Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

RCMP

UPDATE: Red Deer family found – safe

Published

2 minute read

UPDATE!

RCMP are pleased to report that Susan, Deckard, Ryker, Emma, and Charlee have all been located safe. We would like to thank the public and media for their assistance.

Release from Red Deer RCMP

Red Deer RCMP request public assistance to locate missing mother with four children

On Dec. 5, 2022, Red Deer RCMP received a report from a concerned school representative that the whereabouts of a number of students from a family from Red Deer were unknown under concerning circumstances. The children were last seen in school earlier on Dec. 5, 2022.

Red Deer RCMP conducted an investigation and despite all efforts have been unable to locate Susan Lynn French (38) and her four children: Deckard French (11-months-old), Ryker French (3-years-old),  Emma French (9-years-old) and Charlee French-Frank (12-years-old). Red Deer RCMP are concerned for their well-being. The family’s current whereabouts are unknown.

Susan French is described as:

  • 5’8” tall
  • 240 lbs
  • Light complexion
  • Brown hair
  • Brown eyes

Deckard French (11 months) is described as:

  • Longer dark brown hair
  • Hazel eyes
  • Light complexion

 

Ryker French (3) is described as:

  • Short light brown hair
  • Blue eyes
  • Light complexion

Emma French (9) is described as:

  • Long dark brown hair
  • Brown eyes
  • Light complexion
  • Slim build

 

Charlee French-Frank is described as:

  • Long brown hair
  • Brown eyes
  • Light complexion

 

It is believed Susan may be driving a White 2014 Nissan Pathfinder bearing Alberta license plate CJS 5362.

Anyone with information concerning Susan or the children’s whereabouts is asked to contact the Red Deer RCMP Detachment at 403-406-2200. If you want to remain anonymous, you can contact Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-8477 (TIPS), online at www.P3Tips.com or by using the “P3 Tips” app available through the Apple App or Google Play Store.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

ASIRT investigations concluded on fatal officer-involved shooting involving the RCMP.

Published on

Incident investigation report from the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT)

Introduction

On December 22, 2022, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) was directed pursuant to s. 46.1 of the Police Act to investigate a then non-fatal Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officer-involved shooting. The shooting of the affected person (AP) was reported to have happened during an interaction with him, as a result of him being a suspect in a complaint of a man with a gun.

While AP initially survived, he died of complications from the shooting the following day.

ASIRT’s Investigation

ASIRT’s investigation was comprehensive and thorough, conducted using current investigative protocols and principles relating to Major Case Management. Information from civilian witnesses, the subject and a witness officers, and importantly video recordings provided sufficient information to determine whether the force used by the subject officer during this incident was reasonable.

Circumstances Surrounding the Officer-Involved Shooting

On December 01, 2022, Maskwacis RCMP received a call reporting that a male [AP] had been drinking and left the caller’s house with a gun. AP was shooting the gun in the country (believed to be the area around the residence). Two RCMP officers responded.

Witness officer (WO) located AP walking on the road with a rifle. AP walked toward WO’s marked police vehicle with the rifle pointed at the vehicle/WO, while WO was seated in the driver’s seat. WO then exited his vehicle with his carbine rifle and moved to the rear of his vehicle while AP kept the rifle pointed at the police vehicle. The subject officer (SO) arrived on scene, but came from the opposite direction. AP turned around and walked toward SO with the barrel of the rifle pointed upwards. SO exited his police vehicle with his service pistol drawn and walked toward AP while he
repeatedly provided verbal direction to AP to drop the firearm. AP and SO were walking toward each other; at that time AP still had the barrel of the rifle pointed upward. As SO and AP got within approximately five meters of each other, AP lowered the barrel of the rifle and pointed it directly at SO. SO fired multiple rounds and struck AP with four rounds causing AP to stumble, drop the rifle and fall to the ground. AP initially survived the shooting and was transported to an Edmonton hospital, where he underwent emergency surgery. The following day, AP succumbed to his injuries.

Analysis

The subject officer was lawfully placed and acting in the execution of his duties in dealing with AP as a person who was the subject of a complaint about him being in possession of a firearm and shooting it off.

The Use of Force

Under s. 25 of the Criminal Code, police officers are permitted to use as much force as is necessary for the execution of their duties. Where this force is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm, the officer must believe on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary for the self-preservation of the officer or preservation of anyone under that officer’s protection.

A police officer’s use of force is not to be assessed on a standard of perfection nor using the benefit of hindsight.

With the benefit of hindsight, time for detached reflection and knowledge of the ultimate outcome, it is easy to speculate about how things could have been done differently. That is not the standard, however, against which an officer’s conduct is measured. The question is, applying principles of proportionality, necessity, and reasonableness, whether the force used falls into a range of possible reasonable responses.

Proportionate Response

Proportionality requires balancing a use of force with the action to which it responds. Here, the subject officers were faced with an individual that was armed with a gun and pointing it in their direction. As such, the response by the subject officers in using their respective firearms to shoot AP was proportionate to the threat of death or grievous bodily harm that he reasonably posed to both of them.

Reasonably Necessary

As set out previously in this report, AP presented as a lethal threat to both SO and WO given his actions in pointing his rifle at them. While WO did not shoot during this incident that does not impact the analysis of SO’s actions. Under the circumstances as then faced by SO, no other use of force options were reasonably available for attempted use. The use by SO of his firearm to incapacitate this lethal threat was reasonably necessary. Given the above, the defence available to SO under s. 25 of the Criminal Code would apply.

Conclusion

Under s. 25 of the Criminal Code a police officer is justified in doing what he or she is authorized to do and to use as much force as is reasonably necessary where he or she has reasonable grounds to do so. Force intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm is justified if the officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that the force was necessary to prevent the death or grievous bodily harm of the officer and/or any other person. The analysis under s.34 of the Criminal Code leads to a similar finding that subject officer’s actions were lawfully permitted.

After a thorough, independent and objective investigation into the conduct of the subject officers, it is my opinion that they were lawfully placed and acting properly in the execution of their duties. There is no evidence to support any belief that any officer engaged in any unlawful or unreasonable conduct that would give rise to an offence. The force used was proportionate, necessary and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta RCMP announce results of investigation into the 2017 UCP Leadership Vote

Published on

News release from the Alberta RCMP

Alberta RCMP concludes investigations surrounding the 2017 UCP Leadership Vote

In July 2017, the Wildrose Party and the Progressive Conservative Party merged to form the United Conservative Party (UCP). A UCP leadership contest followed, which was an internal UCP process with no oversight from Elections Alberta, except as it related to the Alberta Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act (EFCDA).

On Oct. 4, 2017, Jeff Callaway dropped out of the race and publicly endorsed Jason Kenney. On Oct. 28, 2017, Kenney was officially elected as the new UCP leader. Allegations of wrongdoing surfaced after the leadership contest. In February 2019, a complaint was received by the Alberta RCMP in relation to these allegations, which resulted in the RCMP opening an investigation into two separate allegations.

Allegation #1 – Jeff Callaway candidacy

One allegation was that Callaway entered the contest solely to attack another candidate, always with the intention of pulling out of the leadership race and endorsing a different candidate prior to the vote. Given the allegation that this candidate had portrayed himself as a legitimate candidate and, as a result, was able to solicit money from individuals who believed he was a legitimate candidate, fraud contrary to section 380 of the Criminal Code, was identified as the appropriate offence to be investigated:

  • Investigators reviewed the candidate’s campaign debates and political advertisements used during the campaign. A review of the campaign’s financial records showed that, as a result, it was able to generate approximately $95,000 in financial contributions. Elections Alberta investigated Callaway’s campaign finances under the Alberta Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act. The results of Elections Alberta’s investigation are posted on their website.
  • Alberta RCMP Investigators conducted more than 170 interviews with contributors and campaign staff, and examined over 25,000 related emails.

Outcome #1: The investigation did not uncover evidence to establish that Callaway, or any other person, committed a criminal offence.

Allegation #2 – Voter Fraud

In order to vote, a UCP member needed to register and receive a Personal Identification Number (PIN), either by phone call, email, or text message. Once the PIN was received, the member could then cast a vote by phone or by using a proprietary electronic voting platform on the internet.

The allegations were that emails were created in order to receive PINs and vote on peoples’ behalf without their consent or knowledge. Identity Fraud contrary to section 403 of the Criminal Code was identified as the appropriate offence to be investigated under the circumstances:

  • The online platform used by the UCP to hold the leadership contest was identified and the RCMP obtained the voter database through a legal process, which contained data for more than 60,000 voters.
  • The RCMP analysed the data and identified several suspicious cross-sections of voters where multiple votes were cast from the same phone number, or originated from the same IP address. Similar to an in-person ballot, the data did not show which candidate was voted for, only that a vote had been cast using that unique identifier.
  • The RCMP generated a list of these “suspicious votes,” conducted interviews with the more than 1,200 individuals and examined their UCP membership and registration forms.
  • To be clear, the number of potential votes at issue, which after investigation was less than 200, would not have impacted the leadership contest given that Jason Kenney won with 36,625 votes (61%), whereas Brian Jean received 18,336 votes (31%), followed by Doug Schweitzer with 4,273 votes (7%).The RCMP investigation did not find evidence that any leadership candidate encouraged their volunteers to engage in identity fraud.
  • The service provider for the online voting platform used by the UCP was not compromised, and worked exactly as specified.

This high-profile investigation was extremely complex, and time consuming due to several factors:

  • The sheer volume of data being analysed and investigated took a significant amount of time. Further, a portion of this data required that judicial authorizations be obtained both domestically and outside of Canada.
  • The fact that the complaint was not received until 2019 impacted many witnesses’ recollections of the event. The 2017 UCP Leadership Contest occurred at the same time as other internal party votes. As a result, some witnesses were unclear about which process the RCMP were investigating.
  • Even for cases that appear to be voter fraud, there can be innocent explanations. For example, it wasn’t illegal for one phone number or email to receive many PINs. It was also not illegal for many votes to be cast from the same IP address or phone number. In certain families living under the same roof, this was common. We also saw the same pattern in office buildings and at voting kiosks where many people voted from the same IP.

Outcome #2: While the Alberta RCMP determined that there were suspected instances of potential identity fraud, there was insufficient evidence to charge any suspect, again there was no evidence that any leadership candidate orchestrated these relatively rare instances.

The decision on whether or not to lay a charge in Alberta rests with the police. However, throughout this investigation, the RCMP did seek advice from Crown, which began in Alberta, but was later referred to the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General who assigned Crown Prosecutors.

These Crown Prosecutors provided valuable and timely advice throughout our investigation and their assistance was greatly appreciated

It should be noted that these allegations of possible voter fraud occurred during an internal political party voting process, and in no way represents any possible fraud or shortcomings in our general provincial and federal elections.

Nothing in the investigation suggested that the UCP failed to take reasonable steps to manage their internal process. We hope that the information shared today will further reduce the risk of similar incidents occurring in the future for any political party.

The investigators received cooperation from the UCP and the leadership candidates which

assisted in moving the investigation forward.

“We would like to highlight that in investigating allegations of criminality, the thoroughness and completeness of the investigation is the standard that should be assessed and that the lack of criminal charges should not be the test of a successful investigation,” said Superintendent Rick Jané of the Alberta RCMP. “In this case, experienced criminal investigators tested these allegations. In the end, Albertans can be confident that a thorough investigation, independent of government, was conducted.”

Video of News Conference: https://www.youtube.com/@RCMPAlbertaGRC/streams

Key Statistics:

Investigators

  • 65 Investigators

o   5 core investigators

o   60 additional investigators seconded for varying lengths of time

o   10 public service employees assisted in various capacities

Investigation

  • 1,200 voter canvass interviews
  • 563 structured interviews

o   226 hours of audio

o   Conducted by two interviewers

o   Totaling 420 person-hours worked

Translation

  • Translation was required for Arabic, South Asian and Chinese languages
  • Investigators were sourced from “K” Div Federal Policing; Auto-theft; Digital Forensic Services Units; as well as Airdrie, Canmore, Red Deer, Thorsby, High River, and Maskwacis RCMP Detachments to fulfill this need.

Financial

  • $460,877 in overtime and travel expenses

o   $356,288 in overtime

o   $104,589 in travel expenses, with $38,647 in out-of-province expenses

Travel

  • 12 out of province trips (BC, Ontario, Nova Scotia) involving 22 members
  • There was no international travel

Documentation
(warrants, sealing orders, production orders, information to obtain, administration, mutual legal assistance requests)

  • 7,484 PDF documents (totaling 69,922 pages)
  • 20,625 digital files (totaling 54 GB of data)

 

Continue Reading

Trending

X