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 an incident that took place on August 1, 2016 at about 10:00 p.m. involving the Barrie Police Service. The complainant was arrested for being intoxicated in a public place. During his time in custody, two of the complainant’s left hand fingers were severed. The complainant was transported to hospital.

Notification of the SIU

The SIU was notified of the incident by the Barrie Police Service on August 1, 2016 at 11:00 p.m.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Complainant

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

Civilian Witnesses

CW Interviewed

Police Employees

PE Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Notes were reviewed

Subject Officers

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

The Scene

The incident took place at the BPS station in prisoner cell #3. The cell door was made out of heavy metal and there were wheels on the bottom of it. It rolled from left to right and there was a padlock on the outside of the door with a lever.

Scene Diagram

No scene diagram was completed because the incident was captured on video.

Physical Evidence

Upon arrival of SIU forensic investigators, two faint barefoot impressions were seen on the floor of the outside hallway of the cell area. There was an ample amount of blood found inside of cell #3, but there was no blood found on the latch area and the receiver of the cell door.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, and was able to locate relevant video footage of the BPS booking room and cell area.

Communications Recordings

A communication recording from August 1, 2016 at approximately 9:00 p.m. between CW #1 and the 911 call taker, regarding issues with the complainant, was obtained and reviewed.

Materials obtained from BPS

Upon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following additional materials from BPS:

• Arrest report,
• Dispatch-event details (CAD chronology),
• SO notes,
• WO #4 notes, and
• Prisoner log.

On August 1, 2016, at approximately 9:00 p.m., the CW made a 911 call complaining about the conduct of her roommate, the complainant. As a result, the SO, WO #3 and WO #4 were dispatched and subsequently arrested the complainant pursuant to the Liquor Licence Act for being intoxicated in a public place contrary to section 31(4). The complainant was transported to the station and was belligerent with the booking sergeant – WO #1 – as the sergeant attempted to ask him some questions. The complainant was then escorted to the cell area by the PE and the SO.

Just after being placed in cell #3, the complainant physically resisted the officers’ efforts to close the cell door. He grabbed the door and was trying to pull it open while the SO was trying to pull it closed. The PE grabbed the cell door and tried to close it several times, but the complainant placed his fingers on the edge of the door, preventing it from closing. The PE told the complainant several times to move his hand and the SO used his right arm to reach into the cell to push the complainant away from the door. The PE and the SO were eventually able to close the cell door, at which point they left the cell area.

When the SO left the cell area and returned to the hallway, he noted that there was blood on his right arm and WO #1 told him that the complainant had been injured. The SO then returned to the cell area and observed that the complainant’s left ring and middle fingers were covered in blood. The SO tried to get the complainant out of the cell to take him to hospital, but the complainant refused. The complainant finally came out of the cell, his hands were placed in bags and WO #1 gave the SO a bag with a piece of the complainant’s finger in it, which he brought to hospital with him.

At the hospital, the complainant underwent a procedure to close the wounds of his injured fingers.

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.

Pursuant to s.25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are restricted in their use of force to that which is reasonably necessary in the execution of a lawful duty. Turning first to the lawfulness of the complainant’s apprehension, it is clear from the statement of the CW, and from the observations of the SO and WO #3 and WO #4, that the complainant was intoxicated and was outside of his residence annoying the CW and generally making a nuisance of himself. WO #3 certainly gave the complainant every opportunity to return to his home, but when he refused to do so and stepped out onto the sidewalk, he was arrested. I am satisfied that the complainant was subject to arrest for being intoxicated in a public place once he left the property. As such, the arrest of the complainant was legally justified in the circumstances.

With respect to the force used by the officers in their dealings with the complainant, I cannot find that his injuries were caused by any force used by them to attempt to subdue the complainant. In fact, from viewing both the booking video and the cell video, officers did no more than push the complainant into his cell, when he refused to cooperate and enter voluntarily. The injury to the complainant’s hand appears to have been an unfortunate accident brought about when the officers were attempting to lodge the complainant in the cell and he continually put his hand in the path of the cell door in order to prevent it closing. Although it is clear that both the SO and the PE had their hands on the door when it was ultimately closed, I cannot find that there was any intention on their part to do harm to the complainant; in fact, the PE is seen striking the complainant’s hand several times to remove it from the door, while the SO is actively seen both prying the complainant’s hand from the door and then putting his own arm in the path of the door to push the complainant back from the door, with the door almost closing on the SO’s arm. Once the SO pulled his arm back from the path of the door, he is then again seen to reach through the bars with his hand and arm to push the complainant back away from the door to allow the door to be safely closed. It is apparent from the video how the complainant’s left hand may have been easily overlooked by the officers since, right up until the point where the cell door is shut, the complainant primarily resisted by placing his right hand on the side of the door and that appears to be where the officers focused their attention.

On this evidence, and as clearly seen on the cell video, it appears that the complainant was actively resisting the best efforts of the officers to ensure that he was safely lodged in a cell until sober. Despite the actions of the officers, the complainant somehow managed to place his left hand in harm’s way after the officers had successfully removed his right hand and closed the door.

On this record, I find that the injuries to the complainant were caused by his own actions in placing his hand in the path of the cell door as it was being closed; that the officers in all likelihood did not see the location of the complainant’s left hand, as it was not visible from their vantage point and is not seen on the cell video; and that the complainant’s injuries were as a result of an unfortunate accident. As such, there is no basis for finding that reasonable grounds exist for the laying of criminal charges and no charges will be laid.

Date: July 26, 2017

Original signed by
Joseph Martino
Acting Director
Special Investigations Unit