ASIRT report clears LPS officer

By Alejandra Pulido-Guzman - Lethbridge Herald on September 1, 2022.

LETHBRIDGE HERALDapulido@lethbridgeherald.com

The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) has concluded an investigation into an allegation of assault and sexual assault regarding a Lethbridge Police Service officer from an event on Aug. 4, 2017.

A publication of the decision of the executive director of the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team, Michael Ewenson, from Aug. 26, 2022 states that on April 26, 2018, pursuant to section 46.1 of the Police Act, ASIRT was directed to investigate allegations of assault, with bodily injury, and a sexual assault on the affected person.

The publication states that one Lethbridge Police Service (LPS) officer was designated as a subject officer in the ASIRT’s investigation, which is now complete.

On Aug. 4, 2017, two of the affected person’s family members reported incidents to LPS about her. The first was regarding a suicide threat by the affected person, which resulted in LPS officers going to her residence and speaking with her. The second, a short time later, was about the affected person threatening a family member and herself with a knife.

It is stated in the publication that officers returned to the residence and attempted to locate her there. She jumped from her second-floor balcony and left the area. An officer stopped and arrested her, initially under the Mental Health Act, and then additionally in relation to the threats.

While she was handcuffed and being moved to a police vehicle, an incident occurred, and she was brought to the ground by the subject officer. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) attended and took over care of the affected person. She was later determined to have injuries to her face and a break to her shinbone just below the knee.

Many police officers were involved in the second interaction with the affected person and were interviewed by ASIRT. The affected person was also interviewed by ASIRT.

The publication states that on many critical points, the versions provided by officers and by the affected person do not agree. Many civilian witnesses were interviewed but all had peripheral involvement, with the exception of civilian witness #2 (CW2).

CW2 was present with the affected person and the officers at the police vehicle, and provided an important source of evidence external to both police and the affected person at that time. While the initial direction to ASIRT included an allegation of sexual assault, there was no evidence that a sexual assault occurred in any witnesses’ version, including that of the affected person. As a result, no further discussion of this aspect of the direction was required.

The publication states that the ASIRT investigators went to the affected person’s residence and observed the balcony that she had jumped from. The floor of the balcony was approximately nine feet from the ground, which was covered in grass.

The publication concludes by stating that under s. 25 of the Criminal Code, a police officer is justified in doing what he or she is authorized to do and to use as much force as is reasonably necessary where he or she has reasonable grounds to do so.

The decision of the executive director of ASIRT therefore was that after a “thorough, independent and objective investigation into the conduct of the subject officer, it is my opinion that the subject officer was lawfully placed and acting properly in the execution of his duties. There is no evidence to support any belief that he or any other officer engaged in any unlawful or unreasonable conduct that would give rise to an offence. While the leg sweep by the subject officer did result in the affected person suffering a broken leg, this was an unfortunate and unintended consequence. The use of force by the subject officer was necessary and reasonable in all of the circumstances.”

Follow @APulidoHerald on Twitter