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 March 15, 2016 when the complainant was arrested by Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) for impaired driving and later diagnosed with a fractured ankle.

Notification of the SIU

The SIU was notified of the incident by NRPS on March 15, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. NRPS reported the subject officer stopped the complainant on her driveway as he suspected she was an impaired driver. The complainant was arrested and transported to NRPS 1 District police station in St. Catharines for a breath test. Later that morning, the complainant complained of discomfort in her left ankle and was transported to the hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left ankle.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Complainant

51-year-old female interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witnesses

CW Interviewed

Police Employee Witnesses

PEW #1 Interviewed

PEW #2 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

Subject Officers

SO Declined interview and declined to provide notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right

The Scene

The scene was located inside the sally port at 1 District NRPS, located at 68 Church Street, St. Catharines.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

The SIU collected CCTV video recordings from the rear parking lot, sally port and booking area at 1 District.

Materials obtained from NRPS

Upon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from NRPS:

• CAD (detailed call summary),
• Custody history,
• GPS logs,
• Notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #5,
• Notes of PEW #1 and PEW #2, and
• GPS request.

At 2:43 a.m. on March 15, 2016, the SO arrested the complainant for impaired driving outside her home in Niagara Falls. The complainant was transported to NRPS 1 District in St. Catherines for a breath test. While en route, the complainant’s handcuffs became undone. In the parking lot at 1 District, the SO removed the complainant from the cruiser with the assistance of WO #3 in order to re-apply her handcuffs. Although the complainant struggled violently and would not remain still, the officers were able to re-handcuff the complainant’s hands behind her back. Once handcuffed, the SO and WO #3 struggled to get the complainant back into the rear of the cruiser. WO #4 assisted their efforts. The complainant continued to resist and struggle, kicking both her feet and pushing against the cruiser door. The three officers were eventually able to put the complainant in to the back seat of the cruiser and close the door.

Once the cruiser was inside the sally port, the SO, WO #5, PEW #1 and PEW #2 attempted to convince the complainant to voluntarily exit the cruiser. After more than 10 minutes, the complainant was assisted from the cruiser by WO #5 and PEW #2. As the complainant stepped out of the cruiser, however, she fell to the floor of the sally port. The complainant remained in a seated position on the floor for a period of time and her handcuffs were removed. She was then taken inside 1 District and processed. Later that morning, the complainant was transported to the hospital and diagnosed with a fractured ankle.

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.

On March 15^th, 2016, the complainant was arrested just outside of her home in Niagara Falls by the SO for Impaired Driving contrary to the Criminal Code. During the course of her involvement with police, it appears that the complainant sustained a fractured left ankle. The complainant alleges that her injury was caused by the SO as a result of an excessive use of force.

We are fortunate to have video footage of that night from outside the police station in the parking lot, inside the sally port and inside the police station. It is quite clear from the video alone exactly what happened in this matter. The video reveals the following:

At 0303:57 the SO’s cruiser arrives in the parking lot at NRPS 1 District. The SO is riding alone and there is no second officer in the cruiser with him;

At 0304:30 the SO opens the cruiser’s rear passenger door;

At 0305:10 the SO removes the complainant from his cruiser and forces her onto the hood of WO #3’s cruiser to reapply the handcuffs. It is clear from the video that the complainant is combative and non-compliant throughout the process and it takes both WO #3 and the SO to finally apply the handcuffs. This is consistent with the statement of WO #4 who stated that he saw the SO’s cruiser arrive with a female prisoner as he was waiting to enter the sally port, and heard the complainant yelling and swearing. He observed WO #3, who was also waiting his turn in the parking lot, exit his cruiser to assist the SO in removing the complainant from the cruiser and attempt to reapply her handcuffs, while the complainant was struggling violently and would not remain still. Once handcuffed, WO #4 observed WO #3 and the SO attempt to return the complainant to the cruiser while she continued to resist and struggle, repeatedly yelling obscenities at the officers. WO #3 and the SO were unable to get the complainant back in the vehicle, so WO #4 also went to assist and, between the three of them, they were finally able to get her into the back seat, at which point she started to kick both of her feet out. WO #3 pulled the complainant into the cruiser while WO #4 pushed on the rear passenger door to try to close it, but was unable to do so as the complainant kept pushing against the door with her legs. After the third attempt, WO #4 was finally able to get the cruiser door closed. In his statement to investigators, WO #3 also corroborates this version of events. The video reveals that it took from 0304:30 to 0308:48 to remove, handcuff and get the complainant back into the vehicle;

At 0326:55 hours, once the sally port is free, the video shows the SO move his cruiser into the sally port. The SO is seen to exit the cruiser and open the rear passenger door, but the complainant does not exit;

At 0330:22 hours, PEW #2 is at the rear passenger door of the cruiser;

At 0332:09 WO #5 enters the sally port and appears to speak to the complainant, who has still not exited the vehicle. Finally, PEW #1 also enters the sally port;

At 0335:27 PEW #2 appears to take hold of the complainant and pulls her out of the cruiser. Both PEW #2 and the SO are seen assisting the complainant to exit the vehicle;

At 0336:11 the complainant is seen seated on the sally port floor and it appears that all of the officers present are attempting to negotiate with her;

At 0340:04 PEW #2 removes the complainant’s handcuffs; and

At 0340:52 the complainant finally gets up off the floor and is escorted into the booking hall.

In his statement, WO #5 advised that he became aware that the SO was in the sally port with a female prisoner and she was refusing to exit the cruiser. WO #5 went out to the sally port to speak with the complainant and she complained that she had to go to the bathroom but refused to get out of the cruiser to do so. WO #5 did finally persuade the complainant to exit the cruiser but she requested assistance to do so and PEW #1, PEW #2 and the SO assisted her. WO #5 advised that he reached into the cruiser to assist the complainant to exit and that she was not dragged from the cruiser. This is confirmed by the video. He advised that officers assisted her and that she was then placed on the sally port floor on her backside. PEW #2 also confirmed that the complainant said that she needed help to get out of the cruiser, as a result of which he moved forward and took hold of the complainant and assisted her to exit. Once out of the cruiser, PEW #2 advised that the complainant stood up momentarily and then he eased her down to the ground.

Although I accept that at some point during the night of March 14^th into March 15^th, 2016, the complainant sustained an injury to her left ankle, I am unable, on the very reliable video evidence before me, and as confirmed by the police officers and police employees present, to find that it was due to any inappropriate actions by any police officer in dealing with the complainant. The evidence clearly indicates that the complainant was combative and uncooperative with police throughout her arrest and while at the station, likely due to her over consumption of alcohol. Three officers and a police employee spent more than 12 minutes with her in the sally port, patiently trying to convince her to exit the cruiser on what was clearly, based on the line up shown on the video, a very busy night.

Although the complainant attributes her injury to the actions of the SO, it is clear from the video that the SO in fact took no part in removing the complainant from the cruiser, although he did assist once she was out and being placed on the floor.

Accordingly, I am unable to definitively state whether the complainant’s injury was caused by her interaction with police, or by her own unsteady footing due to her over consumption of alcohol. If the injury was caused by her removal from the police vehicle, as she alleges, I find that pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code the officers involved used no more force than was reasonably necessary in the execution of their lawful duties. As such, I am therefore satisfied on reasonable grounds on this record that the actions exercised by the officers, including the SO, fell within the limits prescribed by the criminal law and there are no grounds for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.

Date: July 24, 2017

Original signed by
Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit