SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-PCI-204
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
Mandate of the SIU
The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.
Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.
Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.
Information Restrictions
Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019
Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:- The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
- Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
- Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
- Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
- Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
- Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Pursuant to section14 (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:- Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
- Information that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.
- The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
- Location information;
- Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence; and
- Other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation.
Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004
Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.Other proceedings, processes, and investigations
Information may also have been excluded from this report because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.Mandate Engaged
Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.
A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.
In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.
This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into a serious injury reportedly sustained by a 24-year-old woman (the “Complainant’).
A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.
In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.
This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into a serious injury reportedly sustained by a 24-year-old woman (the “Complainant’).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On August 12, 2022, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU and reported the following information.On August 9, 2022, at 8:27 p.m., the Complainant was arrested by Quinte West OPP officers. She was released at some point and then returned to the detachment to complain that she had been kneed in the side during her arrest, which caused issues to the child she was carrying and resulted in a miscarriage. The arrest was captured on body-worn camera (BWC) footage.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 08/12/2022 at 7:02 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 08/12/2022 at 8:09 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
24-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on August 13, 2022.
Witness Officials
WO Interviewed The witness official was interviewed on August 23, 2022.
Evidence
The Scene
The scene was not attended by the SIU, but was captured by the BWCs worn by police officers.The Complainant’s initial contact with the police, and her subsequent arrest, took place outside in the area of a residential complex near Dixon Drive and Sidney Street, Quinte West.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
BWC Video
Requested on August 15, 2022, and received by the SIU on August 17, 2022, the BWC footage captured by Officer #1’s camera on August 9, 2022, began at 8:26 p.m., and lasted five minutes, 49 seconds. The following is a summary of the pertinent footage.Officer #1 was out of the camera’s view as he wore the camera. He spoke to three male police officers [now known to be Officer #2, Officer #3, and Officer #4]. There were two police vehicles parked on the street. Officer #2 and Officer #3 left the group and walked to the street where a car had pulled up and stopped. The Complainant exited the vehicle and stood on the grass.
As Officer #2 approached the Complainant, the audio on the BWC was activated. Officer #2 walked to within metres of the Complainant holding his handcuffs in his left hand. The Complainant moved backward and yelled, “You fucking lied to me,” and began to run across the street.
Officer #2 chased her and caught her by her left arm. He guided her, as she ran, towards and onto the grass boulevard on the opposite side of the street from where she began her run. The Complainant yelled, “I’m pregnant you fucking goof, get off me.” Officer #1 tried to secure the Complainant’s right arm, with Officer #2 still on her left. Officer #3 also arrived to assist, and held onto the Complainant’s right side. The Complainant yelled, “Get off me.” Officer #2 told the Complainant to stop running. She screamed for the police officers to let go of her. Officer #2 told the Complainant to relax. The Complainant yelled, “Let the fuck go.” An officer told her she was going to get hurt as the Complainant was lowered to her knees on the grass.
Officer #2 stood behind her, on her left side, trying to control her left arm. Officer #1, down on his left knee, held the Complainant’s right forearm with his right hand and had his left hand on her left wrist. Officer #1 stood behind the Complainant.
The Complainant, still on her knees, leaned forward and struggled. Officer #1 held her right arm with both his hands before he took the Complainant’s right hand and controlled it. Officer #2 bent over and tried to obtain the Complainant’s left hand. The officer told her to stop struggling as he pushed her forward. The Complainant laid herself on the ground on her right side and her cellular telephone was taken from her left hand. She kicked at the police officers saying she had kids. Officer #2, Officer #3 and Officer #1 told her to stop struggling. The Complainant continued to writhe on the ground and yell at the police officers to let go of her as the police officers tried to apply handcuffs.
At 8:28:17 p.m., the Complainant’s hands were handcuffed behind her back as she lay on her right side, on the ground. She asked if she could go home if she calmed down. Officer #2 said, “Keep calm, your pregnant okay, you keep freaking out.” Officer #2 and Officer #3 raised her to her feet and tried to calm her.
The Complainant was walked to Officer #2’s police vehicle and placed inside through the back driver’s side door. Officer #2 spoke to the Complainant while she was seated in the back of the police vehicle. Officer #3 and Officer #4 stood on the grass beside the police vehicle as Officer #2 closed the back door with the Complainant in the back seat.
Custody Video
Requested on August 15, 2022, and received by the SIU on September 22, 2022, were the police facility recordings of the Complainant’s booking and custody dated August 9, 2022, and recorded between 8:37 p.m., and 9:36 p.m. The footage provided nothing of evidentiary value to the investigation.Police Communications Recordings
The communications recordings were requested on August 15, 2022, and received by the SIU on September 26, 2022. The following is a summary of the recordings. 911 Call
On August 9, 2022, at 8:14 p.m., the police received a 911 report that a man was drunk and had assaulted his girlfriend - the Complainant. The man attempted to strike the Complainant with his fists and then drove a vehicle at her. The police arrived during that 911 call.
Police Radio Communications
On August 9, 2022, at 8:16 p.m., police officers were dispatched to the scene in relation to a domestic dispute. A short time later, one of the police officers who arrived at the call broadcast that the Complainant was in custody and being transported to the Quinte West Detachment.
In-car Camera System (ICCS) Recordings
The ICCS recordings were requested on August 15, 2022, and received by the SIU on August 17, 2022. The following is a summary of the pertinent footage. The ICCS recording of Officer #2’s police vehicle, recorded August 9, 2022, starting at 8:29:23 p.m., lasted for eight minutes and 36 seconds, and began with the capture of its empty back seat.
At 8:29:45 p.m., the driver’s side rear door was opened by Officer #2, and the Complainant was put into the driver’s side rear seat, her hands handcuffed behind her back. Officer #2 kept the door open, and told the Complainant he was arresting her. He read the Complainant her rights to counsel and legal aid information from the back of his memorandum book. The Complainant said she understood and asked if she would be released. Officer #2 told her he would look at her conditions. She told him all she had were conditions to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and again asked if she could be released. Officer #2 replied that he was not going to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ - he did not want to lie to her but if he was able to release her, he would. He told her they would talk at the station. The Complainant told Officer #2 she needed to know if she was going to be released and he told her he would let her know as soon as he could. The Complainant told Officer #2 that she had children and Officer #2 asked if she wanted to talk to a lawyer, and if she understood her rights. The Complainant nodded her head ‘yes’ and asked again if she was going to be released. She was told she was being charged with ‘public mischief’, and that charge was not something they would hold her for, but he had to look at her conditions. Officer #2 closed the vehicle’s door and the Complainant remained seated in the back seat. Officer #2 got in the front of the police vehicle and drove away. He asked the Complainant if she was on probation to keep the peace. She said ‘no’, and that she was in court, and had plead guilty to a charge.
At 8:33:02 p.m., Officer #2 told the Complainant he was going to lodge her, do the paperwork and get her out of the police station. She asked if she would have to sit in a cell and Officer #2 replied she would, but just for as long as it took him to do the paperwork. The Complainant asked Officer #2 to call her family and let them know she would be home.
At 8:34:10 p.m., Officer #2 telephoned someone and told them the Complainant would be back home that night.
At 8:37:50 p.m., Officer #2 arrived at the police station and the Complainant was removed from the rear seat of the police vehicle.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
The SIU obtained the following records from the OPP Quinte West Detachment between August 16, 2022, and November 30, 2022:- Arrest Report and Crown Brief
- Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
- Notes – the WO;
- ICCS video footage;
- Communications recordings;
- Booking video;
- BWC policy and procedure; and
- BWC footage of arrest.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the following other sources: - Medical records – the Complainant; and
- Photographs of injury and purported miscarriage – the Complainant.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with the Complainant, a review of her medical records, and BWC footage that captured the Complainant’s arrest in its entirety, gives rise to the following scenario.
In the evening of August 9, 2022, OPP officers were dispatched to a residence near Dixon Drive and Sidney Street, Quinte West. A third-party had called police to report a domestic disturbance involving the Complainant and her partner.
By the time of the officers’ arrival on scene, the Complainant had left the address on foot. She returned a short time later after a friend contacted her to say that the officers wanted to confirm that she was okay.
Officer #1, Officer #2 and Officer #3 were among the officers at the address. Prior to the Complainant’s return, the officers had satisfied themselves that the Complainant had not been physically victimized by her partner on this occasion. However, they had learned that the Complainant was wanted in relation to a false complaint of an assault reported to have occurred on July 19, 2022. Officer #2 was the first to speak with the Complainant, and advised her she was under arrest.
At word of her arrest, an upset Complainant ran away from the officers across the roadway. She was quickly caught from behind by Officer #2, who grabbed hold of her right arm. Officer #1 arrived and took hold of her left arm. With the assistance of Officer #3, also with a hold of the Complainant’s right side, the officers were able for force the Complainant onto her knees as she struggled against the officers’ efforts. The Complainant continued to struggle on the ground and was eventually positioned on her right side as the officers fixed her in handcuffs behind her back.
Following her arrest, the Complainant was assisted to her feet and placed in the rear seat of Officer #2’s cruiser for transportation to the police station.
In the evening of August 9, 2022, OPP officers were dispatched to a residence near Dixon Drive and Sidney Street, Quinte West. A third-party had called police to report a domestic disturbance involving the Complainant and her partner.
By the time of the officers’ arrival on scene, the Complainant had left the address on foot. She returned a short time later after a friend contacted her to say that the officers wanted to confirm that she was okay.
Officer #1, Officer #2 and Officer #3 were among the officers at the address. Prior to the Complainant’s return, the officers had satisfied themselves that the Complainant had not been physically victimized by her partner on this occasion. However, they had learned that the Complainant was wanted in relation to a false complaint of an assault reported to have occurred on July 19, 2022. Officer #2 was the first to speak with the Complainant, and advised her she was under arrest.
At word of her arrest, an upset Complainant ran away from the officers across the roadway. She was quickly caught from behind by Officer #2, who grabbed hold of her right arm. Officer #1 arrived and took hold of her left arm. With the assistance of Officer #3, also with a hold of the Complainant’s right side, the officers were able for force the Complainant onto her knees as she struggled against the officers’ efforts. The Complainant continued to struggle on the ground and was eventually positioned on her right side as the officers fixed her in handcuffs behind her back.
Following her arrest, the Complainant was assisted to her feet and placed in the rear seat of Officer #2’s cruiser for transportation to the police station.
Relevant Legislation
Section 25(1), Criminal Code -- Protection of persons acting under authority
25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
(a) as a private person,(b) as a peace officer or public officer,(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or(d) by virtue of his office,
is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.
Analysis and Director's Decision
On August 12, 2022, the OPP contacted the SIU to report that they were in receipt of information in which it was alleged that a woman – the Complainant – had suffered a miscarriage because of force used by officers in her arrest of August 9, 2022. The SIU initiated an investigation.
Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.
On my review of the police investigation of the assault alleged by the Complainant to have occurred on July 19, 2022, in which she was purportedly the victim, I am satisfied that there existed grounds to arrest the Complainant for public mischief.
I am further satisfied that the arresting officers – Officer #1, Officer #2 and Officer #3 – used no more than legally justified force in taking the Complainant into custody. The officers quickly caught up with the Complainant when she ran away, firmly took hold of her arms, and lowered her in a controlled fashion onto her knees. The Complainant told the officers to let go of her because she was pregnant, and the officers responded by encouraging the Complainant to relax and refrain from resisting. In short order, the officers were able to control the Complainant’s arms and handcuff them behind her back. No strikes of any kind were delivered. On this record, it would appear that minimal force was used to overcome the Complainant’s resistance and effect her arrest.
There are real doubts raised with respect to the reported miscarriage the Complainant is said to have suffered on August 11, 2022. It is alleged the Complainant was nine weeks pregnant but hospital records indicate that could not have been the case. And the Complainant did not attend hospital after the reported miscarriage on August 11, 2022, leaving little real evidence behind as to what the nature of the medical episode might have been.
Be that as it may, whether the Complainant miscarried or not, there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that any such miscarriage was attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the officers involved in her arrest on August 9, 2022. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: December 10, 2022
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.
On my review of the police investigation of the assault alleged by the Complainant to have occurred on July 19, 2022, in which she was purportedly the victim, I am satisfied that there existed grounds to arrest the Complainant for public mischief.
I am further satisfied that the arresting officers – Officer #1, Officer #2 and Officer #3 – used no more than legally justified force in taking the Complainant into custody. The officers quickly caught up with the Complainant when she ran away, firmly took hold of her arms, and lowered her in a controlled fashion onto her knees. The Complainant told the officers to let go of her because she was pregnant, and the officers responded by encouraging the Complainant to relax and refrain from resisting. In short order, the officers were able to control the Complainant’s arms and handcuff them behind her back. No strikes of any kind were delivered. On this record, it would appear that minimal force was used to overcome the Complainant’s resistance and effect her arrest.
There are real doubts raised with respect to the reported miscarriage the Complainant is said to have suffered on August 11, 2022. It is alleged the Complainant was nine weeks pregnant but hospital records indicate that could not have been the case. And the Complainant did not attend hospital after the reported miscarriage on August 11, 2022, leaving little real evidence behind as to what the nature of the medical episode might have been.
Be that as it may, whether the Complainant miscarried or not, there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that any such miscarriage was attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the officers involved in her arrest on August 9, 2022. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: December 10, 2022
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
Note:
The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.