrections officers…the BC Corrections Act.
Check out the Criminal Code where peace officers are defined and identified. There is no room for these rent-a-cops there. There is NO LEGAL BASIS for making these people peace officers because the enabling legislation from the feds and the province is not in place.
This is a scary grab for power by some people that wish that they were real police and are looking to expand their power base. It is amazing that for years these guys have been around and now, all of a sudden, when nothing has changed in the legislative sphere, they want the world to believe that they are real peace officers? Do they get real guns too to use reasonable force if required? Maybe even the grand daddy of them all–the TASER.
These guys rightfully have the right to enforce bylaws but come on, they do not need full peace officer status to determine if a dog is barking too loud or a party is out of control.
Beside, it seems to me that if Langford really believed in its bylaw, it would not prescribe a fine for obstruction, it would allow the criminal charge of obstruction to stand as the normal remedy for obstructions and allow the courts to deal with that crime.
Langford knows this is a non starter or they would not be trying to expand the law of obstruction with this separate class of law.
Shame on whoever drafted this farce of a bylaw…
DOUGLAS said
Firstly- I’m a big fan of the business model that Langford is run under!
I had a run in with Animal Control (they where not too bright) I had to go to there supervisor to find rational mind..
So elevating them would exacerbate problems. “Give a little man Power and it will go to his head”
Douglas….
priscilla judd said
Part one – blog post on the the Nature of Local Government:
Unlike the Federal and Provincial Governments – a Municipal Government is a Corporation and that may explain why some local Councils appear to have no conscience. Living breathing people have entirely different needs than a Corporation so perhaps it’s not so strange that the voting public can be amazed and upset by the actions of people they elect.
In seems odd that the nature of Municipal Corporations have been overlooked in the exchange of a vote. Municipal elections are fought on the grounds of creating community, human relationships, families, schools and the happiness factor. But what are we really voting for? A Corporate entity is not known for respecting the benefits of friendship.
http://www.priscillajudd.ca/thexpress/?p=2845
Let’s stay in touch because people in Lumby have also noticed that Extraordinary Authority is being exercised by Local Councils in BC – the next post (PART2) concerns: statutes of limitations, exceptions and excuses contained in the Local Government Act– marginal or non existent accountability.
priscilla judd said
It is totally unreasonable to ask residents to agree to “any subsequent amendments” Who would agree to agree to something that is absolutely unknown at some future point? What if in future some Council amends the By-law to allow entry into private property to ensure there are no terrorists hiding under the bed.