WARNING: This story contains offensive language.
In one private chat group conversation, a Mountie was accused of saying a new female employee “was overweight and insinuating that the shape of her vagina was visible through her clothing.”
In another, a second RCMP officer allegedly bragged about “Tasering unarmed Black people” and called a sexual assault investigation “stupid” — drawing comments from other members of the online group who “made fun of the victim” and said, “she’s a dumb Mexican c–t.”
An investigator with the RCMP’s professional standards unit detailed those allegations and many more in a search warrant sworn to obtain evidence now being used to call for the firing of three Coquitlam Mounties for violating the force’s code of conduct.
The CBC has obtained a copy of the search warrant — which recounts behaviour which led the officer who sparked the investigation to complain to RCMP brass about what he saw as “atrocious” and “racist and horrible” activity in a private group operating on the Signal messaging app.
The documents reveal that investigators also reviewed 600,000 messages posted to the RCMP’s internal mobile data chat logs — finding evidence of “frequently offensive” usage by the three officers facing termination of “homophobic and racist slurs.”
“The reviewers had identified a variety of comments that were ‘chauvinist in nature, with a strong air of superiority, and include flippant or insulting remarks about clients (including objectifying women), supervisors, colleagues, policy and the RCMP as a whole,'” the warrant says.
‘We’re not going to the reserve’
Code of conduct hearings against Const. Philip Dick, Const. Ian Solven and Const. Mersad Mesbah had been slated to begin in Surrey this week but have been adjourned until March of next year. All three officers have been suspended since June 2021.
Although Dick, Solven and Mesbah appear to be the only Mounties currently facing code-of-conduct hearings, the court documents say seven other officers were also part of the private chat group — including two supervisors.
Among the details contained in the search warrant are allegations one of the officers facing discipline joked about a domestic violence victim, calling the victim “a dumb f–king bitch, should’ve worn a mouth guard.”
The whistleblower — Const. Sam Sodhi — claimed that outside of the private chat group, members of the group also “belittled Indigenous people, talking about how they were ‘stupid’ or ‘drunk’ and saying they have ‘unfortunate bodies’ and all have fetal alcohol syndrome.”
“They would say, ‘We’re not going to the reserve,'” the search warrant claims Sodhi told investigators.
“We’re not going there because we’re not going to help those people.”
‘Are you a cool brown guy?’
According to the court documents, Sodhi was posted to Coquitlam in 2019.
“As part of that process, he wrote a letter about wanting to work in an urban centre and help at-risk youth that didn’t have role models,” the warrant claims.
But Sodhi claimed that on his second day at work, Dick — his trainer — asked him: “Are you a cool brown guy, or are you a Surrey brown guy? Because in that letter, you’re whiny, like, ‘Ooh, I want to help brown people.'”
Sodhi claimed there were two chat groups for members of the Coquitlam detachment assigned to Port Coquitlam — one for all members of the watch and a second private group that began on WhatsApp but then moved to Signal. He said he was told once he was “worthy” of the private chat group, “we’ll add you to it.”
The officer claimed he was admitted to the private chat group in March 2021 but left after a few days because of the “constant negativity.” He said he was then accused of “not being a team member” and encouraged to return.
According to the search warrant, Sodhi complained to his superiors in May 2021, and a chief superintendent mandated an investigation into five Mounties — including a corporal who was accused of failing to take measures to prevent misconduct.
‘I just racially profile pulled over a car’
The probe initially focused on text communications between the RCMP’s own laptops — known as Mobile Data Terminals. Investigators reviewed messages between the five men from January 2019 until May 2021.
“When members of the [Signal] chat group realized there was an investigation, they opined that the investigation was probably about ‘MDT chats’ … since the private chat group was kept ‘amongst the trusted’ and ‘there’s no way this got out,'” the warrant says.
Examples cited from the RCMP computers include statements like, “Why do brown guys have unusually high pitched voices.” “As an idiot woman would say … ‘toxic,'” and, “I just racially profile pulled over a car.”
A review of the chat logs also allegedly found the three officers facing termination “appeared to use ‘goldfish’ as a slur for Asian people.”
“For example, they talked about how ‘goldfish’ have ‘bulging eyes’ that ‘can’t see anything,’ how a Korean church in the detachment was a ‘goldfish church’ and how ‘goldfish’ were bad drivers (a common Asian stereotype),” the warrant says.
The search warrant was obtained so investigators with Coquitlam RCMP’s professional standards unit could access records of the Signal chat group by seizing the contents of Sodhi’s phone.
In order to convince a judge to greenlight the search, investigators asked Sodhi not to read messages directly from the chat but to “detail the chat from the best of his recollection and only refer to the chat as necessary to aid his memory.”
A judge granted the search warrant in April 2022, nearly a year after Sodhi spoke with investigators.
‘My contributions would ‘not look good”
The more than three years that have passed since Sodhi first raised concerns have already played into the disciplinary proceedings.
In May, an RCMP conduct board dismissed allegations against a fourth Coquitlam Mountie who admitted to his involvement in the Signal group because the proceedings had stretched beyond a 12-month limitation period prescribed by the RCMP Act.
According to the decision to dismiss, Const. Cameron Lang “self-reported his participation in the chat” in May 2021.
“I disclosed to the Inspector that some of the content contributed by other members was highly offensive, and I wished to also act on my duty to report that to him,” Const. Cameron Lang said in an affidavit.
“I said that I believed my contributions were not as offensive as what others had said, but that my contributions would ‘not look good.'”
According to a provincial court decision relating to the search warrant posted this week, the conduct board has stayed one of the allegations against the three members, as well as a second allegation against Mesbah, because they were filed outside of the one-year limitation period.
A ‘problematic’ omission?
The legal process underlying the code of conduct hearings may still play a role in deciding the outcome of Sodhi’s allegations.
The provincial court judge was asked to rule on an application to exclude evidence seized from Sodhi’s phone because an RCMP officer “forgot” to file a so-called “Report to a Justice” in relation to the data — as mandated by law.
The filing of a “Report to a Justice” form allows judges to oversee the length of time police can detain items seized through search warrants.
The RCMP’s failure to comply with the rules of search and seizure has had dramatic consequences in recent years — most notably in a B.C. murder trial that resulted in an acquittal after a judge threw out key evidence because of repeated policy violations.
RCMP didn’t file the Report to a Justice relating to Sodhi’s phone until this July — almost 27 months after the police seized the data relating to the Signal chats.
In the most recent provincial court decision, the judge allowed RCMP to hold on to the data for the code of conduct hearing — but suggested the three Mounties may have a strong case to argue their rights have been violated when a hearing eventually happens.
“As the subject members have detailed, the RCMP not only failed to file the Report to a Justice ‘as soon as feasible,’ they continued to fail in their duty to file a report for over two years, despite repeatedly being put on notice that the omission was problematic,” the judge wrote.
“That, however, is an issue that is not before me but rather is in the jurisdiction of the Conduct Board to consider.”
A lawyer for Solven did not return an email requesting comment, and the other officers could not be reached.
A spokesperson for the RCMP declined to comment on the allegations while they are before a conduct board hearing.
Source Agencies
