After an investigation by the Alberta Serious Response Intervention Team (ASIRT), a Barrhead RCMP officer will not be facing any charges as a result of discharging their weapon when attempting to arrest a possibly-armed suspect on Feb. 22, 2017.
As stated in a release, ASIRT’s mandate is to “effectively, independently and objectively investigate” incidents involving Alberta’s police that have resulted in serious injury or death to any person. They also investigate serious allegations of police misconduct.
While no one was injured in this incident, the discharging of a firearm by an RCMP officer is deemed to fall under the provisions of the Police Act that require notification to the director of law enforcement.
In addition, the matter was forwarded on to the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service (ACPS) after an investigation found there were “arguable issues with the lawful placement of the officers” during the incident.
“That’s not physical placement. That’s the legal placement,” said Greg Gudelot, a lawyer with ASIRT.
Gudelot said the Police Act requires them to send a file on to the Crown for review “if there’s evidence that … could give rise to reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed.”
The release does not indicate what that evidence was. However, the ACPS indicated that there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction against the subject officer based on that evidence.
Taking into account the Crown’s position, the officer will not be charged with any criminal offence, the release noted.
Single shot fired, no one injured
As indicated in the ASIRT release, Barrhead RCMP received information in the early morning hours of Feb. 22, 2017 about the location of a 33-year-old man wanted by police on several outstanding warrants. Through further investigation, police identified a local residence as the man’s likely location.
The man was well-known to police and had an extensive criminal record, including a history of violence. Based on the available information, it was believed the man was in possession of handgun, a picture of which was circulated to RCMP members.
Several RCMP members went to the residence with the intention of obtaining a warrant authorizing them to enter the residence to arrest the wanted man. (In order to get a warrant, the RCMP would have to establish reasonable grounds that the man was, in fact, inside.)
When officers knocked on the front door, another occupant of the residence answered. As they asked if the wanted man was inside, they spotted the man running through another part of the house, and it appeared as though as he was trying to escape through a bedroom window.
The person who had answered the door closed and locked it. Based on their observations, the police decided to force entry.
One officer tried to enter the front door while a second officer went around the house and forced open a side door.
Once inside, that second officer encountered the wanted man, told him he was under arrest and ordered him to show his hands. The man refused to show his hands, so the officer fired a single shot from their firearm.
No one was struck by the bullet. Although the man succeeded in fleeing the residence, he was found and arrested at a later date.
When asked why the investigation was being concluded a year and a half later, Gudelot noted the team’s workload has been a bit of an issue lately.
“Running stats are that the file count has essentially tripled over the last ten years,” he said.
In addition, there was an extra step involved in this investigation with the matter being forwarded to the ACPS, he noted.
