Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act (“FIPPA”)

Pursuant to section 14 of FIPPA (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 whose release could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.

Pursuant to section 21 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• subject officer name(s)
• witness officer name(s)
• civilian witness name(s)
• 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 (“PHIPA”)

Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may have also 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.

The Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.

“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injuries sustained by a 30-year-old man from a motor vehicle collision on October 13, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

On October 16, 2017 at 10:40 a.m., the London Police Service (LPS) reported a vehicle injury to the Complainant.[1]

LPS advised that a LPS police officer was conducting a traffic stop on Saturday, October 14, 2017[2], at 8:25 p.m. [which is now known to have occurred on October 13, 2017]. The driver of a vehicle, Civilian Witness (CW) #6, and the passenger, the Complainant, fled at a high rate of speed. CW #6 collided with a second vehicle a short time later while the police officer was still at the traffic stop. The police officer then headed in the direction of CW #6’s vehicle with his emergency equipment off.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

SIU Forensic Investigators responded to the scene and identified and preserved evidence. They documented the relevant scene associated with the incident by way of notes and photography.

Complainant

30-year-old male interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Investigation determined injury not related to officer conduct- Not Interviewed

WO #2 Investigation determined injury not related to officer conduct- Not Interviewed

WO #3 Investigation determined injury not related to officer conduct- Not Interviewed

Subject officers

SO Investigation determined injury not related to officer conduct - Not Interviewed and notes not received

During the evening of October 13^th, 2017, the SO was investigating an Acura being driven by CW #6, which had unattached plates. The SO signaled for CW #6 to pull over at the intersection of Culver Drive and Third Street in London. Although CW #6 initially pulled over for the SO when requested, he took off at a high rate of speed once the SO exited his cruiser. The Complainant was CW #6’s passenger.

A short distance away, CW #6 lost control of the Acura, and the front of a black SUV struck the passenger side of the Acura, where the Complainant was seated.

The Complainant was transported by ambulance to the hospital, and was treated for two fractured collar bones, bilateral pulmonary hemorrhage[3], bilateral rib fractures, bilateral pneumothorax,[4] and a non-displaced fractured vertebra.

The scene

Culver Drive and Third Street, the location of the traffic stop, is an intersection that borders a large subdivision of single family dwellings. Culver Drive is a winding residential roadway with many intersecting streets. The speed limit is 50 km/h. The paved two lane roadway is bordered by sidewalks. The collision occurred about one kilometre east of the location of the traffic stop. The intersection of Culver Drive and Culver Place cannot be seen from Third Street.

CW #6’s Acura Integra was examined and photographed by the SIU Forensic Investigator. It did not display any markings or damage consistent with contact from behind. Both the passenger and driver’s side air bags had deployed during the collision. The interior of the vehicle was swabbed for the presence of oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray and it did not have the odour of recently discharged OC spray. The OC canister carried by the SO was seized for comparison purposes[5].

The SO’s cruiser was examined and photographed. It did not have any collision damage.

Forensic Evidence

The SO’s Cruiser’s Global Positioning System (GPS) Locator Analysis

On Friday, October 13, 2017, the SO operated a marked LPS vehicle equipped with GPS.

From 8:18 p.m. to 8:24 p.m., the SO was stopped at a multi-level apartment building parking lot just north of the intersection of Third Street and Culver Drive. At 8:24:50 p.m. to 8:25:15 p.m., the SO exited the parking lot and stopped on Culver Drive, just east of Third Street. This was the location of the initial traffic stop of CW #6’s Acura. The SO’s police vehicle remained motionless at this location for about one minute. At 8:26:15 p.m., the SO’s police vehicle moved east on Culver Drive and stopped at Culver Place at 8:26:31 p.m. This is the location of the collision. The SO’s initial speed was 37.1 km/h. His speed increased to a maximum 53.7 km/h and reduced to 52.3 km/h before he stopped at the scene of the collision.

Video/audio/photographic evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, but was not able to locate any.

Communications recordings

911 Calls

The LPS Communications Branch received six 911 calls from citizens reporting the collision at Culver Drive and Culver Place. Other calls were received, but immediately disconnected as duplicate calls for service. Four 911 callers provided some detail of the collision and interrupted their report with a comment a police officer [now known to be the SO] just arrived. No callers reported any information related to a pursuit or that the Acura operated by CW #6 had been followed by a police vehicle. One caller reported excessive speed by CW #6’s Acura.

LPS Communications

On Friday, October 13, 2017, at 8:25:18 p.m., the SO told communications that he was out with a vehicle with unattached plates at the intersection of Culver Drive and Third Street. At 8:25:34 p.m., the SO calmly told communications, “As you heard, that vehicle just took off on me.” The sound of a loud customized muffler could be heard accelerating in the background of the transmission. The background noise was very clear, which suggested the SO made his transmission on his portable radio while outside his police vehicle.

Communications later asked the SO, “Where are you now?” The SO replied, “I can’t see it, it’s got, one of those Hollywood mufflers, you can hear it a mile away.” A brief time later, communications told the SO they had just received a call for a collision that occurred at Culver Drive and Culver Place and stated, “You should be pulling up on it soon.” The SO then excitedly broadcast a request for additional police response and an ambulance.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the LPS

• Booking video
• Detailed Call Summary
• General Occurrence Report
• Mobile Data Terminal Transactions of the SO
• Procedure - Suspect Apprehension Pursuits
• Communications Recordings
• GPS Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) data – the SO’s cruiser, and
• Subject Profile – CW #6

Sections 1-3, Ontario Regulation 266/10, Ontario Police Services Act – Suspect Apprehension Pursuits

1. (1) For the purposes of this Regulation, a suspect apprehension pursuit occurs when a police officer attempts to direct the driver of a motor vehicle to stop, the driver refuses to obey the officer and the officer pursues in a motor vehicle for the purpose of stopping the fleeing motor vehicle or identifying the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle

(2) A suspect apprehension pursuit is discontinued when police officers are no longer pursuing a fleeing motor vehicle for the purpose of stopping the fleeing motor vehicle or identifying the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle.

2. (1) A police officer may pursue, or continue to pursue, a fleeing motor vehicle that fails to stop

1. if the police officer has reason to believe that a criminal offence has been committed or is about to be committed; or
2. for the purposes of motor vehicle identification or the identification of an individual in the vehicle

(2) Before initiating a suspect apprehension pursuit, a police officer shall determine that there are no alternatives available as set out in the written procedures of,

1. the police force of the officer established under subsection 6 (1), if the officer is a member of an Ontario police force as defined in the Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009
2. a police force whose local commander was notified of the appointment of the officer under subsection 6 (1) of the Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009, if the officer was appointed under Part II of that Act; or
3. the local police force of the local commander who appointed the officer under subsection 15 (1) of the Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009, if the officer was appointed under Part III of that Act

(3) A police officer shall, before initiating a suspect apprehension pursuit, determine whether in order to protect public safety the immediate need to apprehend an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle or the need to identify the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle outweighs the risk to public safety that may result from the pursuit.

(4) During a suspect apprehension pursuit, a police officer shall continually reassess the determination made under subsection (3) and shall discontinue the pursuit when the risk to public safety that may result from the pursuit outweighs the risk to public safety that may result if an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle is not immediately apprehended or if the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle is not identified.

(5) No police officer shall initiate a suspect apprehension pursuit for a non-criminal offence if the identity of an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle is known.

(6) A police officer engaging in a suspect apprehension pursuit for a non-criminal offence shall discontinue the pursuit once the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle is identified.

3. (1) A police officer shall notify a dispatcher when the officer initiates a suspect apprehension pursuit

(2) The dispatcher shall notify a communications supervisor or road supervisor, if a supervisor is available, that a suspect apprehension pursuit has been initiated.

On October 13^th, 2017, at approximately 8:25 p.m., the SO stopped a grey Acura Integra motor vehicle in the area of Culver Drive and Third Street in the City of London. The vehicle was reported to have unattached plates. The Acura, driven by CW #6 with the Complainant as his front seat passenger, then sped off and was involved in a motor vehicle collision with a black SUV driven by CW #4, who had her four minor children in the van at the time. As a result of the collision, the Complainant sustained two fractured collar bones, a bilateral pulmonary hemorrhage (both lungs were bruised), bilateral rib fractures, bilateral pneumothorax (both lungs collapsed) and a non-displaced fractured vertebra.

In his statement to investigators, the Complainant alleged that the SO immediately chased them as CW #6 pulled away from the stop, resulting in CW #6 losing control of the motor vehicle, spinning sideways, and colliding with a black van. The Complainant also alleged that the SO sprayed him with OC spray. The Complainant could not recall anything after he was sprayed.

CW #6, in his statement, indicated he had no recall of any of the events.

Fortunately, as a result of the assistance of five civilians who independently witnessed various stages of the SO’s movements from the time that he stopped the grey Acura to the time of his arrival at the collision scene, combined with the evidence obtained from the police radio communications recordings, the GPS data from the SO’s motor vehicle, and an examination of both the grey Acura and the police cruiser, a timeline was able to be established which accounted for the SO’s movements from the time that he stopped the grey Acura until he arrived at the collision scene. This indisputable evidence directly contradicts the evidence of the Complainant.

The SO was first observed by an independent witness, a pedestrian who was out walking his dog, pull up behind a grey Acura when the Acura was stopped at the stop sign at Third Street and Culver Drive. The SO was observed to activate his emergency lights, but no siren, and the Acura was observed to turn left onto Culver Drive and stop. The police vehicle followed with its emergency lights still activated.

The GPS data downloaded from the SO’s vehicle confirmed that he stopped on Culver Drive just east of Third Street between 8:24:50 and 8:25:15 p.m. and remained stationary at that location for approximately one minute.

At 8:25:18 p.m., the communication recording confirms that the SO called in that he was out with a vehicle with unattached plates at the intersection of Culver Drive and Third Street.

The SO was observed by the pedestrian to sit in his cruiser for a minute after which he opened his door and started to exit. At that point, the witness heard the Acura accelerate and leave.

At 8:25:34 p.m., the communications recording reveals the SO saying, in a calm voice, “As you heard, that vehicle just took off on me”. In the background, on the recording, a loud customized muffler is heard accelerating. The clarity of the sound of the muffler appears to confirm that the SO was still outside of his vehicle when he made this transmission and not inside his cruiser.

When the witness looked back toward the police vehicle, he observed the SO back in the vehicle where he sat for some 15 to 20 seconds, at which point the cruiser followed in the direction of the Acura with his emergency lighting still on, but no siren. The witness advised that he did not believe that the SO was in pursuit of the Acura.

The GPS data confirmed that at 8:26:15 p.m., the SO left his stopped location and moved east on Culver Drive with his initial speed recorded as being 37.1 km/h; this is a posted 50 km/h zone.

The recording then reveals that communications asked the SO “Where are you now?” and the SO is heard to respond, “I can’t see it, it’s got one of those Hollywood mufflers, you can hear it a mile away.”

A second civilian witness heard the sound of a loud exhaust driving up Culver Drive at a high rate of speed. No police siren was heard at that time. She observed the motor vehicle start to drift and then collide with a black SUV, and she made a 911 call to police.

The recording confirms that communications notified the SO that they had just received a call for a collision that occurred at Culver Drive and Culver Place, and the operator is heard to state “You should be pulling up on it soon.”

The GPS data confirms that the SO accelerated to a maximum speed of 53.7 km/h, before slowing to 52.3 km/h just before he came to a stop at the collision scene.

About 30 seconds after she ended her 911 call, the second witness observed the first police vehicle arrive; she described it as travelling at about 40 km/s and it did not have any of its emergency equipment activated. She observed the SO to exit his cruiser.

A third witness, a pedestrian walking on Culver Crescent, one block west of the collision scene, first heard the sound of an engine revving and then saw a grey vehicle speed by on Culver Drive at speeds estimated to be between 80 and 90 km/h. A second later, he heard a short skid followed by the sound of an impact. This witness then saw that the Acura had been involved in a collision with a black SUV. This witness described the first police vehicle arriving at the collision scene some five to ten seconds after he had walked there and he described the cruiser as travelling at about 40 km/h with no emergency lighting activated. No police officer was observed by this witness to deploy OC spray or resort to any other use of force option.

The driver of the black SUV observed a grey Acura approaching her at a high rate of speed. The Acura spun and the passenger side of the Acura then collided with the front end of her vehicle and the airbags deployed. This witness did not observe any vehicle behind the Acura at that time and at no time was a police vehicle pursuing the Acura; she advised that the SO only arrived at the scene about ten minutes after the collision.

A fifth civilian witness advised that he had been at the collision scene for about one minute before the first police vehicle arrived and he observed the SO exit. He then observed the SO to lean back into his vehicle, activate the emergency lights, and talk into the police radio. The SO was not observed to have anything in his hands when he approached the Acura.

No independent witness observed the SO pursuing the Acura. Nor did any independent witness observe any police officer deploy OC spray or resort to any other use of force option.

The 911 recording confirms that six 911 calls were received from citizens reporting the collision, four of which stopped mid call to advise that a police officer had just arrived.

Examination of the Acura by the SIU forensic investigator confirmed that there was no odour of recently discharged OC spray (which generally lingers and is very strong, even after its deployment). Additionally, both the Acura and the SO’s police cruiser were examined and it was confirmed that these two vehicles never made contact; the SO’s vehicle having no evidence of any collision damage whatsoever.

The GPS data from the SO’s vehicle confirmed that at the time of the receipt of several 911 calls, the SO’s motor vehicle had not yet arrived at the collision scene but was still travelling on Culver Drive at the posted speed limit.

On all of the physical evidence, combined with the evidence from the independent civilian witnesses at various points along the route of the grey Acura and the SO’s cruiser, it is clear that while the SO had originally stopped the Acura for breach of a section of the Highway Traffic Act (HTA), when the Acura sped off, he did not pursue. It is equally clear that after the initial stop, he deactivated his emergency equipment and was specifically observed only reactivating it after his arrival at the collision scene, which is estimated by various witnesses as being between one to ten minutes after the actual collision.

On all of the evidence, I find that at no time did the SO engage the grey Acura in a police pursuit; that CW #6, in speeding off and travelling at excessively high speeds, was the direct cause of the collision between his vehicle and the black SUV; that CW #6 continued in his efforts to evade police despite the fact that the SO was not pursuing the vehicle; and that CW #6 and CW #6 alone is responsible for the collision and the consequent injuries to his passenger, the Complainant, and the driver of the black SUV.

In fact, in reviewing the evidence in its entirety, it is clear that not only did the SO respond to the situation in full compliance with the Criminal Code, the HTA and the Ontario Police Services Act, but he behaved at all times professionally, prudently and with good common sense. I cannot find any criticism whatsoever of the SO’s actions but rather I would commend him for his calm and level headed approach to CW #6’s behaviour, and as such, find that there is no basis here for the laying of criminal charges.

Date: January 10, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] The matter occurred on October 13, 2017, although it was not referred to the SIU until Monday, October 16, 2017, when the incident was reviewed by members of the LPS Professional Standards Branch. The LPS Deputy Chief then ordered the SIU be notified. [Back to text]
• 2) [2] The LPS initially reported the wrong date – the actual date of incident was Friday, October 13, 2017. [Back to text]
• 3) [3] Both lungs bruised. [Back to text]
• 4) [4] Both lungs collapsed. [Back to text]
• 5) [5] Information determined OC spray was not discharged at this incident. Consequently, the samples were not submitted to the Centre of Forensic Sciences for analysis. [Back to text]