The Authority oversaw a Police investigation into a complaint that an officer allegedly stole a cell phone from a teenager during a disputed sale.
The officer’s spouse bought a cell phone from the teenager through Facebook Marketplace. She went to meet the teenager outside an address the teenager nominated. Later she found she could not unlock the cell phone and sought an explanation from the teenager but could not make contact.
The officer, in his off-duty capacity, arranged to meet the teenager under the guise of purchasing a different cell phone. The officer inspected the second cell phone but then told the teenager why he was there, requesting access to or a refund for his spouse’s cell phone. During the exchange, the officer identified himself as a member of Police to the teenager. The teenager said he would comply, but only after returning inside his address. The officer kept hold of both cell phones as “reassurances” the teenager would make the transfer.
The teenager then walked down a shared driveway. As the officer waited, his spouse, who was waiting in a car, messaged the teenager telling him to hurry up as the officer was late for an appointment. The teenager did not return in sufficient time and the officer left with both cell phones after messaging that he would return them later. The teenager then provided a partial refund online.
The officer returned the next morning to the same meeting point to return the cell phones. Unbeknownst to the officer, the teenager had intentionally provided a neighbour’s address as the meeting point for his transactions. The officer spoke with the neighbour, explaining what had occurred and again identifying himself as a member of Police. However, the neighbours had no knowledge of the matter and told the officer to leave. The officer then messaged the teenager saying that he could collect the cell phones from ‘a Police station.’ Later that day, the teenager reported the theft of the cell phones to Police.
A couple of days later, the officer accessed the Police database in an unsuccessful attempt to locate the teenager’s address in order to return the cell phones. The officer made no other efforts to return the cell phones. He was unaware that the matter had been reported as a theft to Police.
Police investigated the matter and visited the officer’s address with a search warrant to obtain the cell phones. The officer willing provided the cell phones and later explained the situation.
The Police investigation found that as the officer had attempted return the cell phones, the situation lent itself to a civil dispute rather than any theft or criminality by the officer. Police then carried out an employment process in relation to unauthorised access of the Police database and for acting with a conflict of interest.
The Authority accepts the Police investigation findings and agrees with the outcome reached.
IPCA: 24-25557