Two Toronto police officers who stopped four Black teens in a Neptune Dr. housing complex were motivated by a desire to collect identifying information from them — particularly because of their ages and race, the teens’ lawyer argued at a police tribunal Thursday.

In pointed questioning that prompted frequent objections from police lawyers, Jeff Carolin — who is representing three of the young men known as the Neptune Four — cross-examined Toronto police Const. Scharnil Pais during the hearing examining the November 2011 confrontation.

Pais and his partner, Const. Adam Lourenco, are accused of unlawfully arresting the boys, who were 15 and 16 at the time, in an incident that culminated in Lourenco drawing his firearm and throwing a punch.

Lourenco faces two charges of disorderly conduct for allegedly using unreasonable force when he punched one of the boys and pointed his gun at three of them. Both officers have pleaded not guilty. Lourenco has chosen not to testify at the hearing.

During Pais’s third day on the stand, Carolin questioned why the four boys, who were en route to an after-school program, were stopped by the officers, both of whom were part of the Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy (TAVIS). The controversial unit has since been shuttered, in part because its officers became notorious in some communities for their high rate of “carding” — the police practice of stopping and documenting people not suspected of a crime.

“I’m going to suggest to you that you were stopping them because you wanted to create a record of them being associated to each other,” Carolin told Pais, suggesting the officers were “carding” the group.

“I’m going to disagree with you,” Pais responded.

“I’m going to suggest to you that’s because they were four young Black men,” Carolin said.

“I’m absolutely going to disagree with you on that,” Pais responded.

Lawyers for Pais and Lourenco voiced concerns as Carolin’s questions veered towards the officers’ motivations and the race of the young men. Joanne Mulcahy, who represents Pais, noted there was no mention of racial profiling in the notice of hearing, the police document that outlines the allegations against the officers.

“This is not the forum,” Mulcahy said, noting that Carolin had been “chomping at the bit” to turn the case into one about carding.

The tribunal has heard that the uniformed officers were driving an unmarked van in Lawrence Heights on the evening of the incident, enforcing the Trespass to Property Act on Toronto Community Housing Corporation property.

Read more:

Opinion | Teen allegedly punched by cop in 'Neptune Four' case finally gets to tell his tale

Toronto police in ‘Neptune Four’ case plead not guilty to unlawfully arresting Black teens

‘I was scared,’ during Neptune Four arrest, Toronto police officer tells disciplinary hearing

They approached the boys and asked them for their identification. The tribunal has heard that one of the teens, the central complainant, had just attended a seminar where he’d learned his constitutional rights during police interactions, and asked if he was under arrest or free to go.

The encounter escalated from there, which ultimately leading Lourenco to throw a punch — which one of the complainants called a “haymaker” — and draw his weapon.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

The teens were arrested on charges — including assaulting police — that were later withdrawn. They were charged under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which is why the Star is not identifying them.

Pais has testified that the young men quickly became hostile after he and his partner approached them. Pais alleged that one of the teens began swearing, refused to comply with their orders that they identify themselves and ultimately became aggressive — including spitting at Lourenco.

Edited security video shows Toronto police officers arresting four teens at a Toronto Community Housing complex on Neptune Dr. on Nov. 21, 2011, an incident that has come to be known as the Neptune Four case.

He testified that he believed the teens were required to identify themselves to the officers, saying the young man who told them otherwise had a “misunderstanding” of his rights.

Earlier this week, Pais told the tribunal he was frightened by the teens’ hostility. He alleged that when his partner tried to arrest one of them, two others made moves toward Lourenco, and Pais had to keep them back.

“I was scared. It was a shock. I would never expect anyone to go after an officer like that,” Pais testified Monday.

Carolin also asked Pais about some inconsistencies in his notes, including why he failed to include that Lourenco struck one of the teens with his knee. Pais has acknowledged on the stand that his notes lack some information, saying, “I wish I had made better notes.”

“I’m going to suggest to you that you didn’t write that down in your notes because you thought it was excessive force,” Carolin said.

“I thought that it was appropriate use of force that falls in line with our training,” Pais responded.

Lourenco’s lawyer revisited the issue of whether his client’s use of force had been reasonable. Lawrence Gridin asked Pais if it’s appropriate to use force to gain control of a situation when a person has been hostile, refuses to show his hands, has been physically resisting and spat at the officer.

Pais agreed that it was.

The hearing continues.