ELK POINT – In 2019, two members of the Elk Point RCMP detachment allegedly pointed tasers, a form of conducted energy weapon (CEW) at a civilian employee. The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) investigated the incident and released a report.
The civilian employee – the affected person (AP) of the investigation – worked at the detachment from early 2018 to late 2019.
On Jan. 19, 2024, ASIRT released its report, following the investigation’s completion.
According to the report, the AP said she knew a taser was pointed at her because of the taser’s red laser. She also said this happened multiple times in the past.
The civilian co-worker reported it was common for officers at the detachment to point their “CEW lasers at her and other civilian staff as a joke,” and was never threatening.
Both officers denied they pointed their CEW at the AP, with one of the officers stating that in the past, officers had pointed their cartridge-less CEWs at each other, as a joke.
Matthew Block, assistant executive director at ASIRT, concluded that CEWs had been pointed at a detachment staff “in a joking manner.” According to the report, one of the officers of the incident “had been involved in such actions before” but not toward the AP.
“While the evidence gathered in this investigation was insufficient to support specific criminal charges, there is evidence of misuse of CEWs in Elk Point detachment. Such matters are outside of the scope of ASIRT and are more properly dealt with by the RCMP internally,” concluded Block's report.
Prosecution’s opinion
ASIRT said there were reasonable grounds to believe an offence may have been committed based on the AP’s statement. They referred the matter to the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service (ACPS) for an opinion.
On July 6, 2021, ACPS recommended no charges be laid.
According to ASIRT, the ACPS use different rules when deciding if charges should be brought after an investigation.
ASIRT looks at whether there's a good reason to believe a crime happened, based on the Criminal Code.
Meanwhile, ACPS, following its own rules, will decide if there is “a reasonable likelihood of conviction arising out of the evidence,” and if it is in the public interest to pursue charges. Because of these different standards, they might reach different conclusions about the same case.
“In this case, while ASIRT found reasonable grounds to believe an offence had been committed, for the reasons provided in their opinion, the ACPS did not recommend that charges be laid,” according to ASIRT.
