Edmonton’s police union is expressing concern after a constable was disciplined for failing to properly stop at a red light on his way to a potentially life-and-death domestic violence call.

The officer, who was driving an unmarked police cruiser, set off a red-light camera at 97 Street and 122 Avenue on April 10, 2017. At a disciplinary hearing, the officer testified he was trying to get to a domestic violence call where a woman was being held at knifepoint.

Distroscale

The officer, identified in a Feb. 28 police disciplinary decision as Constable A.A., was found guilty of insubordination under the Police Act and could face professional repercussions including reprimands and lost pay.

Edmonton Police Association president Sgt. Michael Elliott said the union is disappointed with the decision and looking at avenues of appeal.

“(His actions) did not pose any risk to public safety,” he said. “However, he was trying to get to a place where a life was potentially in danger.”

Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The driving habits of Edmonton police officers came under increased scrutiny under former chief Rod Knecht. Last summer, a report to the Edmonton Police Commission found traffic complaints involving officers — including those who activate red light cameras — were driving a notable increase in disciplinary files.

One officer, for example, was recently disciplined for T-boning a civilian vehicle while driving through an intersection.

Edmonton police policy requires officers to stop for red lights and proceed only when it is safe to do so. The exception is if the officer is engaged in “team” driving — such as when multiple police cars close down intersections to escort an ambulance.

Constable A.A. pleaded not guilty to the insubordination charge. At the time, he was working as a member of the service’s specialized traffic apprehension unit.

He said he stopped at the intersection — albeit slightly over the stop line — and that he never intended to breach policy.

An agreed statement of facts states the officer reached an average speed of 24 km/h in the intersection — one km/h faster than the minimum speed needed to activate the red light camera.

The officer said he was driving quickly with lights and sirens activated because he was the only member in the area carrying a carbine. A police commander at the scene radioed to say patrol officers were waiting for the long gun to arrive before entering the apartment for safety reasons.

Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

During testimony, the officer said he’d want another police officer to respond “as quickly as possible” if his family was in a similar situation.

‘Complex priorities’

The call was resolved “without additional incident” prior to the officer’s arrival, the decision states.

Pat Nugent, the officer’s lawyer, said his actions were “perhaps the imperfect outcome of his attempt to balance … competing and complex priorities.”

Elliott said the union views the infraction as a “technical breach” of EPS policy — noting the officer stopped before proceeding through the intersection and was barely going fast enough to trigger the red light camera.

Further, he said the police service is acting as though its internal policies supersede the provincial Traffic Safety Act, which allows emergency vehicles to contravene certain traffic rules when responding to an emergency.

Lawyers for the police chief, who is in charge of officer discipline, said the officer had no excuse for breaking the policy and that “no discretion is allowed for the officer to substitute his judgement for that of the chief.”

They note the officer was given a warning after a similar incident in 2016. The policy, among other things, is supposed to remove the pressure to get to a scene “at all costs,” counsel for the chief argued, adding officers who crash on their way to emergencies eat up valuable police resources.

Retired RCMP officer Fred Kamins, who presided over the hearing, agreed with the chief.

“Constable A.A. did not have an acceptable, reasonable excuse,” he wrote.

Disciplinary decisions do not identify officers by name until their penalty has been decided.