RCMP-Involved Shooting Raises Questions About Transparency and Access to Evidence
EVIDENCE PHOTO
Figure 1: Shotgun AP possessed and discharged during this incident.
On October 10, 2022, an RCMP officer fatally shot a suspect near Sherwood Park, Alberta, during a series of dramatic events stemming from the investigation of an erratic driver. The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) concluded its investigation into the incident, citing the actions of the officers involved as "reasonable." However, public scrutiny has intensified as ASIRT refused to release key video evidence, instead advising that access could only be sought through a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) request.
The events began in the early hours at a gas station in Ardrossan, where an RCMP officer encountered a stolen BMW X5. The suspect, identified as the Affected Person (AP), reportedly fired a sawed-off shotgun at the officer, prompting a return shot before fleeing the scene. The situation escalated later that evening, culminating in a hostage situation involving a civilian bystander (CW3). According to ASIRT's report, the AP threatened to kill CW3, which led to the fatal shooting by RCMP officers. You can read the full report on the OPEN ALBERTA PORTAL, where the province archieves all of it’s public data.
The Evidence ASIRT Won't Release
ASIRT’s investigation relied heavily on Watchguard in-car video systems, witness testimony, and forensic evidence to assess the use of force. Their report meticulously outlines events captured on the videos, including:
The initial encounter at the gas station.
The pursuit and confrontation near Highway 21.
The declaration of a hostage situation and subsequent gunfire.
Despite ASIRT’s reliance on these recordings, the organization maintains a policy of not releasing such footage, citing “We never release the body cam videos”. This has sparked frustration among advocates for transparency and accountability in policing, who argue that access to such evidence is vital for public trust.
Witness Accounts and the Public Interest
Witness testimonies paint a harrowing picture of the incident. CW3, a bystander trying to assist, described being held at gunpoint by the suspect and pleaded for her life before hearing gunfire that ended the standoff. CW4, another bystander, detailed the chaotic moments leading up to the shooting, including commands from officers and threats from the suspect.
These accounts, while vivid, leave gaps that the video evidence could fill. Public access to this footage could help clarify the sequence of events, the officers' decision-making, and the overall handling of the situation.
ASIRT's Position and the FOIP Barrier
ASIRT’s suggestion to file a FOIP request as a means of accessing the video evidence raises additional concerns. FOIP processes can be costly, time-consuming, and fraught with bureaucratic hurdles, effectively discouraging public access to information. This approach undermines calls for greater transparency in law enforcement oversight, especially in incidents involving the use of lethal force.
The Broader Implications
This case highlights a recurring tension between law enforcement agencies, oversight bodies, and the public. While ASIRT emphasizes the importance of protecting privacy and procedural integrity, critics argue that withholding critical evidence like video recordings fosters mistrust. The lack of transparency in high-profile cases risks eroding public confidence in police accountability.
As the debate over access to evidence continues, this case underscores the need for clearer policies that balance privacy concerns with the public's right to scrutinize the actions of law enforcement. In the absence of this balance, questions about the incident—and about ASIRT's commitment to transparency—are likely to persist.
Conclusion
The refusal to release video evidence of the Sherwood Park incident exemplifies the challenges facing police oversight in Alberta. For those seeking accountability and justice, ASIRT’s stance feels like a roadblock rather than a resolution. As the community grapples with the implications of this case, the demand for transparent, accessible processes will only grow louder.
