A veteran judge has ruled that one of the South Okanagan’s most notorious prolific offenders had his Charter rights violated during a violent police stop in Okanagan Falls in April 2024.
Earlier this week, Justice Eric Gottardi released his decision in the case of Andrew Robert Hardenstine, stating that he did not believe the testimony of several officers involved in the arrest, during which Hardenstine was tasered 10 times.
A voir dire -- a trial within a trial -- was held at the Penticton courthouse across multiple days in February and April to examine whether Hardenstine’s Charter rights had been breached.
Hardenstine pleaded not guilty to nine charges, including:
• Illegal possession of a handgun and rifle
• Disarming a peace officer (Taser)
• Possession of a loaded firearm without proper documentation
• Occupying a vehicle while aware firearms were present
• Possessing firearms while prohibited
• Possession of a firearm contrary to a court order
• Assaulting a police officer
• Willfully obstructing a police officer
He was represented by defence counsel Brittany Belcher, while the Crown was represented by Ann Lerchs.
The Incident
In late February 2024, RCMP issued a direct appeal to Hardenstine to surrender:
Justice Gottardi’s reasons for judgment detail the events leading to the arrest.
Police received a tip on the evening of April 4, 2024 from a man who claimed he was scheduled to meet Hardenstine early the next morning to purchase two firearms. The tipster said Hardenstine intended to use the proceeds -- $1,600 USD -- to flee to the United States.
The location of the proposed sale changed several times, eventually settling on a gas station in Okanagan Falls. Police set up surveillance. A grey Chevy Metro was observed pulling in and then leaving. Officers couldn’t initially identify the occupants.
The vehicle was followed, and based on direction from lead investigator Const. Ballarin, a traffic stop was initiated. Ballarin recognized Hardenstine in the passenger seat. (Only surnames of the officers were listed in the judge’s report).
Two officers drew their firearms as Ballarin opened the passenger door. A physical struggle followed. Over the next three minutes, officers punched and kneed Hardenstine multiple times. He was tasered 10 times before being brought under control.
Emergency Health Services arrived 23 minutes later. Hardenstine was eventually read his Charter rights and cautioned after being assessed by paramedics.
Charter Breaches
Hardenstine had sought a stay of proceedings for abuse of process or, alternatively, to have the seized firearms excluded from evidence. His claims include excessive use of force and arbitrary detention.
Justice Gottardi found that the traffic stop was not lawful and that the police used it as a pretext to further investigate the tip and identify Hardenstine.
“I conclude that this was an arbitrary detention and the rights of Mr. Hardenstine were infringed,” said Gottardi.
Officers’ Testimonies Questioned
Officers involved in the arrest included:
• Const. Poulton (3 years, Penticton)
• Const. Harrison (5 years, Penticton)
• Const. Turundzev (2 years, Penticton)
• Const. Barrett (19 years, Oliver)
• Const. Ballarin (7 years, lead investigator)
Gottardi found inconsistencies in their testimony, especially regarding the initial interaction and use of force. The judge ruled that Hardenstine did not jump or spring out of the vehicle, as officers claimed, but was pulled out by police after being surprised by drawn firearms.
“That did not happen,” said Gottardi, regarding allegations that Hardenstine threw the first punch or lunged aggressively.
The judge also criticized the repeated tasering.
“Even if the initial taser deployment was objectively necessary, I find the successive deployments unreasonable,” said Gottardi.
Const. Turundzev, who deployed the taser 10 times, testified he was trained there was “no limit” to taser usage. Gottardi found this approach bordered on recklessness.
Ruling
Justice Gottardi ultimately ruled that all items seized from Hardenstine, the vehicle, and the scene were to be excluded from evidence.
“While the officers believed their use of force was necessary, this belief was not objectively reasonable,” he said.
Despite acknowledging serious Charter breaches, the judge did not grant a stay of proceedings, stating the threshold for such a remedy was not met. The exclusion of the firearms, however, is expected to seriously impact the Crown’s case.
Background on Hardenstine
Hardenstine, 46, has a criminal record spanning nearly 25 years, with over 60 prior convictions, including weapons, drugs, and violent offences.
In 2018, police found a cache of firearms at a Penticton residence, including a semi-automatic rifle, handguns, and a crossbow.
He was sentenced in 2013 to over three years in federal prison for similar charges.
In 2022, he led police on a dirt bike chase through Penticton and the Penticton Indian Reserve.
After failing to appear in court in 2023, a warrant was issued, sparking a seven-week manhunt.
He was finally arrested in Okanagan Falls in April 2024 and remains in custody.
Hardenstine’s trial is scheduled to begin on May 26, 2025. The BC Prosecution Service is reviewing its position following the ruling.
Justice Gottardi found significant inconsistencies and credibility issues in the officers’ testimony. The tipster, who had given a false name and changed the location multiple times, was not deemed reliable. Despite this, Ballarin proceeded with the operation.
“Mr. Hardenstine was known to flee from police and was considered armed and dangerous,” said Gottardi.
However, officers had no details about the vehicle Hardenstine would be in, and the Chevy Metro that was stopped was selected based on vague and ambiguous information.
During the stop, Poulton approached the vehicle and suspected the passenger was Hardenstine based on his size and a visible tattoo. He called Ballarin to confirm the identity.
Poulton testified that Hardenstine shielded his face and did not respond to questions. Under cross-examination, he agreed that his assumption Hardenstine was hiding was speculative.
Up to that point, all officers gave similar testimony about the takedown. However, dashcam footage presented in court contradicted their statements.
“After reviewing the dash cam footage from the first video, I find that Mr. Hardenstine did not spring or jump out of the vehicle on his own accord,” said Gottardi. “Cst. Ballarin was the first to reach into the vehicle and make physical contact.”
All four officers had claimed Hardenstine attacked Ballarin upon exiting the car, but the video did not support this.
Descriptions of a “football tackle,” swinging fists, and aggressive lunging were found to be fabricated.
“Neither of the described actions took place,” said Gottardi. “That did not happen.”
One officer, Cst. Turundzev, admitted under cross-examination to reviewing other officers’ statements before giving his own testimony -- raising further doubts about the independence of their accounts.
While Gottardi acknowledged the stressful circumstances and that officers believed they were in danger, he also noted their excessive use of force.
“Cst. Poulton testified that he punched Mr. Hardenstine so many times he dislocated his knuckles. Cst. Harrison said he delivered so many knee strikes that he had to switch legs.”
Ultimately, Gottardi found that while Hardenstine was non-compliant and resisted arrest, the officers exaggerated key elements of their account.
“The officers claimed he attacked Cst. Ballarin with a windmill punch that never happened.”
Unlawful Detention
Gottardi concluded that the traffic stop was not for vehicle enforcement but a pretext to further investigate the tip.
“I conclude that this was an arbitrary detention, and the rights of Mr. Hardenstine were infringed,” he said.
Given the unreliable tipster, lack of clear vehicle description, and absence of specific timing, Gottardi ruled there were insufficient grounds to stop the vehicle.
“This case involves not only physical force in the form of punches and knee strikes, but also the use of a taser, which qualifies as elevated force. If unlawfully used, it violates the fundamental principle of justice.”
Even if the arrest had been lawful, Gottardi said the level of force used was excessive.
“While the officers may have believed their actions were necessary, this belief was not objectively reasonable in the circumstances.”
When reached for comment RCMP spokesperson Cpl. James Grandy wrote in an email: “As the matter remains before the courts, the RCMP cannot comment further at this time.
“Should any internal code of conduct processes be initiated, those proceedings are separate and follow their own protocols, which we also cannot confirm or discuss publicly unless a finding is made.”
