Here we go again.  Another corrupt RCMP constable who just can’t get over his sense of entitlement.

It’s really annoying for the good RCMP members out there.  You know, the ones that actually do their job for the pay they receive and DON’T think about stealing or other abuses of public trust.

Constable David Clarke has been charged with breach of trust for trafficking marijuana, possession of property obtained by crime and about a dozen weapons offenses, including possession of unregistered handguns, shotguns and semi-automatic rifles.

Clarke’s corruption came to light after someone make a public complaint against him.  The Surrey RCMP detachment commander, Chief Superintendent Fraser MacRae, ordered the Surrey Serious Crimes Section to investigate Clarke.

MacRae was obviously not pleased that one of his own broke the law, but give him full credit for not hiding behind the “fat blue line”, as someone called it recently.

“Our investigation into the criminal allegations has been completed, and the charges you see today are the result of the determination by Crown counsel that these are the appropriate charges in view of all the circumstance.”

MacRae deserves full marks for holding Clarke accountable for his actions.   My only criticism is the same criticism I always have in these cases: Clarke gets a holiday with full pay while the charges make their way through the courts.

That disgusts me.  Rewarding corrupt cops like Constable David Clarke with paid vacations so they can go to court has got to change.

RCMP Spokesman Sgt. Rob Vermeulen said that while Clarke was suspended with pay, now that he’s been formally charged, that status is under review.

Amen.

The Vancouver Sun article also had another tidbit buried in it:

Clarke is also among a number of officers being sued, along with the B.C. solicitor-general, by Travis Bader, the owner of a Delta firearms training business. Bader says he was treated like a criminal and subjected to two years of “personal abuse” by police, resulting in 10 unfounded charges against him that were stayed by the Crown earlier this year.

I’ll be writing about that case tomorrow.  I first heard about it about two months ago, before the lawsuit became public.  I wasn’t aware that a lawsuit was imminent, but the details of how corruption has made its way into the Chief Firearms Office here in BC were, obviously, of great interest to me.

But more on that tomorrow.  Maybe even later today…

The complete list of charges against Clarke were listed in the Vancouver Sun, and are reposted below:

Count 1 – breach of trust by possessing stolen property including marijuana, identification documents and police property, and trafficking in marijuana, contrary to Section 122 of the Criminal Code.

Count 2 – possession of property, to wit, identification documents and other items, the property of various persons, knowing that the said property was obtained by the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment, contrary to Section 355 of the Criminal Code.

Count 3 – possession prohibited devices, to wit cartridge magazines that are capable of containing more than 10 cartridges for use in a semi-automatic handgun, knowing that he was not the holder of a licence under which he may possess it, contrary to Section 92(2) of the Criminal Code.

Count 4 – possession of prohibited devices, to wit cartridge magazines that are capable of containing more than 5 cartridges for use in a semi-automatic firearm other than a semi-automatic handgun, knowing that he was not the holder of a licence under which he may possess it, contrary to Section 92(2) of the Criminal Code.

Count 5 – possess a firearm, to wit a FN FAL semiautomatic rifle, while not being the holder of a licence under which he may possess the firearm and a registration certificate for the firearm, contrary to Section 91(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 6 – possess a firearm, to wit a FN FAL semiautomatic rifle, knowing that he was not the holder of a licence under which he may possess the firearm and a registration certificate for the firearm, contrary to Section 92(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 7 – possess a prohibited firearm, to wit a FN FAL semi-automatic rifle, with readily accessible ammunition that is capable of being discharged in the firearm, without being the holder of an authorization or a licence under which he may possess the prohibited firearm in that place and a registration certificate for the firearm, contrary to Section 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 8 – possess a firearm, to wit a Colt semi-automatic handgun, while not being the holder of a licence under which he may possess the firearm and a registration certificate for the firearm, contrary to Section 91(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 9 – possess a firearm, to wit a Colt semi-automatic handgun, knowing he was not the holder of a licence under which he may possess the firearm and a registration certificate for the firearm, contrary to Section 92(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 10 – possess a restricted firearm, to wit a Colt semi-automatic handgun, with readily available ammunition, while not being the holder of a licence under which he may possess the firearm and a registration certificate for the firearm, contrary to Section 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 11 – possess a firearm, to wit a Glock 9mm handgun, while not being the holder of a licence under which he may possess the firearm and a registration certificate for the firearm, contrary to Section 91 (1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 12 – possess a firearm, to wit a Glock 9mm handgun, knowing he was not the holder of a licence under which he may possess the firearm and a registration certificate for the firearm, contrary to Section 92(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 13 – possess a restricted firearm, to wit a loaded Glock 9mm handgun, without being the holder of an authorization or a licence under which he may possess the firearm in that place and a registration certificate for the firearm, contrary to Section 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

Count 14 – possess a firearm, to wit a Mossberg pump-action shotgun, while not being the holder of a licence under which he may possess the firearm and a registration certificate for the firearm, contrary to Section 91(I) of the Criminal Code.

Count 15 – possess a firearm, to wit a Remington Mohawk semi-automatic rifle, while not being the holder of a licence under which he may possess the firearm and a registration certificate for the firearm, contrary to Section 9 l(1) of the Criminal Code.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Surrey+RCMP+constable+charged/4009505/story.html#ixzz19HrkPVlo