COMMISSION FOR PUBLIC COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE RCMP

CHAIR'S INTERIM REPORT 

PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 45.43(3)
FOLLOWING A PUBLIC INTEREST INVESTIGATION
PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 45.43(1)

INTO THE CHAIR'S COMPLAINT RESPECTING AN ALLEGED PURSUIT

March 31, 2003

File No.:  PC-2002-0107

 

 
 
CHAIR'S INTERIM REPORT FOLLOWING A PUBLIC INTEREST INVESTIGATION

BACKGROUND

On January 10, 2002, at approximately 8:30 a.m., a black Nissan Pathfinder (SUV) was stolen from Mr. Satvir Atwal's driveway, following which he notified the Surrey RCMP.  A bulletin was transmitted to units in the area regarding the stolen vehicle, and Corporal Appleton and Constable Tamashiro (in plain clothes and driving an unmarked green van) located the vehicle in the parking lot of the Evergreen Mall at approximately 8:50 a.m.  They followed the SUV east on Fraser Highway, in moderately heavy traffic and ended up stopped directly behind the SUV (in a left-hand turn lane) for a red light at the intersection of 160th Street and Fraser Highway.  They had called for a marked cruiser to assist them, and Constable Potvin (traffic Supervisor) attended and pulled up behind their green van.  Constable Stovern, travelling south on 160th Street had also responded and advised that he would attempt to box in the SUV at the intersection, prior to the light turning green.  However, the light turned green just as Constable Stovern was approaching the intersection and the SUV veered back into the Fraser Highway lane and continued travelling east.  The three police vehicles followed the stolen SUV, and shortly thereafter, while attempting to turn right (south) onto 168th Street, the SUV crashed into Mrs. Pedersen's vehicle.  The suspect was apprehended at the scene as he was exiting the stolen SUV.  It is the specifics of the members' conduct after the suspect fled that constituted the subject of this investigation.  The witnesses at the scene reported to the media that they were both informed and of the opinion that it was a pursuit; however, subsequent information disseminated by the RCMP denied that there was a pursuit.

COMPLAINT

On February 28, 2002, the Chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, Ms. Shirley Heafey, initiated the complaint, "that unidentified members of the RCMP initiated and conducted a pursuit of a stolen vehicle without due regard for public safety, contrary to current policy, and improperly denied that a pursuit had been undertaken and failed to report the pursuit in accordance with current policy."

COMMISSION'S INVESTIGATION OF THE COMPLAINT

The Commission interviewed:
· The owner of the SUV, Mr. Satvir Atwal
· The victims of the motor vehicle accident: Mrs. Wanda Pedersen, her daughter Ms. Pamela Pedersen and her son Mr. David McPhail.
· The witnesses to the accident and/or to the members' conduct prior to the accident: Mrs. Brenda McKitrick, Mr. Adrian Plante, Mr. John Higginson, Mr. Richard Newman and Mrs. Dominique Pattinier.
· The driver of the fleeing SUV.
· The Surrey Detachment members involved in the incident: Corporal Ron Appleton, Constable Tatsushi Tamashiro, Constable Monique Potvin, Constable Shane Stovern, Constable Terry Sielsky and Sergeant Cam Scott.
· The radio dispatcher (employed by the city of Surrey, working for the Surrey RCMP), Mr. Ian Lorette.
· The Surrey RCMP members who subsequently attended the scene of the accident: Constable Darcy Cartier and Constable Mike Marchesini.

In addition, the Commission reviewed the RCMP members' Continuation Reports and notebook entries for the incident under review, the dispatch tape and its transcript, the statements taken from witnesses at the scene of the accident, the Report to Crown Counsel, the transcripts of the court hearing, the RCMP's briefing note to the Commissioner, the RCMP's briefing note to the Solicitor General, and the relevant RCMP documentation and operational file.

EVIDENCE

With respect to the sequence of events, the evidence confirms that the suspect vehicle was observed by Corporal Appleton and Constable Tamashiro in the parking lot of the Evergreen Mall.  Although they initially followed the suspect vehicle from an unobserved distance, calling for a marked cruiser to assist, they ended up directly behind the suspect in a left-hand turn lane at the intersection of 160th Street and the Fraser Highway.  While stopped for the red light, the two officers continued to communicate via radio and the officers noted the suspect driver watching them through his rear-view mirror.  The suspect driver confirms that he observed the officers' conduct on the radio, and that despite the fact that their vehicle was unmarked, he realized that they were police officers.  At this point, Constable Potvin, responding to the call for assistance in her marked cruiser, pulled into the turn lane directly behind Corporal Appleton's vehicle.  At the same time, Constable Stovern (who had also responded to the call for assistance) was driving south on 160th Street in an attempt to reach the intersection and box in the suspect vehicle before the light turned green.  However, as Constable Stovern approached the intersection, the light turned green and he noted the suspect driver looking directly at him and his marked cruiser, and then pulling forward and accelerating east bound on the Fraser Highway.  The suspect driver confirmed that he assumed they were going to try to box him in, so once the light turned green, he took off his left-turn blinker and sped through the intersection.  He states that the officers behind him then flicked on their emergency lights and he "put the pedal to the floor."

The officers confirm that they activated (or attempted to activate) their full emergency equipment and then followed the suspect through the intersection.  While Constable Stovern had full emergency equipment operating, Constable Potvin only had her emergency lights activated as she inadvertently hit the radio channel switch when reaching for her siren switch, and Corporal Appleton's unmarked vehicle was only equipped with emergency lights.  Once clear of the intersection, Corporal Appleton pulled over to the side of the road and advised Constable Potvin to take the lead in her marked cruiser.  Both Constable Potvin and Constable Stovern passed Corporal Appleton on the left with their emergency equipment operating, following which Corporal Appleton pulled back onto the roadway with his emergency lights activated.  Constable Potvin states that she observed the suspect vehicle driving from the westbound lane to the eastbound lane and then onto the shoulder of the road.  As it was early in the morning and there was a lot of traffic, she radioed dispatch stating, "I'm shutting it down, he's driving too crazy."  She then pulled over to the side of the road and deactivated her emergency equipment.  Her transmission was not recorded on the dispatch tape nor heard by the other officers given that she had inadvertently switched channels when attempting to activate her siren, and it was broadcast on the South channel as opposed to the North channel.  At approximately the same time, however, the officers received a direction from the dispatcher stating "the Staff (Sergeant Scott) says if it's a pursuit, we're to shut her, shut it down."  Constable Stovern acknowledged the transmission, responding "that's a 10-4."

Constable Stovern states that he disengaged his emergency equipment, slowed down and pulled alongside of Constable Potvin, without stopping.  He then accelerated back up to the speed limit and when he reached the 164th Street intersection, he stopped for the red light and then proceeded through the red light without his emergency equipment operating.  As he cleared the intersection, the suspect vehicle was no longer in sight and he heard someone asking for an update on a motor vehicle accident.  As he approached 168th Street, he saw a dust cloud in the air, activated his emergency equipment again, and proceeded to the scene of the accident.  Corporal Appleton states that after the dispatch direction to "shut it down," he pulled over to the curb, deactivated his emergency lights and stopped, following which he pulled back into traffic without his emergency equipment operating.  He continued in the direction that the suspect vehicle had fled, approximately three car lengths behind Constable Stovern and he could see the suspect vehicle in the 165th to 166th block.  Upon stopping for the red light at the 164th Street intersection, the dispatch advised that an accident had occurred; so he re-engaged his emergency lights and proceeded to the scene.  Constable Potvin states that she stayed on the shoulder of the road where she had pulled over after deciding to "shut it down."  Upon hearing that the SUV had "wiped out," she proceeded to the scene of the accident.

The suspect driver states that the police chased him for about two minutes at high speed.  He states that he was scared, and when he tried to turn right off of the Fraser Highway, the SUV kept going straight and he crashed into another vehicle.  When asked whether he was aware of the presence of the police and if he could see them all the way to the crash, he replied "Oh yeah, they were right behind me."

Mrs. Pattinier was stopped at a red light at the intersection of 164th Street and Fraser Highway when the SUV, driving very fast, passed her by using the left-turn lane.  She noted a police vehicle behind her or to the left, turn on its emergency lights and go after the SUV, but she was not under the impression that it was a pursuit.  Another witness, Mrs. McKitrick, advised that she was crossing the 168th-Fraser intersection when she heard a loud horn from a truck that was out of control and driving extremely fast.  The vehicle missed her but hit a vehicle stopped in the northbound lane.  She states that a northbound cruiser arrived within seconds (pulling up against the suspect's door and almost hitting him as he exited the vehicle) and approximately three other cruisers arrived within a minute.  She assisted the Pedersens in exiting their vehicle and spoke to an officer who had approached to find out if the Pedersens were injured.  She confirmed they were and asked if a paramedic had been called; the officer said yes.  She asked him if this was a police pursuit and he said yes, but it had been called off.  When she replied "a little too late" he walked off.  Three other witnesses, Mr. Adrian Plante, Mr. Richard Higginson and Mr. Richard Newman, were driving north on 168th Street when they observed the SUV come around the corner and hit the Pedersen vehicle.  Mr. Plante observed a police vehicle with its lights activated driving approximately 5-6 seconds/car lengths behind the SUV, following the suspect in what he deemed a "cautious pursuit."  All three of them next saw a police vehicle pass them from behind and block the driver's door of the stopped SUV, following which the officer exited his vehicle with his gun drawn and arrested the suspect.  Mr. Higginson and Mr. Newman believed that the first police vehicle at the scene, other than the cruiser that passed them, was the unmarked green van. 

Constable Sielsky confirmed that he was driving north on 168th Street, to assist the District 2 members with the stolen vehicle.  He was approximately one block from the Fraser Highway when he observed an SUV attempt a right turn onto 168th.  He observed the vehicle lose control as it was going too fast; it hit the median and then a power pole.  He was not aware at that time that the SUV had hit another vehicle.  He pulled up in front of the stopped SUV and hit the door of the vehicle as the suspect was exiting, causing the suspect to fall onto the hood of the cruiser.  He exited the cruiser with his weapon drawn, pulled the suspect off of the hood of his vehicle, and held him on the ground until other members arrived to assist in searching and handcuffing him.  He could not verify which police vehicles arrived first at the scene, but believed that the Constable who arrived within 30 seconds to a minute and assisted him in handcuffing the suspect was Constable Tamashiro.

Constable Stovern states he was first to arrive at the scene and he assisted Constable Sielsky in pulling the suspect off of the cruiser and handcuffing him.  He then went over to the Pedersen vehicle to ascertain whether they were hurt.  He states that Mrs. Pedersen was in shock and she didn't say much, and he advised her to keep still, that the ambulance was on the way and everything would be okay.  Corporal Appleton and Constable Tamashiro both state that Constable Sielsky and Constable Stovern were at the scene and handcuffing the suspect when they arrived.  Constable Potvin states that upon arriving at the scene of the accident, she commenced looking for witnesses as the suspect was already in custody. 

Mrs. Pedersen did not recall hearing horns, or sirens prior to the impact.  Her first recollection after impact was a woman speaking to her from outside of her car, following which she was assisted out of the vehicle by her son.  She does not recall observing the police arrive, but noted them at the scene while she was sitting on the curb.  She recalls the woman who assisted her shouting at the police regarding a pursuit, and someone at the scene stating that the chase was called off.  As a result of the accident, Mrs. Pedersen suffered four broken ribs, neck injuries, small tissue and ligament damage, as well as numerous cuts and abrasions to her face and arms from flying glass.  She states a female police officer came to the hospital and advised that she would take her statement the following day, but no one ever contacted her or obtained a statement from her.  Her son, David McPhail, states that the first thing he saw after being struck, was three or four police cars slamming on their brakes within 15 to 20 seconds.  He did not hear either horns or sirens, nor did he observe emergency lights.  The officers ran by his vehicle and grabbed the suspect.  He heard a woman at the scene yelling at the officers-asking if it had been a chase, and believes that one of them responded, "no-we called it off."  When he approached one of the officers to ask for assistance for his mother, they told him they had other things to take care of first, despite the fact that the suspect was already handcuffed.  At the hospital, he provided a statement to a police officer.  Pamela Pedersen stated that there was no warning prior to impact and she did not hear any sirens.  Her brother helped her out of the vehicle and she called 911 on her cell phone.  Although she did not see the police officers arrive, she noted them at the scene while on her cell phone and was surprised by how quickly they got there. She doesn't believe that more than 15 to 20 seconds elapsed between her exiting the vehicle and noticing the officers at the scene.  The officers ran towards the suspect and handcuffed him.  She states that none of the police officers approached them, only the ambulance attendant; however, just before leaving in the ambulance, a police officer came and asked for their names.  At the hospital, a police officer recorded her statement.

With respect to references to a "pursuit" in the documentation completed subsequent to the incident under review, the Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Police Investigation Report states: "Dri of Veh #1 stole vehicle and was fleeing scene and trying to evade police. ***No Police Pursuit***".  Constable Stovern's continuation report dated January 10, 2002 states that after the suspect fled and was observed exceeding speeds of 100 km/h, the members disengaged their emergency equipment and the "pursuit" was terminated.  Corporal Appleton's report to Crown Counsel dated January 11, 2002 states that the accused took off at high speed and he pulled over to allow the marked vehicles to pass.  The report further states, "Due to the traffic and time of day, the police vehicles all shut down their emergency equipment and discontinued the 'pursuit' while in the 16200 block of Fraser Hwy."  Corporal Appleton's notebook entries for this incident also state that the "pursuit" was cancelled in the 16200 block.  The RCMP's briefing note to the Solicitor General, dated February 27, 2002, advises that the media is suggesting that the Force is being less than forthright regarding the issue of whether or not its members were in fact pursuing the suspect vehicle and the CPC has indicated that they will be holding a "public inquiry" into this issue.  The background portion of the briefing indicates that after the units activated their emergency equipment and Corporal Appleton pulled over to allow the marked police vehicles to act as primary units, the suspect was observed veering into oncoming traffic.  The report states "as a result of assessing the driving behaviour of the accused, the traffic conditions and time of day, all members immediately discontinued emergency equipment and "pursuit" and pulled to the side of the roadway at or prior to the 16200 block."

With respect to the issue of whether a pursuit had occurred, Corporal Appleton, Constable Tamashiro, Constable Stovern and Constable Potvin, all stated, when interviewed approximately 10 months after the incident, that they did not believe a pursuit had occurred; therefore, there was no requirement to complete a Form 2088 (report of a pursuit) as per policy.  When the officers who had used the word "pursuit" in either their reports or notes were questioned as to this fact, they responded that it was merely police jargon or a poor choice of words.  Sergeant Scott, who was duty officer that day, advised that as soon as he heard there was a stolen vehicle in sight of their members, he advised "just shut it down, if it's a pursuit - shut it down," following which he received confirmation from one of the cars that they had called it off and pulled over.  He states that he was not aware at the time whether a pursuit had developed, but he wanted the members to know that if it had developed into a chase, they were not to pursue it further.  The Sergeant further advised that he was satisfied that it was not a pursuit; therefore, Forms 2088 were not required.

ANALYSIS

This Commission remains concerned with the danger that police pursuits pose to members of the public and the police, and is committed to reviewing incidents where the public appears to have been placed at risk.  One need only view the photographs of the damage caused to Mrs. Pedersen's vehicle, to realize how easily this incident could have resulted in a fatality for the Pedersen family.

With respect to the incident under review, the dispatch tape confirms that the length of time that elapsed from the suspect driver "bolting," to his collision with the Pedersen vehicle, was one minute and 13 seconds. 

The evidence indicates that as soon as the suspect bolted, the officers at the intersection engaged their emergency equipment and followed him through the intersection.  It is well-established that Corporal Appleton pulled over once clear of the intersection and advised Constable Potvin to take the lead in her marked cruiser-which is consistent with policy requirements for pursuits.  Both she and Constable Stovern continued after the suspect, with their emergency equipment operating and Corporal Appleton pulled back onto the road with his emergency lights activated.  Constable Potvin's observations of the suspect's erratic and dangerous driving caused her to broadcast that she was "shutting it down" (albeit on the wrong channel) and she pulled over to the side of the road and disengaged her equipment.  None of the officers following Constable Potvin heard her broadcast; however, the dispatcher almost simultaneously broadcast Sergeant Scott's direction that "if it's a pursuit, we're to shut her, shut it down."  The dispatch tape confirms that Constable Stovern acknowledged this instruction with a "10-4".  Constable Stovern then disengaged his emergency lights but did not stop; he slowed to pull up alongside of Constable Potvin, and then continued in the direction that the suspect had fled.  Corporal Appleton, who had disengaged his emergency lights, pulled over and stopped, pulled back into traffic again and continued in the direction that the suspect had fled.  Constable Potvin believes that she remained stopped on the side of the road until hearing that an accident had occurred.

I am satisfied, on the basis of the established sequence of events, and the contemporaneous documents emanating from this incident, that a pursuit occurred, but was very quickly terminated.  As such, it would have been appropriate for the officers to complete the Forms 2088, as required by the National Pursuit Policy.  It is unfortunate that the RCMP deny that a pursuit occurred, because I believe that both Constable Potvin, who was road supervisor that day, and Sergeant Scott, who was the dispatch duty officer, exemplified the appropriate risk assessment and decision making skills that pursuit policies strive to elicit.  Both of these officers shut down the pursuit on the basis of the risk to the public that the fleeing suspect posed, given that the traffic in that area was moderately heavy.  In my opinion, the short duration of this pursuit is further evidence that the safeguards in place for pursuits worked effectively in this instance.  Despite the fact that Constable Potvin's decision as lead vehicle that she was "shutting it down" was not heard by the other officers, the Duty Officer monitoring the dispatchers simultaneously gave the same order and the pursuit was terminated.  The length of time between the initiation of the pursuit, and the confirmation of the order to shut down, was a mere 31 seconds-further evidence that these officers very quickly assessed the danger of the situation and took the appropriate action.

Unfortunately, once a pursuit has been initiated, the suspect's perceptions and resulting behaviour tend to dictate the outcome of the incident, even if the pursuit has been terminated.  It is clear from the suspect's interview, that he believed the police were virtually right behind him for the duration of his flight.  While the evidence supports that the police officers who continued to follow him after the order to terminate (as is permitted by policy) were not immediately behind him, it is reasonable to assume that the suspect could still see them given that they reported visibility of the SUV until the 164th block.  Directly germane to this issue, is Dr. Geoffrey Alpert's 1996 report for the National Institute of Justice entitled "Police Pursuit: Policies and Training,"  which was the first study on pursuits to interview suspects who had fled from police in high-speed chases.  The results of the interviews with the 146 suspects canvassed revealed that more than 70 per cent of the suspects said that they would have slowed down and merged with traffic when they felt safe, whether the pursuit was on a highway or in a town.  Feeling safe was defined as outdistancing the police by 2.2 blocks on streets and by 2.3 miles on highways.  In this case, the distance between the decision to discontinue the pursuit and the location of the accident was six blocks; however, the suspect's perception and/or visible confirmation that the police were still following him may have continued to have an impact on his flight.  I note that the RCMP's briefing note to the Solicitor General makes a similar determination, stating, "It would appear however, that the accused still mindful of police awareness, continued from the area of the discontinued pursuit, driving erratically and at a high rate of speed."  I also note that there was a mere 37 seconds between the confirmation of the order to terminate and the suspect's crash, which may have been too short a period to translate to a modification in the suspect's driving and speed, regardless of whether the police were still visible. 

In light of the empirical evidence regarding suspects' perceptions and resulting behaviour, I am concerned that the RCMP's current policy allows members to follow a suspect after a pursuit is terminated.  It is my understanding that a number of pursuit policies prohibit this practice and accordingly, I intend to further review this issue.

However, this unfortunate incident illustrates how dangerous all pursuits are, regardless of their duration.  They set in motion a sequence of events, which, as evidenced by this case, can clearly evolve independently of appropriate risk assessments and responsible decisions taken by officers.  As such, I reiterate my commitment to continue to monitor this serious issue of pursuits and their corresponding impact on public and police safety.

COMMENTS

I would like to draw the RCMP's attention to the Pedersen family's perceptions at the scene of the accident that their situation and injuries warranted little or no attention from the numerous members at the scene.  While it appears that Constable Stovern did approach the vehicle at one point to ascertain whether anyone was injured, it is clear that the Pedersen family felt ignored by the police and furthermore, believed that the officers present exhibited indifference to their situation.  While there are many tasks to be addressed at the scene of an accident, such as traffic direction, the location of witnesses etc., given that at least eight RCMP members arrived at the scene within minutes of the accident, it would have been reassuring for the injured Pedersen family if at least one of the members had tended and assisted them until the ambulance arrived.

___________________________ Chair

Shirley Heafey
Chair
Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP
P.O. Box 3423, Station "D"
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 6L4