Reprimanded officer granted anonymity
Constable was charged but acquitted after woman killed in high-speed crash
Granting anonymity to an officer who was reprimanded for his involvement in a high-speed fatal crash is part of a “general” practice when releasing written decisions to the public following disciplinary hearings, says a lawyer for the Edmonton Police Service.
The Edmonton Journal covered a police disciplinary hearing in March where city police Const. Christopher Luimes was handed a reprimand for discreditable conduct after a 2012 high-speed collision that left an 84-year-old woman dead. Luimes was required to participate in a video that will become part of mandatory police training.
Luimes was criminally charged, but acquitted of dangerous driving causing death in May 2015.
The Edmonton Journal covered both the public hearing and the criminal court case extensively, naming Luimes in all stories.
But when written reasons for the reprimand decision were made available in the Edmonton Police Commission agenda in April, Luimes’ name had been scrubbed from the document and replaced with the letters “A.B.”
The identity of Anne Cecilia Walden, the woman killed in the crash, was also removed from the document.
Luimes, who was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the collision, suffered serious injuries to his leg and spine.
He was responding to a nonemergency call for surveillance while driving an unmarked police vehicle March 8, 2012. While pursuing his target, Luimes was driving northbound on 75 Street at about 120 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. He was not using his lights or sirens.
Walden was driving southbound on 75 Street when she made a left turn onto 76 Avenue across Luimes’ path.
The two vehicles collided. Walden was pronounced dead in hospital.
Although the disciplinary hearings themselves are generally open to the public, Edmonton Police Service lawyer Karen Agnihotri wrote in an email Thursday that case-by-case decisions are made to remove officer identities from documents that are made available to the public.
In general, when the officer has been assessed a “serious punishment,” such as a suspension without pay or dismissal, they are named, she said.
But if the punishment is less serious, like a reprimand, or if the charges are dismissed, the officer’s name is replaced with random letters.
Agnihotri did not respond to further questions about why the force has settled on this practice, or about how the practice affects the public’s ability to follow the outcome of disciplinary hearings.
“From a police perspective, it’s in their discretion to release the name or not,” said University of Alberta law professor Steven Penney, adding he is not aware of any
When you hide the name of an officer who has been disciplined, that flies in the face of transparency.
legal obligation to release the constable’s name nor any entitlement to privacy on the officer’s part.
“It’s difficult to argue any reasonable expectation to privacy when there are some sanctions being imposed,” Penney said.
Since Luimes’ name was already made public during the disciplinary and court proceedings, “one might ask from a public policy and public interest perspective, what’s the point in the decision?” Penney added.
Edmonton criminal defence lawyer Tom Engel raised concerns about the removal of Luimes’ name from the written decision, and said it’s a troubling aspect of police policing themselves.
“One of the hallmarks of a civilian oversight system would be transparency. When you hide the name of an officer who has been disciplined, that flies in the face of transparency,” Engel said.
The criticism comes in the wake of Chief Rod Knecht’s recent defence of the force’s decision to withhold the names of several homicide victims in 2017.
In previous years, police typically released the names of all homicide victims.