A public report has now been released that details an incident between Chilliwack RCMP officers and a woman they arrested for attempted to drive drunk.
The incident took place outside a bar in the early morning hours on Nov. 23, 2024. It began with an intoxicated women “apparently intending to drive home” and ended with her having a broken jaw and being arrested.
The Independent Investigations Office (IIO) of B.C. took over the incident, and the report was concluded on Oct. 14, 2025 announcing that officers involved were cleared of any wrong-doing.
But the more in-depth details of the arrest and the woman’s injuries were held back from being released publicly as there was a concurrent police investigation, according to the IIO.
Those details were released on March 19, and outlines video evidence provided to investigators.
REPORT DETAILS:
The report states that investigators “established the sequence of events from civilian and police witness statements, corroborated by objective video evidence.”
Neither the woman arrested nor the female officer involved gave a statement to the IIO. The IIO noted that they do not require officers whose actions are the subject of an investigation to provide evidence.
But they did have statement from three civilian witnesses, two paramedics and two witness police officers, along with police records, security camera and police vehicle dash cam video, audio recordings of a 911 call, police radio transmissions and medical evidence.
The report states that the woman left the bar shortly after 2 a.m. and “engaged in a physical altercation with a man in the parking lot.”
Two of the bar’s security team went to speak to them and the woman kept walking around the parking lot, waving her arms.
At 2:26 a.m., a third staff member held the passenger door of a cab open for the woman, but the woman instead went “back towards the man with whom she was apparently in a dispute, her fist in the air.”
The woman then got into the driver’s seat of an SUV and started it, which prompted staff to call 911.
A marked RCMP car arrived a minute later and stopped behind the SUV and turned on its emergency lights. The SUV “moved forward very slightly, but then stopped,” the report stated.
The report then offers a detailed account of the motions of the officers present, the woman resisting arrest, all while bar patrons emptied the bar into the parking lot.
An officer approached the driver’s side door and opened it, and the officer that was the subject of the investigation (referred to as “subject officer/SO”) went to the passenger side and looked in the rear seat with a flashlight.
The woman got out of the vehicle, about the same time a second police vehicle came into the parking lot.
Dashcam footage from that vehicle caught the majority of the interaction.
The woman walked to the back of the SUV, toward the subject officer while the other officer searched the vehicle for keys and ID. That officer heard “raised voices” including the woman telling the officer she was going back into the vehicle to get her phone.
That officer stood between the woman and the front door and told her she could not do that, and extended her arm.
The officer told the IIO that at that point, she felt what seemed like a “punch to her cheek,” and that she told the woman she was under arrest for assault.
That’s when a struggle ensued between the woman (AP in report) and that officer (Witness Officer 1/WO1 in the report).
The subject officer came to assist. The report continues:
“A struggle ensued between WO1 and the AP, with WO1 trying to put the AP’s arm behind her back and the AP grabbing WO1’s ponytail.
“The SO came to assist, pushing the AP against the side of the Buick, but the AP kept hold of WO1’s hair.
“The SO delivered two knee strikes to the AP, but they were not effective. WO1 swept the AP’s legs from under her, they both fell to the ground together and the struggle continued.
“WO1 said that the AP kneed her in the head twice and that when she was able to free herself from the AP’s grip, she delivered distraction strikes to the AP’s mid-section and thigh. Both officers were giving repeated commands for the AP to stop resisting.”
The officer that drove the second police car to the scene said the interaction as a “tussle that moved quickly from ‘like absolutely nothing’ to ‘suddenly they’re fighting.’”
That struggle moved to the ground, with the woman landing on her back “flailing,” according to that officer.
That officer was busy controlling the group of people approaching that he judged to be “intoxicated and hostile,” so he did see the officer “deliver a punch to the upper chest or face area” of the woman.
The video from the dash cam corroborates that account, the report added.
But it also shows “three strikes by the SO to the AP’s face as the two officers try to control her on the ground.”
At that point, the officers were able to turn the woman over and handcuff her. Her jaw had been broken and her face was bleeding.
REPORT’S ANALYSIS
The IIO investigates “any incident that occurs in the province in which an Affected Person has died or suffered serious physical harm and there appears to be a connection to the actions or sometimes inaction) of police.”
In this case, they found that the force used by the police was justified.
“The responding officers were acting in the lawful execution of their duty in preventing the AP from driving in a state of apparent intoxication,” the report stated. “There was justification to arrest her for impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and assault, and the officers were authorized to use a degree of force that was reasonably necessary for the purpose.
“While blows to the head are a higher level of force, with greater risk of injury, there was a need to get the AP under control quickly. Video of the scene and the evidence of WO2 show that the officers were at risk of interference or violence from angry and intoxicated bystanders. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the force used by the SO and WO1 was unnecessary or excessive.
“Accordingly as Chief Civilian Director of the IIO I do not consider that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an officer may have committed an offence under any enactment, and the matter will not be referred to Crown counsel for consideration of charges.”