An Alberta Serious Incident Response Team investigation revealed Tuesday that the use of force by police during an arrest in 2018, which left a man with serious injuries, was justified.

ASIRT’s job is to investigate allegations of police misconduct and incidents involving Alberta police that result in serious injury or death.

Despite the arrest occurring across the border near Pierceland, Sask., ASIRT probed the case because the situation started in Alberta near Cold Lake and involved mainly Alberta officers.

‘A significant pursuit ensued’

On Oct. 1, 2018, two men armed with a loaded handgun and rifle stole a black Chevrolet Cruze, ASIRT said. Both men were known to police, with criminal records that included illegal possession and use of firearms, robbery, criminal flight from police and resisting arrest.

Story continues below advertisement

Police found one of them, a 23-year-old who they did not name, driving the Cruze near Range Road 421 and Highway 55 with his girlfriend in the passenger seat. The police watchdog did not mention what happened to the other man.

Officers believe the suspect noticed he was being followed by police because “he began driving in the wrong lane and into oncoming traffic.”

When the man didn’t stop after the officer turned on his lights and siren, “a significant pursuit ensued,” ASIRT said.

ASIRT said the man’s driving “objectively endangered public safety.” The chase ended several kilometres east of Pierceland, Sask., north of Highway 55, when the vehicle overheated and the man drove into a field before running away.

Police interviewed his girlfriend, who said she told her boyfriend not to resist police.

‘Somewhat of a melee’

An officer with a police service dog tried to get the man to stop running while telling him he was under arrest, ASIRT said.

“The involved officers all describe the situation as dynamic, heightened by the belief that the man might be armed,” ASIRT said.

Story continues below advertisement

When the man didn’t stop, the officer gave the dog the green light.

“The man turned and took a swing at the police dog,” ASIRT said, which is when the dog bit him. “The man fought with the police dog, trying to pry the dog’s mouth open, grabbing and pulling on the dog’s ears or scruff as the dog whined but continued to bite. At one point, the man appeared to be attempting to put the dog in a headlock.”

Two officers tried to put the man in handcuffs during what ASIRT called “somewhat of a melee” as they struggled to grab his hands.

“Multiple strikes to the head and a knee strike to the man’s torso were used by the two involved officers,” ASIRT said, adding that a video recording system captured the final seconds before the suspect was cuffed.

After the man was handcuffed — for about 50 seconds — the “clearly agitated” dog kept biting him as the officer tried to get the animal to release its grip.

The man had serious dog bites, including “wounds to his abdominal area deep enough to expose tissue,” and a fractured jaw, ASIRT said, so officers called an ambulance. The injuries required multiple surgeries.

Story continues below advertisement

Police didn’t find any weapons on the man.

Investigators learned that the man got rid of a loaded Tokarev TT pistol in the field, which was found weeks later where the vehicle was abandoned. Still, ASIRT said there was “ample information” for officers to assume the suspect was armed and dangerous.

Officers acted reasonably: ASIRT

Because the man’s injuries were the result of police actions, it was ASIRT’s job to determine if the tactics the officers used — including the police dog and strikes to the head — were reasonably necessary.

“While it is not possible to determine, with certainty, which officer fractured the man’s jaw, it is not necessary to resolve this issue if both officers were acting lawfully,” ASIRT said.

ASIRT said officers were faced with what would be a potentially high-risk arrest because of the suspect’s criminal background.

“He was known to go to significant lengths to try and evade apprehension, including engaging in criminal flight, and had previously fired on police,” ASIRT said. “It was both prudent and reasonable to believe that the affected person might be in possession of a firearm and that he was more than capable of using it.”

Story continues below advertisement

The police watchdog said officer safety was also taken into account when it came to the decision to deploy the police dog.

“The use of intermediate levels of force, including the police service dog and the punches/strikes used by both officers to gain control and custody of the man, were both proportionate to the circumstances and reasonable,” ASIRT said.

Dog’s conduct

The police watchdog said the only issue would be how the police dog continued to bite after the man was cuffed.

ASIRT said a dog is a use of force tool, similar to an officer’s gun, baton or taser — but a dog has “its own instincts.”

“[A dog] is the subject of significant training and control by a handler but can act on instinct,” ASIRT said, adding that it’s reasonable to expect the dog would act differently when, like in this case, the man was actively fighting the dog.

“As serious as the resulting injuries were in this case, the use of the police service dog was a much better available alternative to the potential use of a service pistol.” Tweet This

Story continues below advertisement

ASIRT said the officer’s control of the dog was “not perfection.”

“The officer’s attempt to get the police dog to disengage was hampered by the dog’s heightened agitation. There was no evidence to suggest that the officer was acting in bad faith in his attempts to get the dog to disengage or that he was motivated by malicious intent,” ASIRT said.

“While the officer should continually work to improve his ability to control his police dog and should, if faced with a similar situation in the future, better recognize and reflect the urgency in gaining that control, the use of the police service dog did not, at any point during this encounter, amount to an unreasonable or excessive use of force.”

ASIRT said while the consequences were terrible and the man was seriously injured, it does not change the lawfulness of the officers’ actions.

ASIRT executive director Susan Hughson said there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the officers committed a Criminal Code offence, so no charges will be laid.