The director of the Alberta Serious Incident Reponse Team (ASIRT) has ruled that the use of force by both RCMP and Edmonton Police Service (EPS) members while arresting a suspect last summer was questionable and the evidence could “support prosecution.”
On July 25, 2017 at around 9:45 p.m., an EPS detective saw a red Dodge Ram truck speeding, weaving in and out of traffic and passing vehicles on the shoulder. Air 1, the Canine Unit and the Tactical unit were requested for assistance after police received information that the vehicle likely contained stolen long guns.
The chase lasted about one hour and travelled through north Edmonton and Strathcona County. ASIRT said the driver continued at “grossly excessive speeds,” drove on shoulders and ran through several red lights.
The chase ended when a spike belt was deployed, shredding the truck’s tires.
“The man’s driving pattern was highly dangerous, purposefully so, putting anyone in his path at grave risk,” a news release from ASIRT read.
ASIRT said the man came out of the truck with his hands out, moved away from the vehicle and lay on the ground. When the first officer approached, Air 1 video showed the man on the ground, not moving with his hands behind his back.
ASIRT said the kick was forceful enough to cause the man’s head to snap “significantly” to the opposite side. Based on the evidence available, the kick was “not tactically sound, and there was no observable necessity to use this level of force.”
Get breaking National news
After the kick the man began to struggle as EPS members moved in. ASIRT said the situation appeared “much more dynamic.”
ASIRT said the EPS members would have seen the RCMP member and the suspect struggling and the video shows members using various forms of force including knee stuns, kicks and strikes to the torso while attempting to get the man into handcuffs. The arrest took about a minute, and ASIRT said there were multiple officers yelling at the man to surrender and show his hands.
In the struggle, the man suffered multiple fractures to his right orbital and nasal bones.
The RCMP officer who had initial contact with the suspect didn’t include the kick in his report. In later interviews, ASIRT said he didn’t remember kicking the man or, alternatively, he was worried that the suspect may have had weapons in his waistband so he used a “distraction site kick.”
“The absence of any mention of the kick in the first report and the subsequent inconsistent statements raised concerns,” ASIRT said. “Further, the explanation of the decision to administer a distraction strike kick made no sense in the context of a belief that the man might have a firearm on him – particularly given the availability of a police service dog and the assistance and cover of the other arriving police officers.”
ASIRT said the EPS members all outlined their use of force in their reports, but did identify some issues. Officers said the RCMP vehicle did not effectively block the suspect vehicle. Concerns about the possibility of firearms, the high-risk nature of the call, the man’s actions up until that point and the uncontained, dark, rural environment were all called objectively reasonable by ASIRT.
There was another kick that ASIRT described. The agency said it appeared the man was contained at the end of the struggle when an officer appeared to kick him again. ASIRT said the officer believed in the chaos that the officer wasn’t clear whether the man was contained, but said, objectively, the use of force was questionable.
Police said they did seize two long-barrelled .22-calibre firearms and additional property they believed at the time to be stolen. The man was also wanted on an outstanding warrant and was in violation of conditions of release on a variety of offences.
Executive director Susan Hughson said there were reasonable grounds to believe an offence had been committed, and the two uses of force outlined by ASIRT were excessive and could support prosecution.
The matter was then forwarded to the Crown, under the requirements of the Police Act. The Crown concluded there was no likelihood of conviction and charges will not be laid.
Even though much of the pursuit and struggle was captured by Air-1, ASIRT said the video “should not be considered in isolation, as it has significant limitations and provides an incomplete picture of what would have been experienced on the scene as it was occurring.”
The video does not have sound and the heat signatures can blend together, making it difficult to clearly see what is happening and who is doing what.
ASIRT is called in to investigate any incident involving an Alberta police officer that have resulted in serious injury or death.
Comments