Police watchdog clears 2 N.B. Mounties of criminal wrongdoing in impaired case of officer's son

Two New Brunswick Mounties have been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing in connection with an impaired driving investigation involving the son of one of the RCMP officers.

The Serious Incident Response Team, known as SIRT, launched an investigation in June into allegations the unnamed officer from Sussex used his role as an RCMP officer to influence the outcome of the impaired driving investigation.

Another unnamed officer from the Caledonia detachment in Riverview was also accused of attempting to influence the outcome of the investigation.

On Monday, Erin Nauss, director of the independent police watchdog agency, said she "found no reasonable grounds to believe" the officers committed a criminal offence.

The case stems from a single-vehicle collision on Feb. 11 where the officer's son's car wound up in a ditch near Henderson Settlement, a rural area around 30 kilometres west of Sussex.

Son failed roadside breathalyzer

A Department of Public Safety officer pulled over to assist the driver, suspected the young man was impaired and conducted a roadside breathalyzer test, which he failed. The officer issued an immediate roadside driving suspension.

The driver's father was in his RCMP vehicle when he received a call from his wife and learned his son was under arrest. He attended the scene, but did not intervene, according to Nauss's report.

The officer later "became aware of some potential errors and issues with the investigation" and his son launched an appeal of his licence suspension with the motor vehicle branch, which was subsequently denied, she said.

While that appeal was ongoing, the RCMP officer communicated with Public Safety employees "to try and resolve issues with his son’s file," Nauss said.

"Throughout this communication, [he] stated he was an RCMP officer, and referenced his rank and experience, despite being directed by supervisors not to act in his capacity as an officer when assisting his son with this matter," she said.

Colleague prepared unauthorized report on incident

The officer also provided the Department of Public Safety with an unauthorized RCMP case analysis of the incident, which highlighted errors in the investigation and concluded the driving suspension was improper, Nauss said.

The report was prepared by the other RCMP officer in question, a friend who did not have authority or permission from the RCMP to write a report on the case, she said.

On June 19, Public Safety contacted the RCMP regarding its concerns and the RCMP contacted SIRT, which began its investigation that day.

Actions 'may have been poor judgment'

SIRT investigates all matters that involve death, serious injury, sexual assault and intimate partner violence or other matters determined to be of a public interest that may have arisen from the actions of any police officer on or off-duty in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

Nauss investigated the officers for breach of trust by a public officer and obstruction of justice.

She said she found no evidence to conclude either officer acted for a purpose other than the public good.

While the officer whose son was arrested "had a personal interest in the matter, I cannot conclude his actions were dishonest, corrupt, or oppressive," she wrote.

"Some could view his actions as partial, but a review of the evidence indicates that although it may have been poor judgment the behaviour did not rise to this level."

Similarly, while the officers "used their RCMP positions to express their frustration and concerns with the process, there is no evidence to suggest [they] acted in a manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice," Nauss said.

Officer felt duty to report concerns with son's case

When asked why he used his RCMP rank and employment in his correspondence with Public Safety employees about his son's case, the officer told the SIRT investigator that is "who he is and he didn’t realize the perception it was creating," according to Nauss's report.

He also stated that he had concerns about the file and felt he had a duty, as a police officer, to report those concerns, it says.

In reviewing all the statements of witnesses and documents, Nauss found the officer never explicitly asked for his son's suspension to be reversed, although it is "reasonable to infer and for the JPS officers to conclude he was seeking an exception for his son."

Still, she could not conclude his actions were "a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of him," she said.

The other officer in question told the SIRT investigator he drafted the case analysis as a favour to his colleague.

While Nauss said he "made a poor decision in doing this," she noted the report was not falsified or misleading, there was no evidence he drafted the report for use in a judicial proceeding, or that he received any benefit for it.

No comment from RCMP

It's unclear what, if any, code of conduct investigation or disciplinary action the officers might face.

The RCMP did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

As of June, the two officers remained on active duty in their roles, a spokesperson said at the time.