MHPS Admits Collusion on Use of Force Reports

Feb 19 Medicine Hat Police Commission meeting - photo credit Kelly Allard

Shocking Admission About Use of Force Reports

 Police officers SSgt Holt and Cst Weisgerber made a shocking admission about the Use of Force Reports at the 5:26 mark at the Feb 19 2025 MHPC meeting , saying 

We're responsible for submitting a use of force report. These can include something very minor in nature all the way to the most extreme such as an officer involved shooting or something along those lines. Whenever there is a use of force despite however many members are involved - there could be four or five members involved. Whenever there is a use of force report only one report will be submitted just for accurate recordkeeping.

I’m going to repeat that last line.

Whenever there is a use of force report only one report will be submitted just for accurate recordkeeping.

That should send a chill down everybody’s spine. 

Accurate record keeping? If there are 4 or 5 members involved in a shooting, how can they possibly give the same report? Would police accept a group report from multiple witnesses to the same event?

Not a chance in hell.

Proper Procedure Means
Multiple Officers File Individual Reports

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada Deskbook says

“Credibility is a complex matter. Crown counsel must be mindful that all witnesses including police witnesses may have different opportunities to observe an incident and differing perspectives and may therefore honestly provide inconsistent testimony.

Reliability has to do with the accuracy of a witness’ testimony and may include consideration of a witness’ ability to observe, recall or recount the issue. A Court may reject a police witness’ testimony in whole or in part, or make a finding which is inconsistent with the witness’ testimony without necessarily finding that the witness was dishonest in his or her testimony.”

Ontario Appeals Court Case from 1995 - 30 years ago. R. v. U. (F.J.), 1995 CanLII 74 (SCC), [1995] 3 SCR 764, Says

When two statements contain similar assertions of fact, one of the following must be true:

1.   The similarity is purely coincidental.

2. The similarity is the result of collusion between the two declarants, before one or both of their statements were made.

3.   The second declarant knew of the contents of the first statement, and based his or her statement in whole or in part on this knowledge.

4.  The similarity is due to the influence of third parties, such as an interrogator, who affected the contents of one or both of the statements.

5.   The similarity occurred because the two declarants were both referring to an actual event -- that is, they were both telling the truth.

In this case, point #2 applies. We know this because it is on the record.

Page 14-15 of The Eyewitness Guide for Law Enforcement (1999 - US Department of Justice) says

Preservation and documentation of the scene, including information from witnesses and physical evidence, are necessary for a thorough preliminary investigation. The methods used by the preliminary investigating officer have a direct impact on the amount and accuracy of the information obtained throughout the investigation.

The preliminary investigating officer shall obtain, preserve, and use the maximum amount of accurate information from the scene.

After securing the scene and attending to any victims and injured persons, the preliminary investigating officer should:

… 5) Separate witnesses and instruct them to avoid discussing details of the incident with other witnesses…

The Police integrity Commission - Report to Parliament (Australia) - Operation Barmouth documents a case where a man was charged with punching an officer in the nose. The report found that most of the eight officers involved all had the same thing to say and unfortunately the CCTV footage was faulty.

Long story short - the report said that six of the eight police officers should be prosecuted for making Untrue Assertions, that four of those six should also face prosecution for using more force than was necessary. Special Branch was able to fix the issues with the camera footage that proved the innocence of the man charged with assaulting an officer.

pg xv - (iii) The NSW Police Force handbook and the NSW Police Force brief preparation guide stress that a statement by an officer should be his own independent individual account of what he observed happen in an incident. In the present case the Commission has found that each of the police officers Walmsley, Mewing, Eckersley, Woolven and McCubben in making his statement adopted assertions by Hill about matters of which the officer did not have an independent recollection of his own at the time of making his statement…

pg xvii Where an alleged event was clearly shown in the CCTV footage, the CCTV footage was conclusive in resolving any conflict in the oral evidence and in determining what had really happened.

If there had been no CCTV footage, the issue of whether Barker had assaulted Hill would have had to have been determined by any tribunal on the oral evidence of the witnesses. It is practically certain that a tribunal would have preferred the virtually unanimous evidence of half a dozen police officers to the evidence of an individual, Barker, who was affected by alcohol, who had engaged in violent and threatening conduct on 14 January 2011 and who, in any event, had only a very limited recollection of what had happened inside the police station.

…A member of the public is particularly vulnerable inside a police station. If any dispute arises between a member of the public and police officers as to what happened inside a police station, there is likely to be a police version of what happened which will be presented in the evidence of a number of police officers, whereas the member of the public is unlikely to be able to call on any witness to support his or her version of what happened. Accordingly, CCTV within police stations is an important protection for members of the public.

Separation of Witnesses Was SOP Over 25 Years Ago

Standard procedure 25 years ago said that during an investigation the police are supposed to separate witnesses before taking their statements, thereby not giving the witnesses a chance to collude or influence each other’s stories. If a case was brought where all of the witnesses /participants had the exact same story, the lawyers would rightly ask to have the testimony thrown out of court (as it should be). When trial witnesses are called to testify, they are often kept out of the court until they are called so as not to taint their testimony.

It is astounding that our police force thinks it is okay to have only one Use of Force report filed. Not only does the MHPS not follow basic investigative procedures when it comes to use of force reports, they are openly admitting it on tape for the entire world to see. The sheer arrogance is mind blowing.

Chief Alan Murphy did not bat an eye at this astounding revelation on Wednesday evening. The other 3 other white-shirted officers at the horseshoe said nothing that night. Not one of the MHPC civilian members used their opportunity to ask questions about this. 

Feb 19 MHPC meeting

L-R Chief Alan Murphy, Deputy Chief Raj Saini, Insp Joe West, Insp Jason Graham

I have questions

Question Are MHPS officers colluding on other reports? If so, which ones?

Question How long have they been filing only one report per Use of Force incident?

Question When the MHPC chooses to ignore bad behaviour, who holds the MHPC accountable?

Question How is the MHPC okay with police admitting that they’re colluding on their Use of Force reports? 

Question How can justice be served when the Crown Prosecutor receives the exact same report from 3, 5, 10 officers? 

Question When the MHPS top brass condones violating standard police procedure when filing their own reports, how can we trust that we are going to get justice in Medicine Hat? 

No Trust In the Selection Of MHPC Members
No Faith in Effectiveness of MHPC

The current selection process of Commission Members is problematic. When the applications are provided to the police chief for comment or concern before it even goes to the Administrative and Legislative Review Committee, that sheds doubt on the entire process.

Currently, Council members vote on the MHPC applicants (with the exception of the province-appointed commissioners). The fact that they are given the applicant names during this process makes it easy for even unconscious bias to enter the process. It appears to be nothing more than a popularity contest with very little consideration given to community representation.

We need community representation on the MHPC.
We need people on the MHPC who will question the police top brass and keep them in line;
to do otherwise is to allow the MHPS to run roughshod over the residents of this fair city with impunity.
The good cops in this fair city (and they are out there) deserve nothing less.