Coquitlam weapons arrest unlocks Surrey shooting case, despite police missteps

A Coquitlam arrest has become a key thread in a sprawling Lower Mainland shooting investigation – one a Supreme Court judge says police mishandled through long periods of delay.

In reasons released Feb. 3, Justice Eric Gottardi reluctantly approved the Crown request to keep cellphone data seized from a suspect, identified only as T.O., after earlier court orders authorizing its detention expired due to police oversight.

Gottardi described the Surrey police investigators as “falling short of the conduct we expect from professional law enforcement.”

“The failures on the part of the Surrey police to investigate the contents of this data more diligently and to properly preserve their lawful authority to maintain its detention are inexplicable,” he said.

The data, extracted from phones taken when T.O. was arrested by RCMP officers in Coquitlam on a weapons charge in January 2024, later revealed evidence allegedly tying him to a targeted shooting in Surrey just weeks earlier

That discovery included communications discussing the planning of the shooting, along with images of the crime scene and the location where the suspect getaway vehicle was burned in an apparent attempt to destroy evidence, according to the court.

The underlying investigation stems from a late-night attack on Jan. 1, 2024, when a gunman in a white vehicle opened fire on two people sitting in a parked black Mercedes on a residential Surrey street, seriously wounding one victim.

Shortly afterward, police were called to a vehicle fire involving a white Dodge Caliber – later identified as the car used in the shooting.

DNA from cigarette butts found near the scene ultimately pointed investigators toward T.O., but it was the phones seized months earlier during the Coquitlam weapons arrest that provided what the court described as crucial evidence of his alleged involvement.

Despite acknowledging the seriousness of the attempted killing, Gottardi sharply criticized investigators for unexplained gaps in activity and administrative failures that allowed detention orders for the seized digital evidence to lapse.

“This decision . . . falls into the ‘hold your nose’ category of judicial decision-making,” Gottardi said, noting that police appeared to do little with the data for months at a time and failed to act promptly once the order expired.

The lapse was partly blamed on an officer going on parental leave, but the court found broader communication failures between police and Crown counsel contributed to the problem.

However, Gottardi ruled the public interest in fully investigating a firearm-related attempted killing outweighed the significant privacy interests attached to personal cellphone data.

“There is evidence contained within this data that T.O. communicated with other individuals involved in the planned shooting,” he said, calling the public’s interest in seeing the investigation concluded “most compelling.”

While prosecutors sought to keep the evidence until June 2026, the court shortened the extension to April 1, 2026, noting the file had already been with Crown counsel for months for charge approval assessment.

The ruling means the cellphone data seized during the Coquitlam arrest will remain in police hands for now – preserving what the judge described as central evidence in a multi-suspect investigation involving alleged planning, coordination, and destruction of evidence.