MHPS vs Charter - Tom’s Medicine Hat Police Complaint
Hello, I'm Thomas Fougere, independent journalist in Medicine Hat, Alberta - 1-888-600-7029
I was attacked by police during a public meeting at the police station concerning The Mustard Seed shelter and issues of vulnerable people living rough in our neighborhood.
Initial simplified complaint:
On Tuesday October 8th, 2024, I was invited by another member of the public to attend the police station, where I was told there was going to be a public meeting about The Mustard Seed (a local homeless shelter) and the general issues with homelessness locally.
I attended the police station at 6:30pm and used the public phone to request entry into the "meeting about the shelter". The officer buzzed me in, and Kelly, another local journalist, greeted me at the museum doors and led me into the public boardroom. There were about 30 -40 people, mostly members of the public, a table at the front of the room with representatives from The Mustard Seed, the chief of police, Alan Murphy, Inspector Joe West, S.SGt. Both, S. SGt Darcy Brandt and other, non-uniformed officers were present.
Chief Murphy opened the meeting by talking about aboriginal safety and peace pipes, as well as letting everyone know there would be more meetings like this, and that if they had not been able to attend the next venue would be larger and that anyone could come, he specifically said that nobody was being excluded.
The meeting was not well organized, there was no list of speakers, or process to give people a certain amount of time, there were no parameters set out, just a group of angry citizens allowed to hurl allegations, insults and derogatory remarks about our local vulnerable population. The police chief did not correct any demeaning language, allowing members of the public to yell things like "I have to fist fight the junkies!" - Geraldine Lidberg of the Niitsitapi Kookums had even opened her speech by demanding some dignity in this conversation. Ms Lidberg was there with other members of the Kookums and told the people that they were not invited, that they had crashed the meeting. They were not removed.
I was recording video clips with my iPhone 14 Pro, and during Geraldine's speech, I asked her to clarify her statements about a fire that had occurred inside one of the local shelters, which had forced vulnerable people outside in the cold with limited clothing.
About 30 minutes into the meeting, it is clear to all the members of the public that the meeting is so disorganized, that to be heard, you must stand up and start loudly exclaiming.
All of this was audio recorded by someone in the room. I have obtained this recording and made it public.
As soon as members of the public start to become impatient and frustrated with the ill-organized meeting, 28 minutes into the audio recording, the chief of police, Alan Murphy, singles me out, points at me, and says "I have just become aware that someone in the room is recording, I give my consent, but I cannot consent for you, so we should vote"
At this point I was confused, as it appeared the chief was attempting to infringe on my charter right to freedom of the press, by using mob rule.
Unfortunately for the chief, the vote didn't go how he wanted, and over 80% of the people in the room said they consented, and raised their hands to be counted.
Geraldine told the room "I consent! raise your hand if you consent"
People had their hands in the air waiting to be counted.
I said "I'm in public" - simply put, I was reminding the police that I have charter rights, and that those unalienable rights cannot be removed by a vote, or mob rule.
The police chief looked around the room, defeated, and then said "raise your hand if you DO NOT CONSENT" many people still had their hand in the air for the initial "I DO CONSENT" vote, to be tallied. Some were confused as to why the chief changed the wording to have the complete opposite meaning for raised hands.
The chief then proceeded to make several statements about what I could do, or if I didn't stop recording he would end the meeting. He told me he would ask me to leave, I re-iterated I believed I was in a public place, asked if he was asking me to leave because I was recording, which seemed to be a clear abuse of power.
I asked if I was being arrested for something. He said I was not under arrest. Joe West and the other officers approached me, as well as Kelly Allard. Officer Joe West asked Kelly to "give your friend some advice" and "help us out here"
Kelly told the police we are in public, and that it was not her job to help them. The 3 officers then grabbed my hands and waist of my pants. They applied pressure points to my hands and twisted my arms. NOT ONE OF the officers gave me any kind of order. I was compliant, and wanted to follow their directives, but I did not have time to understand if i was being given a lawful order, or if i was simply being asked a question.
The police applied unnecessary force to me, and violated my charter rights to freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press.
I told them I would comply. They roughed me up for over 2 minutes straight by lifting me off the ground, twisting my arms behind me, and pulling on my waist so that I was lifted off of the ground and risked falling forward on my face. My groin was crushed as they were holding me up by the waist of my pants. I told them they were hurting me and that I wasn't fighting them. They continued to force my body up and twist my arms as they dragged me through the museum hallway and into the lobby, they physically threw my body out of the front door onto the ground.
I was injured and inc complete shock, when I regained balance, I was on the cement by the lobby door, and I saw that Kelly was standing beside me, she was very upset and had a horrified look on her face.
I stood up, made sure my camera was working, and started asking for names and badge numbers, as I believed the officers had just assaulted me, and violated my rights to record.
constable Both admitted he had put his hands on me, and then told me I was under arrest for mischief and trespassing. I submitted to arrest and tried to pass my phone to Kelly. A police officer cuffed me, pulling my hand and my phone away from Kelly, they dragged me back into the lobby and shut the door on Kelly, holding it closed so that she could not witness or re-enter the public lobby.
I was booked in and kept in cells for over 3 hours. the police told me I was being trespassed from the police station and that I would have to sign an undertaking agreeing i would not go back to the police station. I did not make any statements, other than to agree with anything that would set me free, or protect me from injury. They asked me if i was hurt, I told them I was. I was too afraid to ask for medical attention, i thought that if i did, I would be targeted further or possibly hurt even worse. I remained silent, save for a call to my lawyer so that he could inform my loved ones that i was okay (even though i was scared, injured and unlawfully arrested) I didn't want Kelly or my Fiance to worry more.
After 3 hours they let me out, and made me sign a form saying they had given back my items, even though they had seized my iPhone, claiming it was evidence of the crimes. I told them I would gladly share all of the videos I had recorded that evening. Both joked that it wouldn't be a problem for him to keep my phone. I told him I had nothing to hide, but that my phone was for journalism, and I need it for work. He laughed at me and said that was my problem. I don't believe there was any reasonable investigatory reason to take my phone. I believe they took it because they know that my video will show that they did not give any lawful orders, acted under colour of law, and caused harm while violating many of my charter rights.
I allege that the chief, Alan Murphy, S.Sgt Both, S.Sgt Brandt, Inspector Joe West are all negligent, were knowingly inflicting injury and harm on me, they have caused purposeful financial harm, they have caused harm to my reputation.
This is an ongoing pattern of MHPS violating people's rights and assaulting them if they question authority, or lawfully record police in the course of their duties.
I have had an MHPS member attend my house, in uniform, to demand that I delete youtube videos on my channel, he made perplexing statements about government control and covid.
I was attacked by a firefighter while recording the scene of a fire investigation (after the fire had been put out) and MHPS failed to take any action, even though there was clear video of the incident.
This pattern of ignoring evidence, seizing a journalists phone, and kicking journalists out of public places (Kelly being removed from a public hearing) shows a continued pattern of the violation of charter rights that all citizens expect the police to uphold and protect. This pattern of behaviour has resulted in loss of public confidence in the office of the chief, many of the people who attended the meeting on october 8th have voiced complaints about the actions of the police that night, one resident writing a letter to the mayor, condemning the police brutality she witnessed.
The chief allan murphy's misconduct started when he asked for a vote to remove me from the meeting. He then directed 3 officers to assault me.
3 officers misconduct includes:
3x failure to de-escalate
3x failure to identify as police
3x failure to provide lawful orders
3x assault
3x misuse of force
3x endangering the public
3x causing a disturbance
3x conspiracy to injure
3x financial harm
3x deprivation of rights under colour of law
3x failure to provide service
3x not providing access to public
6x removing Kelly and I from a public meeting because we are journalists
3x failure to report injuries of arrestee
3x failure to provide medical care
Here is the structure we’ll use to outline the details of my complaint:
Introduction and Summary of Complaint
A clear overview of the incident, identifying the officers and chief involved, and highlighting the most critical points.Timeline of Events
A detailed chronological account of the events leading to the alleged misconduct, incorporating direct quotes and descriptions.Legal Basis for Complaint
This section will cite specific Canadian laws (e.g., Charter rights violations, criminal code sections, and police misconduct regulations) that were violated, and provide examples of relevant case law.Detailed Allegations Against Each Officer
Breakdown of each officer’s role, their specific misconduct, and the applicable regulations they violated (e.g., excessive use of force, failure to provide lawful orders, violation of freedom of the press, etc.).Impact of the Incident
A description of the physical and emotional impact the incident has had on you and Kelly, supported by medical reports and other evidence.Request for Action
Outline of what actions you’re requesting, including disciplinary measures, termination of employment, and changes to police practices.
1. It was a public boardroom and there was no signage indicating any kind of restriction. I was allowed in, and I was a very recognizable member of the local media, I was greeted by several people in attendance by name. Other people in the room also said they understood it was a public meeting.
2. Kelly and I were the only 2 members of the press. Nobody else was recording or taking photos. One member of the public later told me that she would have taken a video of what occurred, but she was in shock and it happened so quickly and unexpectedly, she also said she was afraid of police retribution if she filmed.
3. yes. In the audio recording you can hear several people yell to "stop handling him like that" and "hey let him go!" The Kookum, Ms Lidberg was very upset about what she saw too. Kelly has been traumatized from witnessing the police violence first-hand.
3 witnesses all said they were very concerned and upset by what they saw. Since I uploaded the audio recording, I have had conversations with lawyers, including local crown prosecutor Craig Weich, who agreed that the police misconduct seems clear in the audio.
1. Overview of the Incident
On the evening of October 8, 2024, I, [Your Name], attended a public meeting at the Medicine Hat Police Station in good faith, having been invited by another community member. The meeting, which was framed as a discussion about the Mustard Seed (a local homeless shelter) and broader homelessness issues, was publicly accessible, with no signage indicating any restrictions. I arrived at approximately 6:30 PM, used the public phone to request entry, and was welcomed into the public boardroom where the meeting was being held.
Among the attendees were approximately 30-40 members of the public, myself, and another journalist, Kelly Allard], both of whom are well-known members of the local press. In addition to community members, Chief Alan Murphy, Inspector Joe West, SSgt Brandt and SSGt Both were present at the meeting, along with several other officers, both in and out of uniform.
The meeting, which was led by Chief Murphy, was disorderly, with no clear process for allowing speakers to voice their concerns. There were no time limits, speaker lists, or guidance provided by the organizers, which led to a chaotic environment where members of the public made derogatory and inflammatory remarks about vulnerable populations without any intervention from law enforcement. No attempt was made to correct or moderate demeaning language.
2. Recording the Event and Initial Altercation
As the only journalists present, Kelly and I began recording portions of the meeting on our devices. While I was filming a segment of Ms Geraldine’s Lidberg speech—a local Indigenous woman discussing a fire at a homeless shelter—the meeting's lack of structure escalated into disorder. It became apparent that in order to speak, participants needed to raise their voices to be heard.
Approximately 28 minutes into the meeting, Chief Murphy noticed I was recording. At this point, he directed the room’s attention to me and stated that he could not consent to the recording on behalf of others. He then suggested a vote on whether I should be allowed to continue recording—a tactic that can be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate me and infringe upon my Charter right to freedom of the press, enshrined in Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Despite this, over 80% of the people present voiced their consent to my recording. Ms Lidberg, who was speaking, encouraged others to raise their hands if they consented. However, when this did not achieve the outcome Chief Murphy seemed to desire, he changed the wording to ask for those who did not consent, confusing the room further. This abrupt shift in language and process underscored the disorganization and manipulative nature of his approach.
3. Misconduct and Use of Force
As I stood by my legal rights and continued recording, Chief Murphy expressed his frustration and threatened to shut down the meeting if I did not comply. He instructed officers Joe West and Constable Both to engage with me. Neither officer issued any lawful orders nor gave me clear instructions about what was expected. I asked if I was being arrested and was told I was not under arrest, which added to the confusion.
Instead of de-escalating the situation or offering any formal directive, Officers West, Both, and another officer physically assaulted me. They grabbed my hands, twisted my arms, and applied unnecessary force to my waist. I repeatedly stated that I was not resisting, but they continued to inflict pain by lifting me off the ground and crushing my groin with their hold. Multiple witnesses were audibly distressed by the level of force used against me, with several people shouting to the officers to “let him go” and “stop handling him like that.”
Notably:
There was no reason to use force as I had not resisted in any way, nor had I been given a lawful order to which I could comply.
The officers failed to provide clear verbal commands or warnings.
They used excessive force in a non-threatening situation, constituting a violation of the National Use of Force Framework and established Canadian case law, including R. v. Nasogaluak (2010 SCC 6), which states that the use of excessive force by police is a breach of Charter rights under Section 7 (right to life, liberty, and security of the person).
4. Assault and Unlawful Arrest
After being dragged through the museum hallway and thrown outside the building, I was injured, disoriented, and in shock. I asked for the officers' badge numbers, believing I had just been unlawfully assaulted. The officers I asked for names and badge numbers totally ignored our pleas. Despite my injuries, I was then formally placed under arrest. However, I was not told at the time what specific charges I was facing. Kelly and I demanded to know my charges, and we were told “trespassing” and “mischief”. After being detained for three hours, I was released and informed that I was charged with "Obstructing a peace officer" and "Causing a public disturbance," neither of which had been mentioned during the incident or at the time of my arrest. These charges appeared baseless, as I had not obstructed anyone nor caused a disturbance. I had only been exercising my right to record the public meeting.
It is also important to note that the officers never had me sign an undertaking regarding trespassing or any restriction from returning to the police station. However, they did unlawfully seize my phone, which contained critical recordings of the incident, without presenting any warrant or legal justification for the seizure. This seizure was done with the clear intention of suppressing evidence of their misconduct, further compounding the violation of my rights. I offered to the investigating officer to hand over all of the videos I recorded that night, so they wouldn’t have to use additional investigatory resources, and return my property in a more reasonable timeframe.
Moreover, as of the date of this complaint, it appears that the charges against me have not yet been formally submitted, raising further concerns about the legitimacy of the arrest and the legal basis for these charges.
5. Physical and Psychological Harm
Following this incident, I sustained multiple physical injuries, as confirmed by my medical report. I suffered damage to my hands, arms, ribs, and groin. Both Kelly and I were deeply traumatized by the police violence we witnessed. Ms Lidberg, along with other witnesses, voiced their outrage over the officers' actions, and one attendee has since written a letter to the mayor condemning the police brutality.
6. Violation of Charter Rights
This series of events represents a clear violation of several Charter rights, including:
Section 2(b): Freedom of the press.
Section 7: The right to life, liberty, and security of the person, which was compromised by the use of excessive force.
Section 9: Protection against arbitrary detention, given that my arrest was baseless and unlawful.
Section 15: Equality before the law, as journalists were targeted specifically, while other attendees were not subjected to the same treatment.
Additionally, Section 24(2) of the Charter provides for the exclusion of evidence obtained in a manner that infringes on these rights. The seizure of my phone without valid cause suggests an intention to suppress incriminating evidence of police misconduct, aligning with the principles established in R. v. Grant (2009 SCC 32).
7. Pattern of Misconduct
This incident is not isolated. One of my videos of MHPS conduct was featured on LackLuster, a popular youtube channel (1.28 Million subscribers) describes itself as:
“The Police are the most conspicuous form of government. We have a duty as citizens to keep ALL government officials accountable. The monopoly on the initiation of force comes with a great deal of responsibility. Abolish Qualified Immunity, end the police unions and require personal liability insurance for all LEO's. Protect your constitutional rights.
I am a combat veteran that served with 1st Infantry Division as a combat medic. I served from 2003-2007 and spent over 13 months in Iraq. I then became a dual function Firefighter/Paramedic for the Los Angeles Fire Department. After breaking my pelvis, my ability to do the physical aspects of the job was nil. I was left with no choice but to retire.”
This incident involved an unlawful demand for ID, police intimidation, retaliatory police notes/ticket, and false charges. That video has over 92,000 views, and Thousands of public comments impugning the actions of MHPS in the video. (Link YouTube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCYAbZOne8c
Follow-up conversation with sargeant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLTLdnq10Fo
I have been previously harassed by a member of MHPS at my home, demanding that I remove videos from my YouTube channel Video on YouTube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76YK1rdyYiw&t=73s
I was also attacked by a firefighter while documenting a fire investigation, and MHPS failed to act on clear video evidence of the incident (Video on YouTube).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKio6hf8gCQ&t=76s
Being told im interfering with operations for filming in public area:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LuO28MStyw
Being warned by Lethbridge police about “intercepting private communications” after conducting a phone interview with the owner of The Denny’s in Lethbridge:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGSAHXlBuB8
This recurring pattern of rights violations, targeting of journalists, and suppression of lawful recording has severely undermined public trust in the Medicine Hat Police Service.
8. Demands for Action
Given the severity of these incidents, I am requesting that the Medicine Hat Police Commission:
Conduct a thorough investigation into the actions of Chief Alan Murphy, Inspector Joe West, SSgt Both, SSGt Brandt and all officers involved in this incident.
Hold those responsible accountable for their misconduct, including disciplinary action and, if warranted, termination of their employment.
Review and strengthen the policies governing police interactions with journalists and the use of force in non-violent situations.
Ensure that the recordings taken on my phone are preserved as evidence for the investigation.
I trust that the Medicine Hat Police Commission will treat this complaint with the seriousness it deserves and take appropriate action to address the significant breaches of public trust demonstrated by these officers.
9. Charges and Misconduct
After being taken into custody, I was not charged with the initially stated offenses of "trespassing" and "mischief." Instead, I was charged with obstructing a peace officer and causing a public disturbance—charges that had not been mentioned during the arrest or incident. These charges were never explained to me in a manner that aligned with the events as they unfolded. Furthermore, to this day, it appears that my charges have not been formally submitted, which raises concerns about the legitimacy of the charges themselves.
10. Unlawful Seizure of Property
During my arrest, the officers seized my iPhone without providing a warrant or lawful basis for doing so. Upon my release, I was made to sign a form titled "Property Returned." This form included a list of items taken from me while I was in detention, including my sweater, shoes, fanny pack, and phone. However, despite the title of the form, my phone was not returned to me.
When I protested that my phone was on the list but had not been returned, the officers told me this was “normal procedure.” They made a handwritten note on the form and pressured me to sign it. I was not provided with a copy of this document, despite my request. Feeling scared and confused, I signed the form under duress, writing "UNDER DURESS" next to my signature. I am deeply concerned that my phone was unlawfully seized and fear I may never recover it.
11. Witnesses and Audio Evidence
Several witnesses at the scene can confirm the excessive use of force by the officers and the absence of any legitimate cause for my removal from the meeting. Kelly, who witnessed the entire event, has been deeply traumatized by what she saw. Another member of the public later informed me that she would have recorded the incident but was too shocked by how quickly it escalated and feared police retaliation if she had filmed.
Additionally, I have an audio recording of the incident that captures the officers’ excessive handling and the vocal protests of bystanders, including individuals asking the police to stop their forceful actions. Legal professionals I have consulted, including local crown prosecutor Craig Weich, have also reviewed the recording and noted clear indications of police misconduct.
12. Conclusion and Request for Resolution
I firmly believe my arrest, the charges levied against me, and the seizure of my phone were all conducted unlawfully and without proper justification. I request the following actions be taken immediately:
A formal review of the conduct of the officers involved in my arrest.
An explanation for the charges brought against me and why they differ from those stated at the time of my arrest.
The immediate return of my iPhone or a transparent explanation for its continued seizure.
A copy of the "Property Returned" form I signed under duress, which was unlawfully withheld from me.
An investigation into the failure to submit my charges in a timely manner, raising questions about their legitimacy.
I am open to providing additional evidence, including witness testimonies and audio recordings of the incident, to assist in this investigation. I trust this matter will be treated with the seriousness it deserves and expect a prompt and thorough response.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
13. Detailed Allegations of Police Misconduct
The following is a list of misconduct allegations for each officer involved in my arrest. I will provide individual accounts of their actions during the incident, supported by witness statements and audio evidence.
Officer [Officer 1 Name]:
Excessive Force: This officer initiated physical contact without first providing a clear or lawful reason for my removal. Witnesses, including Geraldine, expressed concern about the aggressive nature of this officer’s handling.
Failure to Communicate Charges: While initially claiming I was being arrested for trespassing and mischief, this officer failed to explain why these charges were being levied against me or what specific actions constituted "trespassing" at a public meeting.
Disregard for Public Concern: Despite multiple members of the public urging the officer to stop, including direct pleas from Kristen Mann and Kelly Allard, this officer ignored their objections and continued to use unnecessary force.
Officer [Officer 2 Name]:
Unlawful Seizure of Property: This officer personally took my phone during the arrest without obtaining a warrant or offering any justification for its seizure. The phone was never returned to me, and no proper documentation was provided, raising serious legal concerns.
Failure to Follow Proper Procedure: When I was made to sign the "Property Returned" form under duress, this officer did not ensure that I understood the form’s contents and refused to provide me with a copy. This breach of procedure not only violated my rights but also left me without documentation of what had been unlawfully taken.
Psychological Intimidation: This officer contributed to a hostile environment by repeatedly ignoring my protests about the phone’s seizure, causing unnecessary distress and confusion.
Officer [Officer 3 Name]:
False Declaration of Charges: At the time of the arrest, this officer asserted that I was being charged with trespassing and mischief, but later, I was charged with obstructing a peace officer and causing a public disturbance. This inconsistency demonstrates either a lack of coordination or intentional misrepresentation, both of which are violations of procedure.
Failure to De-escalate the Situation: Despite my calm demeanor and attempts to clarify the misunderstanding, this officer chose to escalate the situation, using unnecessary physical force and contributing to the overall misconduct by failing to properly investigate the legitimacy of the charges.
Officer [Officer 4 Name]:
Unlawful Detention: This officer played a key role in detaining me without legal cause. The arrest was conducted under the pretense of charges that were never properly articulated, and I was taken into custody without being read my rights or provided a valid legal basis for the arrest.
Intimidation of Witnesses: This officer’s actions intimidated other members of the public, preventing them from filming the arrest out of fear of police retaliation. Witness KELLY ALLARD later told me that she would have filmed the incident but was too scared of potential repercussions.
14. Unlawful Seizure of Property
During my arrest, my phone was seized without a warrant. Despite being made to sign a form titled "Property Returned," the phone was never actually returned. Instead, I was pressured into signing a document under duress that falsely claimed all my property had been returned to me. I have yet to receive my phone, and no legal justification has been provided for its seizure.
This represents a clear violation of my rights under Canadian law, which protects individuals from unlawful search and seizure. The officers involved in this unlawful seizure must be held accountable, and my property must be returned to me immediately.
15. Witnesses and Evidence
The following individuals are witnesses to the events and can provide testimony regarding the police misconduct:
KM: [Contact Information]
Kelly Allard: [Contact Information]
Geraldine Lidberg and the Kookums: [Contact Information]
I have also included an audio recording of the incident, which captures both the excessive use of force by the officers and the vocal protests of bystanders.
16. Legal Implications and Review
Based on my understanding of Canadian law and consultation with legal professionals, including local crown prosecutor Craig Weich, the actions of the officers involved clearly constitute police misconduct. The unlawful seizure of my property, the use of excessive force, and the failure to follow proper legal procedures all raise serious concerns about the officers' adherence to their duties and the protection of my rights.
17. Conclusion and Requests
I formally request that the following actions be taken:
A thorough investigation into the conduct of each officer involved in my arrest.
The immediate return of my unlawfully seized property, specifically my iPhone.
A review of the charges levied against me, including an explanation for the inconsistencies between the charges mentioned at the time of my arrest and the charges I am currently facing.
Copies of all documentation related to my arrest, including the "Property Returned" form that I signed under duress.
Disciplinary actions against the officers involved in the unlawful actions outlined above.
18. Applicable Case Law & Legal Precedents
Use of Force and Reasonableness:
As established in Mugesera v. Canada (2005 SCC 40), "reasonable grounds" for the use of force require more than suspicion but less than proof beyond a balance of probabilities.
Interpretation: This standard must guide all officers’ actions during confrontations, particularly in volatile situations involving potential public safety risks.
Objective Reasonableness Standard:
The Reasonable Officer Response Model, adopted by the Edmonton Police, outlines how the force used should be proportionate to the perceived threat and subject to objective scrutiny, as evidenced in the Edmonton Police Service's 40% reduction in control tactics from 2009-2013.
Bias and Discrimination:
In R. v. Golden (2001 SCC 83), the court ruled that strip searches and other invasive procedures must not be conducted in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner. This applies equally to any discretionary acts of policing.
19. Conclusion and Request for Disciplinary Action
Given the documented evidence and witness testimonies, this complaint outlines serious misconduct by [Officer Names]. The use of excessive force, biased policing, and unlawful arrest and searches require immediate investigation and action. I am requesting that the Police Oversight Board thoroughly review each officer's conduct in accordance with the outlined case law.
I will continue to cooperate by providing additional witness statements and any required documents.
20. Legal Framework
I. Introduction
Police use of force is a critical issue in law enforcement, governed by legal standards and influenced by officers' perceptions of threat and safety. In Canada, the legal standard for use of force is based on “reasonable grounds,” a concept that plays a central role in justifying police actions in dynamic and often dangerous situations. However, cognitive biases and systemic shortcomings in use-of-force models, such as the National Use of Force Framework, frequently lead to the overuse of force, particularly in cases where de-escalation should be prioritized.
This complaint outlines concerns related to the unreasonable use of force, explores the legal framework that supports such decisions, and highlights the psychological and institutional factors that contribute to excessive policing tactics. I call for an immediate review of both the standards applied and the practices officers rely on, with recommendations for adopting more transparent, accountable models of law enforcement.
II. Police Use of Force and the Reasonable Grounds Standard
The term “reasonable grounds” refers to a standard of belief held by an officer that lies between mere suspicion and proof on a civil balance of probabilities. Under this standard, police officers must determine that their actions, particularly in cases involving the use of force, are objectively reasonable based on the circumstances as they perceive them. This standard is meant to be flexible, allowing officers to react to threats quickly.
However, this flexibility often creates a gray area where officers' decisions to use force may be difficult to challenge, even when those decisions result in harm to civilians. In practice, this has led to situations where police officers act on biases, preconceptions, and sometimes faulty assessments of danger, rather than clear and present threats. The Supreme Court of Canada in Mugesera v Canada (2005) outlined that reasonable grounds must be based on objective information, yet many instances suggest that police fail to adequately meet this threshold, resulting in excessive force.
The broad interpretation of “reasonable grounds” permits the overuse of force, particularly when officers rely more on their subjective feelings of threat than on the actual presence of immediate danger. This vagueness in application creates an environment where excessive force becomes more justifiable under the law than necessary, and calls for a stricter, clearer standard that emphasizes accountability.
III. Cognitive Biases and Officer Safety Practices
A major issue contributing to the misuse of force is the impact of cognitive biases developed through officer safety practices. In training, officers are taught passive safety measures (like maintaining distance) and assertive ones (like positioning hands near a weapon), which create an ever-present sense of readiness for violence. While safety is a crucial concern, these practices foster a mindset where officers are primed to expect the worst, often leading them to escalate situations unnecessarily.
The fear of potential threat causes officers to act on possibilities rather than realities, frequently overreacting to situations that do not warrant force. Research shows that officers who operate under this bias may engage in a disproportionate use of force because they are conditioned to prioritize their own safety over other considerations, even when actual danger is minimal. This creates a paradox in law enforcement, where the very practices meant to ensure safety often heighten the risk of violence.
A key example of this can be seen in how officers react during traffic stops, particularly with marginalized groups. The perception that a person might pose a threat, based on factors like race, leads officers to draw weapons or engage in force far earlier than is justified, often escalating the situation rather than resolving it. This highlights the need for police training that counters these biases, encouraging officers to use communication and de-escalation first rather than immediately resorting to force.
IV. Transitioning from Defensive to Offensive Actions
Another major issue in police use of force arises from the transition between defensive and offensive actions. When police officers move from defensive, possibility-based thinking (where they are preparing for possible threats) to offensive action (such as physical restraint or weapon use), they often cross a legal and moral threshold. While it is essential that police respond appropriately to real threats, this shift must be based on probable cause, not just fear or uncertainty.
The distinction between possibility-based safety measures and probability-based force is essential to lawful police intervention. However, the pressure of rapid decision-making, particularly in high-stress environments, frequently causes officers to escalate unnecessarily. This is particularly true in situations where officers have already mentally prepared for violence, leading them to act prematurely.
This transition is often the moment when reasonable grounds are abandoned in favor of pre-emptive action, which violates the principles of proportionality and necessity that govern lawful force. Training should therefore emphasize the importance of distinguishing between perceived threats and actual, probable danger, reinforcing the idea that force must be used as a last resort.
V. Psychological Responses to Threats of Violence
Police officers exhibit unique psychological responses to different types of threats. Studies indicate that officers are far more likely to react aggressively to the threat of interpersonal violence than to other dangers, such as vehicle accidents. For example, while body armor is widely worn by officers to protect against gunfire, there is a noted reluctance to wear seatbelts, even though vehicle accidents are a leading cause of death among officers.
This behavior illustrates how fear of sudden, unexpected violence—such as an ambush—drives officers to prioritize certain threats over others, even when statistical evidence suggests that these fears are disproportionate. Officers' heightened vigilance against violent threats influences their readiness to use force, even when non-violent dangers are more likely.
This psychological bias not only impacts officers' safety practices but also how they interact with the public, particularly in situations that involve heightened tension. Rather than approaching situations with an open mind, officers conditioned to expect violence may preemptively use force, exacerbating rather than resolving conflicts.
VI. The National Use of Force Framework
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) has developed a National Use of Force Framework to guide officers in their responses to varying levels of subject behavior. This framework encourages officers to select from a range of responses, from communication to the use of weapons, depending on the situation at hand. However, the framework falls short in a number of critical areas, particularly its lack of emphasis on de-escalation.
The current framework prioritizes force-based options and offers little clarity on how officers should respond when communication or peaceful interventions might be more appropriate. The legal justification for the use of force is heavily influenced by the behavior of the subject, but this leads to officers defaulting to force even in situations that could be managed without violence.
Justice Iacobucci's 2014 report criticized this framework for failing to integrate de-escalation as a core component, instead focusing heavily on controlling subjects. Without clearer guidance on when and how to use communication, officers are left to rely on force as their primary tool, leading to frequent overuse of physical tactics.
VII. Justice Iacobucci’s Critique of the Use of Force Model
Justice Iacobucci's 2014 report into the Toronto Police Services' handling of mentally ill individuals provided a thorough critique of the existing use-of-force model. He argued that the framework's focus on controlling subjects through physical means fails to address the root causes of many confrontations, particularly those involving vulnerable individuals. By emphasizing force, the model ignores the potential for de-escalation and peaceful resolution.
Iacobucci called for reforms that would embed communication and de-escalation as core elements of policing, urging a move away from the over-reliance on physical tactics. He emphasized that officers need clearer guidelines on when and how to intervene lawfully, particularly in cases where force is unnecessary. This critique highlights the broader need for systemic changes to police training and operations, focusing on reducing the use of force and improving interactions with the public.
VIII. The Edmonton Police Service’s Reasonable Officer Response Model
The Edmonton Police Service has adopted an alternative model that emphasizes reasonable officer responses, focusing on communication, tactical considerations, and legal obligations. This model aims to ensure that officers use force only when absolutely necessary, encouraging them to first attempt peaceful resolutions.
From 2009 to 2013, the Edmonton Police Service saw a 40 percent reduction in the use of control tactics, demonstrating the model’s success. By focusing on de-escalation and emphasizing objective reasonableness, the model ensures that officers make fact-based decisions rather than acting on suspicion or bias. This approach has led to better outcomes for both officers and civilians, reducing harm and improving community relations.
IX. Objective Reasonableness and Accountability
The Reasonable Officer Response model highlights the importance of objective reasonableness in decision-making. Rather than relying on vague suspicions or biases, officers are encouraged to evaluate the facts of each situation and ask critical questions about the necessity and proportionality of their actions. This shift from subjective fear to objective analysis is crucial in preventing the overuse of force.
By adopting objective reasonableness as a standard, police services can reduce the frequency of unnecessary force and improve accountability. Officers are more likely to make decisions that are transparent and defensible when they are based on facts rather than assumptions, ensuring that their actions align with legal and moral standards.
X. Control Tactics and Supervisory Oversight
A key element of reducing police use of force is the role of supervisory oversight and thorough reporting. The Edmonton Police Service’s model emphasizes the need for continuous training and oversight to ensure that officers are adhering to best practices. This approach has led to fewer instances of excessive force and greater accountability within the service.
By implementing regular reviews of use-of-force incidents and encouraging officers to document their actions in detail, police services can foster a culture of professionalism and responsibility. This not only protects the public, but also the public bodies from potential lawsuits.
