POLICING THE POLICE
10 years on, has ASIRT been a success?
EDMONTON Early on in her career with Alberta’s police watchdog agency, Susan Hughson spoke to an officer who — during the course of an officer-involved shooting investigation — was read his Charter rights.
The officer was trained to “Charter and caution” people he suspected of committing crimes. Hearing the words directed at him was jarring.
“It threw him completely off,” she said in an interview this week. “It was outside his realm of experience. He never envisioned a world where he would be Chartered and cautioned.”
The story stuck with Hughson, now executive director of the decade-old Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT).
In 2007, Alberta police services and the Progressive Conservative government under Ed Stelmach decided it was time officers stopped investigating themselves in serious misconduct cases. The next year, ASIRT was taking files.
Besides adding the words “10 years of investigative evidence” to ASIRT letterhead and honouring a few day-one employees, the milestone passed without much notice. But in 10 years, ASIRT has had a major impact on policing in Alberta.
Along the way, there have been challenges. Investigations drag on: a school named for slain city police Const. Daniel Woodall was opened by the time ASIRT released its report on the events leading up to his June 8, 2015, on-duty death. A veteran defence lawyer also notes that there’s still a double standard when it comes to prosecuting cops. And questions linger about the agency’s use of active police officers as investigators.
POLICING THE POLICE
ASIRT is the only civilian police oversight agency in Canada that wasn’t created in response to a crisis of confidence in law enforcement.
Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU), Canada’s first independent police investigations office, launched in 1990 in response to several high-profile police shootings of black men. Manitoba’s Independent Investigations Unit came about after the 2005 death of 40-year-old Crystal Taman, who died when an intoxicated off-duty police officer rear-ended her car. British Columbia’s Independent Investigations Office was born in the aftermath of the 2007 death of Robert Dziekanski, who died after being hit with a Taser by officers inside Vancouver’s airport.
ASIRT, on the other hand, was a creation of the Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police, which lobbied the province for an independent investigative agency. It launched in January 2008 with Clifton Purvis — a former Crown prosecutor known for making the case against killer Thomas Svekla — as the first executive director.
Mark Neufeld, a one-time Edmonton city cop who went on to lead the Camrose Police Service, was among ASIRT’s first hires. He gave police chiefs of the day credit for recognizing the public had grown uncomfortable with officers investigating themselves.
“We used to use the example: if you or I have a loved one that was involved in (a police incident) where they were injured or killed ... would you be comfortable with having the agency (involved) lead the investigation?” he said. “I think the answer for most of us would be ‘no.’”
32 CHARGES SINCE DAY 1
ASIRT got its first file in April 2008. It has since dealt with 521 incidents including 117 police-involved deaths, 171 serious injuries, 227 “sensitive” allegations against officers and a mix of other files.
Thirty-two officers have been charged following ASIRT investigations for offences including assault, dangerous driving, attempting to obstruct justice, theft, careless use of a firearm and sexual assault. Fort Saskatchewan RCMP officer Mario Jimenez was the first, charged in January 2009 with sexually assaulting a female colleague at a farewell party. He later pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of assault and was given a conditional discharge with 12 months probation, according to ASIRT records.
Before ASIRT, police services in Alberta investigated themselves or swapped investigators whenever there were serious use of force or misconduct allegations.
But even now, many ASIRT investigators are police officers. Nine of ASIRT’s 22 investigators are active duty police “seconded” from other agencies, while the remainder are ex-cops. Investigators in the Calgary office even carry guns after an unarmed colleague was nearly stabbed to death during a 2010 interview with the victim of a police shooting.
Months before ASIRT was set to launch, former Edmonton Police Commission complaints director Larry Jackson argued it would be better to pair former police officers and civilian investigators — the model used by Ontario’s SIU. Amnesty International said in letter to the editor of the Journal at the time that “the lack of autonomy and independence is a serious problem that other oversight mechanisms in Canada have already avoided.”
Neufeld acknowledged the criticism, but felt hiring investigators with police experience was the right call. ASIRT investigations need to hold up in court, where there are stringent standards for the taking of statements and evidence collection.
Hughson, a former Crown prosecutor, is more direct.
“If my daughter was shot by a police officer, I would want a homicide investigator,” she said. “Because that’s what it is — it’s a homicide. Whether it’s culpable or not is a different issue, but it’s a homicide. I want somebody who knows what they’re doing.”
According to Ian Scott, the former head of Ontario’s SIU, there’s been no statistical analysis of whether agencies that use seconded officers recommend charges against police less frequently.
OFFICERS RECEPTIVE
The relationship between agencies like ASIRT and the officers it investigates has always been testy. In B.C., some officers have refused to co-operate with investigators, prompting court fights and public accusations. The relationship between Ontario police and the SIU is even more fraught, Hughson said.
In Alberta, police have generally accepted independent oversight, though there have been flare-ups. The head of the Calgary Police Association recently criticized ASIRT’s policy of not naming victims after the agency refused to disclose the identities of two men killed after attacking police officers.
Canadian Police Association president Tom Stamatakis is most concerned about investigative delays. Even cases that Stamatakis thinks are open-and-shut drag on.
Delays leave officers under a cloud of suspicion, put strain on victims’ families and allow time for conspiratorial thinking to fill in the gaps, Stamatakis said. Hughson said delays are also among her biggest concerns.
In one recent case, ASIRT was asked to investigate a case where an officer fired a round during a chase in Barrhead. No one was injured. ASIRT delivered its report clearing the officer on July 19, 512 days later.
Canadian investigative agencies also haven’t turned up evidence of widespread abuse of power or corruption, Stamatakis argued.
“It’s very rare,” he said.
‘WE THINK THERE’S A DIFFERENT STANDARD’
Edmonton defence lawyer and frequent police critic Tom Engel said ASIRT investigations have improved “dramatically” since its founding. One problem, he said, is the gap between ASIRT and Crown prosecutors. ASIRT can lay charges, but the Crown has discretion whether to prosecute. Crown prosecutors recently declined to go forward with the case of Ronnie James Mickasko, whose beating at the hands of arresting officers was caught on camera by a hovering police helicopter. Hughson recommended charges against the officers.
“She’d better have an iron solid case to send to the Crown to prosecute or they’re not going to do it,” Engel said. “We think there’s a different standard being applied to prosecutions of police officers than for Joe Blow.”
Hughson disagreed, saying the law is the same for everyone. But the second a police officer is charged with even a minor offence, it’s news. By the time the case reaches prosecutors, all the ducks must be in a row.
Hughson ultimately believes the ASIRT system works better than other watchdog agencies. If she had more resources, she’d turn a closer eye to police corruption, which she thinks is more damaging to public confidence than excessive force incidents.
“Sometimes these things take a long time because we can’t cut corners and make a mistake. If I make one mistake, if I get one thing wrong, that’ll be it for public confidence in ASIRT,” she said. “When I make my decisions, I’m pretty confident they’re bulletproof.
“I think I can defend every decision we’ve made in the last four years,” she said, adding she thinks the ASIRT system makes sure officers and victims get a fair hearing.
“Is that the test of ‘is it successful?’ I think it is.”