Vengeful Cop Who Threw Away Dead Teen's Skull After Mom Complained About Police Misconduct Gets Two Week Suspension

A Canadian provincial police officer allegedly threw away part of an accident victim's skull to spite the victim's mother, resulting in a 15-day suspension for the official.

Sgt. Sébastien Plouffe threw part of the 14-year-old motorcycle accident victim's skull into a ravine in 2021 after being chastised by the victim's mother for the way law enforcement handled the scene of the accident.

The skull part was found by the victim's mother near St-Émile-de-Suffolk, in Quebec's Outaouais region, as she was looking for his cellphone. Plouffe, who responded to her 911 call for help, threw the skull part into a ravine a few kilometers away from the scene.

"The facts of this case demonstrate that Sgt. Sébastien Plouffe failed at his task, at all levels," administrative Judge Benoit McMahon wrote in his decision on Nov. 4, obtained by CTV News Montreal. "His acts of misconduct are disturbing and must be denounced, because they discredit his function and the reputation of his police force."

"Such an act denotes insensitivity and a lack of empathy," McMahon continued.

Plouffe, who lied about his actions on a report, admitted the truth a few days later when the family attempted to retrieve the skull part in order to cremate the victim. He returned to the location of the ravine and attempted to search for the missing piece of bone, but was unsuccessful. A larger search was conducted at the scene with additional officials, and the skull part was eventually located.

The victim's mother, who is identified by court documents only as N. R., challenged the penalty, believing it was too lenient. Judge McMahon, who also referred to Plouffe's actions as "inexplicable and unjustifiable," decided to uphold the sentence recommended by the officer and the ethics board investigator.

McMahon himself agreed that the penalty was too lenient, but pointed out that a penalty would have to be troublesome enough to be considered contrary to public interest in order to merit overturning a joint recommendation. He wrote that he did not believe that was the case in this instance.