Humane Society investigator was wrong to handcuff prisoner to his own car.


On July 31, 2007, Tre Smith, a young investigator with the Toronto Humane Society responded to a call that Cyrus, a 50-kg Rottweiler, was locked in an overheated car. The investigator smashed through the car window, rescued the dying dog, that was slumped and foaming at the mouth, and after handcuffing the irate owner to his own car, he then rushed the dog to a veterinary hospital and the dog was saved.

Smashing the car window to rescue the dog was quite proper. In fact, any citizen who sees an animal locked in an overheated car when the driver is nowhere to be seen can do the same thing.

What the investigator did with respect to handcuffing the owner of the dog to his own car is also proper if it was (as he says) to stop the man from attacking him and others standing nearby.

However, where the investigator screwed up was when he left the scene after leaving the man handcuffed to his own car. He had to have known that there were irate citizens standing nearby and that if there was no one there to protect his prisoner (and there wasn’t) the man would be beaten by the mob. As to be expected, the man was beaten and was later rescued by the police.

Did the investigator have the right to handcuff him? The answer is yes, he did. Every citizen has the right to bind anyone’s hands if that person is acting violently. According to the investigator, the man was violent so he had the right to handcuff him.

Would the investigator have had the right to arrest the owner of the dog on the basis that he had broken the law, to wit: being cruel to his dog? No, he wouldn’t. Section 446 of the Canadian Criminal Code states that anyone who causes an animal to suffer unnecessarily, (such as keeping the animal in an overheated locked car) commits an offence punishable on summary conviction. (misdemeanor in the USA) A peace officer (an investigator employed by a humane society is a peace officer) cannot arrest a citizen who can be proceeded against in the courts by way of summary conviction.

Nevertheless, there are exceptions. For example, section 494 of the Code states that anyone, including peace officers can arrest anyone they see committing a summary conviction offence providing that after seeing the offence being committed, the offender is fleeing the scene of the crime.

If for example, the investigator came across the scene and spoke to the owner of the dog and told him to open the window of his car so that the dog could get fresh air and the owner of the dog chose not to and got in his car and drove away, the investigator could follow him in his own car and if he could stop the car he was chasing and get the man out of the car, he could arrest him and handcuff him.
However, this is not what happened. The investigator after handcuffing the owner of the dog to his own car, then took the dog in his car and drove the dog to the veterinary hospital.

When his supervisor learned that he had abandoned his handcuffed prisoner to the tender mercies of the irate citizens, he placed the investigator on suspension with pay and had him working inside the offices instead of continuing to work as an outside investigator. He gave his reason as a failure on the part of the investigator to file a report. I hardly think that anyone would be suspended for that minor violation.

Now the sob sisters are coming out in force crying, “Return the investigator to his job as an investigator.”

I don’t think he should be permitted to be an outside investigator. His actions of abandoning his prisoner was outrageous. He should have released him before taking the dog to the veterinary hospital. Although the owner of the dog was wrong in what he did and was charged accordingly, he didn’t deserve to be abandoned by the man who arrested him and then left to be beaten by a mob.

Things could have been disastrous in a situation like that. The man’s injuries could have been really severe. (such as being blinded or set on fire or crippled for life) If that had happened, he could then sue the investigator and the humane society for millions of dollars.

What the investigator should have done was call on the citizens to keep the owner of the dog away from him so that he could take the dog to the veterinary hospital for emergency treatment. He knew who the man was by his licence plate. He could charge him later.

Other humane societies in Ontario do not permit their investigators to carry handcuffs. The Toronto Humane Society should abandon this practice. Perhaps this incident will put a stop to this ridiculous practice.