A West Vancouver Police Department member has been reprimanded for showing up to work under the influence of alcohol and then driving home.

The disciplinary move is referenced in a report from the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner. West Vancouver police management alerted the commissioner to the incident, which happened on March 30, 2014.

article continues below

“The police member reported to work unfit for duty due to the effects of intoxicating liquor,” the report states. “The police member drove away from the police station in the member’s private vehicle knowing the member’s alcohol level was over the legal limit.”

That amounted to discreditable conduct under the Police Act for which the officer received a written reprimand, and misuse of intoxicants, which resulted in a one-day, unpaid suspension.

The Police Act prevents releasing the officer’s name, sex or rank.

According to West Vancouver police spokesman Const. Jeff Palmer, the officer arrived on shift and a fellow member noticed the smell of liquor on the officer’s breath.

The on-duty supervisor investigated and the officer took a breathalyzer test. Results were a blood/alcohol level between .05 and .061, less than the amount needed for criminal charges or a three-day licence suspension but within the range where officers have the discretion to issue a 24-hour driving prohibition.

“At some point prior to attending for duty, the individual had consumed some alcohol and presumably not enough time had passed for it to be metabolized out of their system,” Palmer said. “At some point after that, the officer made a decision to depart and unfortunately, wasn’t located for further investigation at the time.”

The investigation was professional and the commissioner was satisfied the discipline was within the appropriate range, said Rollie Woods, deputy commissioner.

The suspension will stay on the officer’s service record for five years and the loss of a 12-hour day’s pay probably amounts to a $500 to $600 fine, Woods said. Reprimands can also hamper an officer’s career advancement and any time they are called to testify in court, they must disclose to the Crown that they have been disciplined.

“Even though it may seem minor to a layperson or member of the public, the police themselves take even the most minor discipline very, very seriously. Rarely do I ever see a police officer re-offend,” Woods said.

Police Chief Const. Len Goerke was satisfied with the investigation and the disciplinary conclusion, said Palmer. The actions were “clearly unacceptable” under both the department’s policy and the Police Act, he said. “This is clearly a case of other members holding a fellow officer accountable for their actions.” he said.