ASIRT Concludes Investigation Into RCMP Shooting on Saddle Lake Cree Nation

The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) has concluded its investigation into an RCMP officer-involved shooting on December 13, 2022, at Saddle Lake Cree Nation. The investigation determined that while the officer’s decision to fire at the tire of a fleeing suspect’s vehicle violated RCMP policy, the action was not criminal. ASIRT found the officer acted reasonably under the circumstances to protect a fellow officer, making a split-second decision in response to an imminent threat.

Incident Overview

On the day of the incident, St. Paul RCMP identified a suspect (the affected person, or AP) driving a stolen minivan and believed to be carrying a firearm. Officers followed the vehicle to a rural property on Saddle Lake Cree Nation. Upon arrival, the SO parked his marked vehicle, followed by another officer. The AP, attempting to flee, drove the minivan into the SO’s vehicle, prompting the SO to discharge a firearm at the vehicle’s rear passenger tire.

The AP eventually surrendered without further incident. A search of the vehicle revealed a sawed-off shotgun and ammunition.

Key Findings

Actions of the Subject Officer
The SO fired a single shot, aiming to immobilize the vehicle and protect another officer believed to be in immediate danger. This action violated RCMP policy, which prohibits shooting at vehicles to disable them. However, ASIRT determined the action was not criminal. The decision was made under rapidly evolving circumstances, where the SO believed there was a significant threat to his colleague’s safety.

RCMP Policy on Shooting at Vehicles
RCMP guidelines discourage shooting at vehicles due to the limited effectiveness of such actions and the increased risk to bystanders. While the SO’s action contravened this policy, ASIRT acknowledged it was made in a high-pressure situation with some justification under the Criminal Code’s provisions for defence of persons.

Suspect’s Conduct
The AP, highly intoxicated at the time, admitted to attempting to escape police but was unaware a shot had been fired. His driving, which included ramming a police vehicle, posed significant risks to officers on the scene.

Conclusion

While the SO’s actions did not align with RCMP policy, ASIRT concluded they were not criminal. The SO’s response to the perceived threat was deemed reasonable under the circumstances and consistent with the defence provisions in the Criminal Code. The case highlights officers’ challenges when making split-second decisions under high-stakes conditions.

The investigation underscores the importance of adherence to RCMP policy while recognizing the complexities of real-world policing.