It was almost 2 a.m. when two York Regional Police officers responding to a noise complaint entered a Richmond Hill home, finding a group of teenagers drinking and partying — again.

One hour earlier, teens inside the home had assured the same two officers the party was breaking up, so the cops had left.

No one was happy when police returned, including the officers. When at least two partygoers whipped out their phones to record, the interaction intensified.

“You! If you’re filming me right now, you need to stop or I am going to seize your phone for best evidence. Do you understand that?” Const. Shannon Mulville tells a 17-year-old girl in one of the videos from the September 2013 incident.

In a case similar to a high-profile incident last week in which Toronto police attempted to stop a bystander from lawfully recording an arrest, the girl knew she had a right to film, telling police, “I can record whatever I want to.”

Seconds later, the girl, who cannot be identified under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, was arrested and charged with one count each of mischief and obstructing justice.

“Does anyone else want to be arrested or does everyone just want to be quiet? Anyone?” Mulville says as the girl is taken out in handcuffs.

The charges against the teen were later dropped, and in November 2015 Mulville and her partner, Const. Mykhaylo Azaryev, were both found guilty of unlawful or unnecessary arrest at a police disciplinary tribunal — a hearing that relied heavily on the video shot by the girl and another partygoer. The footage shows the teens and police officers inside the entrance of the house.

“An officer who conducts him or herself reasonably has nothing to fear from an audio, video or photographic record of his interaction with the public,” wrote the hearing officer, York police Supt. Graeme Turl, in his decision finding the pair guilty of misconduct.

The officers have appealed the conviction to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission; a hearing was held last week and a decision is pending.

The girl’s father, who also cannot be named under the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, says the incident could have seriously affected his daughter’s life.

“Had the video evidence not existed … she could have been convicted of an indictable offence, and the life of a 17-year-old girl would have been ruined all because two police officers didn’t want to be video recorded,” her father wrote in a submission to the disciplinary tribunal.

York Regional Police spokesperson Const. Andy Pattenden said Friday that the service would not comment while the appeal is ongoing.

Pamela Machado, lawyer for Mulville and Azaryev, said “we are not in a position to make a comment.”

According to a summary of the incident provided in Turl’s written decision, Mulville’s threat to seize the girl’s phone was made after the girl told Mulville she did not have permission to walk into the house (a statement Turl noted was accurate in his ruling).

In her testimony at the tribunal hearing, Mulville said she noticed the girl recording and told her that she was obstructing her investigation. Mulville claimed the girl’s camera was close to her face; Turl ruled that he did not believe the closeness of the filming was a safety issue.

Mulville also said the girl was making comments that were influencing another young person, the host of the party, including advising her “not to talk to the police and that the police had no right to be there,” according to the decision.

At this point the girl is believed to have stopped recording, but moments later she is once again asked by Azaryev if she is recording.

“I can record whatever I want to. You are not allowed to walk into this household without (inaudible),” the girl says, according to video shot by another partygoer and entered as an exhibit at the disciplinary hearing.

According to Turl’s decision, Mulville testified that she realized at this point that her attempts to influence the girl’s behaviour had failed, and “the only solution to prevent further escalation and further people following suit, creating more of a safety hazard, would be to eliminate her from that situation.”

As she is being arrested and handcuffed, the girl can be seen in the video tucking her phone into her shorts. According to Turl’s decision, after she was placed in the back of the cruiser, she used the iPhone hands-free assistant, Siri, to call her father, who rushed to the scene.

There, he spoke to Mulville, who advised him that his daughter was being charged and that she was going to seize her cellphone.

“At this point (the father) shouted out to (his daughter) to lock her phone. Const. Mulville then opened the rear door of the marked police vehicle, and although she was handcuffed to the rear, (the girl) managed to extract her cellphone from her shorts and toss it to (her dad).”

The girl’s father later provided the phone to police, after he was told that he could be arrested if he failed to hand it over.

The girl’s charges were dropped approximately two months later, according to her father, who noted in his written submission that his daughter missed school because she had to go to court.

During the police tribunal hearing, the officers’ lawyer argued the arrest was lawful and not prompted by the videotaping but by an uncooperative person who was “consistently interfering with an ongoing investigation despite being cautioned to stop doing so,” according to Turl’s decision. (Azaryev did not testify at the hearing, as was his right).

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

Turl said he could understand how the officers could find the girl’s comments “annoying and frustrating” — including telling her friends that “if they put me in their cop car, they’re gonna get f----- over.” But he found her actions did not automatically constitute obstruction.

“At no time was it presented that this situation was getting out of hand, that the officers were unable to sufficiently control the situation or that any officer safety issue existed,” he wrote.

Turl ruled the officers did not have sufficient grounds to enter the residence, making the arrest of the girl unlawful.

The decision also stressed that citizens have the right to record officers performing their duties, provided they are not interfering or obstructing.

“An officer’s powers exist to allow them to protect the public, themselves and to enforce the law; they do not extend to controlling the public record of an incident,” Turl wrote.

Mulville was also found guilty of discreditable conduct for comments she made shortly after the girl’s arrest.

She told the teens she had “better things to be doing with my time than wasting my time with 15-year-olds.” When she is corrected by an unknown male attendee that they are not 15, she replied: “I don’t give two s---- how old you are,” and called him a “young punk.”

Mulville’s lawyer argued the language was a form of “tactical communication” that was “the youth’s own vernacular and was necessary and ultimately successful.”

Turl called the comments inappropriate and “not reflective of the values and ethics of York Regional Police.”

Mulville is appealing the discreditable conduct conviction.

The officers’ appeal hearing on the charges was held the same week two Toronto police officers were recorded telling bystander Waseem Khan that they would take his phone if he continued to record the arrest and Tasering of a man in downtown Toronto.

In the video, one of the officers also warns Khan the man being arrested will “spit in your face, you’re going to get AIDS.”

Toronto police have apologized for the officers’ inaccurate remarks, and said the force’s professional standards unit is investigating the police conduct.

Toronto police spokesperson Mark Pugash said officers had no authority to threaten to take the bystander’s phone away and that it was the “wrong approach.”

Experts in policing and social media say recordings of officers attempting to stop citizens from filming will increase. That’s in part because of the growing tendency for people to record all aspects of their lives and, in particular, interactions with police.

“This is going to increase in frequency — it’s not going away. These are not isolated examples,” said Chris Schneider, researcher and author of Policing and Social Media.