MHPC Seems to Be Opting to Run Out the Clock on Complaint Against MHPS Chief, et al
The Medicine Hat Police Service (MHPS) can get away with abusing their power by abusing their power especially when the Medicine Hat Police Commission avoids their obligation to investigate complaints.
Oct 8 2024, before these officers assaulted journalist Thomas Fougere at the Medicine Hat police station inside the Aahkoinnimaan ni Boardroom. The name was bestowed by Elder Charlie Fox of the Kainai Nation. The name translates as “the sacred pipe”, a symbol of justice and peace that has a traditional role in the resolution of issues. The violence perpetrated by the officers in that room was contrary to the theme of peace and justice.
Timeline
Oct 8 2024 Three MHPS officers, in the presence of Chief Murphy, physically assaulted Medicine Hat Owl journalist Thomas Fougere for observing his Charter Rights to a Free Press; not once did Murphy stop his officers. Fougere was openly recording a public meeting in a public building which is a fundamental right protected by section 2b of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Fougere suffered bodily harm; a number of witnesses including myself developed PTSD symptoms from witnessing their actions.
This is an audio recording of the events of that evening.
Trigger Warning - Disturbing audio, audible screams of pain, some very salty language uttered by me
This is a shorter version and includes video recorded by Fougere himself as well as the audio recording.
Oct 28 2024 I filed a complaint against MHPS Chief Alan Murphy and 3 of his officers for their actions on Oct 8. As journalists, we had every right to record that public meeting. Tom recorded one of the officers confirming that it was a public meeting.
The officers involved in this incident are:
Chief Alan Murphy
Inspector Joe West
SSgt Darcy Brandt
SSgt Cory Both
Unnamed Person (Female) Who Answered the Red Phone
Dec 20 2024 I received an official update on my complaint 53 days later. The Police Act requires an update be given at least every 45 days. They said they needed to seek legal advice. This told me that
1 They were not dismissing our complaints out of hand.
2 They were actively investigating our complaints against Chief Murphy and the other officers.
3 That there was a problem with the way Chief Murphy and the other officers acted October 8 2024.
Feb 7 2025 I requested an update on my complaint, 49 days after the last update.
after 105 days of hemming and hawing the Medicine Hat Police Commission has Finally found a reason to delay the investigation
Feb 10 2025 The update I received 52 days after the last update said -
“…As your complaint is directly related to an incident involving ongoing criminal proceedings the investigation will remain in abeyance until those matters are concluded.”
After receiving the update, I sent an e-mail that same day to Chair Paul Carolan about how outraged I was as well as being disappointed.
Feb 11 2025 I sent another e-mail to Chair Paul Carolan asking him to “Please provide me with the part of the Police Act or the part of the Medicine Hat Police Commission policy, where it says the investigation may be postponed if criminal charges are involved.” I also said
“Justice delayed is justice denied.”
Feb 12 2025 I sent another e-mail to Chair Paul Carolan, this time saying
“I have questions about the MHPC.
Question – when people are appointed to the police commission, what training do they receive?
Question – where can I find the policy manual that the police commission uses when making decisions? NB - I have already read bylaw 1651 and the police act.
If you will not respond to this email, then please respond to these questions at the Feb 19 police commission meeting. It is unlikely that I will attend this meeting in person. My PTSD is triggered when I am around Chief Murphy and the other officers who I filed the complaint against, but I will watch the recording.”
Feb 13 2025 I called and left a message on the contact MHPC phone just before 10am. I also sent yet another e-mail asking for a comment.
I have not received any replies at the time of publication.
Complaint Was Not Dismissed
Not once did they dismiss my complaint as frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. That tells me that they believe there is reason to suspect that these officers did the wrong thing, yet they are trying to find any reason to delay their investigation, perhaps until their term is up, who knows? This is as disturbing as it is disappointing.
I have searched the following documents in vain trying to find where the MHPC is allowed to suspend an investigation pending the conclusion of criminal charges.
The Police Act
I even contacted the Law Enforcement Review Board (LERB). They said
As you have no decision to appeal at this time, the board is unable to assist you in this matter.
I did a little more searching, this time about the Statute of Limitations for assault charges. The Criminal Code of Canada says
Assault
266 Every one who commits an assault is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
There is no Statute of Limitations on Indictable Offences. Summary Convictions are another matter and charges must be laid within 12 months of the date of the alleged act.
I looked up the The Alberta Police Regulation which says
“Misconduct of a police officer
5(1) A police officer shall not engage in any action that constitutes one or more of the following:
(a) breach of confidence;
(b) consumption or use of liquor or drugs in a manner that is prejudicial to duty;
(c) corrupt practice;
(d) deceit;
(e) discreditable conduct;
(f) improper use of firearms;
(g) insubordination;
(h) neglect of duty;
(i) unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority.
Items (e) and (i) are the ones that would apply to this situation
e) “discreditable conduct” consists of one or more of the following:
(i) contravening
(A) an Act of the Parliament of Canada,
(B) an Act of the Legislature of Alberta, or
(C) any regulation made under an Act of either the Parliament of Canada or the Legislature of Alberta,
where the contravention is of such a character that it would be prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit on the reputation of the police service;
(i) “unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority” consists of one or both of the following:
(i) exercising his authority as a police officer when it is unlawful or unnecessary to do so;
(ii) applying inappropriate force in circumstances in which force is used.
…
Time limits
7(1) A police officer shall not be charged with contravening section 5 at any time after 6 months from the day that a complaint is made in accordance with section 43 of the Act.
(2) Subject to section 47(2) and (3) of the Act, where a hearing is to be held under the Act, the hearing shall be commenced no later than 3 months from the day that a police officer is charged with contravening section 5.
(3) Where a hearing is commenced under the Act it shall, subject to section 47(1)(i) of the Act, be completed within a reasonable time and without undue delay.
(4) Notwithstanding that time limits are prescribed under this section, the commission may, if it is of the opinion that circumstances warrant it, extend any one or more of those time limits.
(5) The time limits set out in subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in respect of a matter where the Law Enforcement Review Board has ordered under section 20(2) of the Act that a hearing or rehearing of the matter be conducted.
The Clock is Ticking
This puts a clock on when the police officer can be charged after a complaint is received - six months. Six months usually means 180 days. The clock is ticking (unless the MHPC decides to extend the time limits). The first complaint was filed by Fougere on Oct 25 2024, 111 days ago as of Feb 13 2025. That leaves only 69 days for the MHPC to address the complaint before it vanishes like ephemera.
The MHPC website says
“3. As a statutory body, the Commission must be and be seen to be:
a. Independent of Police Service administration and management, political affiliation and interest groups;
b. Accessible to both the Police Service and the public;
c. Publicly accountable for the governance of the Police Service, and;
4. Responsive to the needs of the community.
The MHPC and the MHPS Have Lost My Trust
After witnessing the events of Oct 8 2024, I lost a lot of faith in our police service. I thought that by filing a formal complaint that the MHPC would investigate this event in a timely manner. Instead, we are told we must wait as the clock is ticking down. Meanwhile, these officers are still on the street; the senior brass is at many public events.
I feel very differently about the police since October 8 2024. Now when I see these police officers I do not see someone that is going to help or protect me, I see them as potential attackers. My PTSD kicks in, I get nervous, anxious, I might even cry. I avoid places where I know they will be such as police commission meetings.
There are good Medicine Hat Police officers who do their best to serve the public but their reputations are tarnished when the top cop thinks it is okay to assault a journalist doing their job.
