To me, "police state" implies that it's virtually impossible for a citizen to win a lawsuit against the police, and that constitutional limitations on police are essentially non-existent, because the courts and the lawmakers always take the side of the police against the citizenry.

In other words, it's not individual cases of police brutality that make a country into a "police state"; the "police state" begins to develop when there is no longer any genuine balance-of-powers among the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of the government. (It can also occur when there is no longer a separation of power between federal and local authorities.)

That said, I agree with the comments about corrupt police "protecting their own." I also have a suspicion that pressure from police unions may partly explain why the two officers involved were (apparently) not even put on some sort of administrative leave or restricted to "desk duty." Finally, bureaucratic proceduralism may explain why Kozacenko's case against the officers hasn't been resolved faster.

However, while all of these are problems, they're not necessarily evidence of a "growing Police State."