Director's Report Details

• 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 section 14 (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. 

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

• 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.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2023/10/23 at 9:23 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/10/23 at 10:23 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

 

Affected Persons (aka “Complainant”)

Complainant #1 23-year-old male; interviewed
Complainant #2 26-year-old male; not interviewed (declined)

Complainant #1 was interviewed on November 3, 2023.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between October 23, 2023, and November 1, 2023.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on November 2, 2023.

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between November 2 and 30, 2023.

A Dodge Durango SUV marked with the common graphics of OPP vehicles was parked and oriented in a northerly direction on the west side of the road. Its engine was running. The pod light on the driver’s side was on and faced forward. The rear hatch that accessed the cargo area was open.

An area of roadway north of the police vehicle was protected by tarps that when uncovered revealed an area littered with open candy wrappers and a deployed spike belt. The spike belt, found under the north edge of the tarp, was damaged, and had missing needles.

Tire marks ran southeast from near the spike belt, striking the east curb, and continuing onto the grass boulevard. The bark of the tree on that boulevard had signs of recent collision damage.

An open ASP baton lay on the northbound side of Tundra Road, northeast of the police vehicle. A right-handed black glove lay on the ground south of the ASP. A baseball-style OPP cap lay on the east sidewalk. A broken pen lay on the east sidewalk, and another west of the east curb.

The tire marks described above continued over a driveway, returned to the road, crossed the road southwest, and struck the curb.

Three spent, 9 mm cartridge casings were located on the roadway. One, southeast of the police vehicle. The second, again southeast of the police vehicle in the approximate middle of roadway, and the third, southwest of the police vehicle along the west-side curb.

Two vehicles were parked in the driveway. A left glove lay on the grass north of the driveway as did some pillows and towels. A Toyota was parked reversed into the driveway, and faced west. There was a bullet strike defect (hole) in the Toyota’s front windshield, 57 cm right of the passenger side “A” pillar and 48 cm from the top of the windshield. That defect, from facing the vehicle, was approximately right of centre, midway up, with a slight right to left pathway. The following photograph of that defect was taken by a SIU forensic investigator.

Figure 1 – Bullet strike defect to the windshield of the Toyota

The vehicle also had two defects on the driver’s side rear seat back. One, 38 cm left of the driver’s side door edge and 20 cm down from the top of the headrest. A portion of lead core was recovered from within the seat material behind that defect. The second was 46 cm left of the driver’s side door edge and 37.5 cm from the top of the headrest. A portion of copper jacket was recovered from within the seat material behind that defect.

On October 23, 2023, at 11:27 a.m., SIU forensic investigators arrived at a location in Brampton. The area was populated with discarded clothing and tools, and the Jeep. The Jeep was abandoned with its engine running. The driver’s side rear tire was shredded. The driver’s door was open. Items of personal property lay on the ground outside that door. There was fresh collision damage to the front driver’s side corner, bumper area, and finger swipe marks on the hood. No fingerprint ridge details were available for analysis.

Figure 2 – The front of the Jeep

A bullet hole defect was found on the front passenger-side door’s approximate middle, below the window frame. That defect continued through the inner door panel at an apparent slight left to right trajectory. A portion of copper jacket bullet fragment lay under the accelerator pedal.

 
The Jeep was towed to an OPP facility in Orillia, and on October 24, 2023, at 9:25 a.m., SIU forensic investigators continued their examination before it was released to the OPP. That examination revealed a crack at the top middle of the windshield. The driver’s seat was reclined. Drug paraphernalia littered the seat and driver-side foot well.

Defect BS2 was 17 cm below the bottom of the window frame and 46.5 cm right of the left side of the doorframe, from looking at the door. The defect pathway through the door panel was left to right, slightly downward, and exited through the arm rest. An attempt to determine trajectory was fruitless due to the quality and nature of the defect.




Figure 3 – Passenger side front door of the Jeep




Figure 4 – Armrest of the passenger door of the Jeep

On October 25, 2023, an OPP forensic investigator notified a SIU forensic investigator that they had located a fragment of bullet under a tissue in a feature on the front passenger side armrest. That item was couriered to the SIU forensic investigator’s attention.

Police Equipment

On October 23, 2023, at 5:50 p.m., SIU forensic investigators examined the following while at the OPP Caledon Detachment.

WO #2

WO #2’s equipment consisted of his external ballistic-resistant vest bearing his name and, “POLICE,” across the front. It was equipped with Modular Lightweight Load-carrying Equipment (MOLLE) webbing and pouches that held gloves, Narcan, a flashlight, a tourniquet, a C-8 rifle magazine, and a police radio. His duty belt held a double handcuff pouch with two sets of handcuffs, and handcuff key, a can of Oleo Resin Capsicum (OC) spray in its holder, an empty pistol holster, an empty baton holder, an empty conducted energy weapon (CEW) holster and two pistol magazines in their magazine pouches (one magazine contained 16 live 9 mm pistol cartridges and the other contained 18 live 9 mm pistol cartridges). His 9 mm Glock model 17 pistol was equipped with a pistol-mounted flashlight, and its magazine was seated in the magazine well. The pistol was loaded with one live 9 mm cartridge in the breech and 17 live 9 mm cartridges in the magazine. The CEW he was issued was examined and contained two unfired cartridges.

The SO

The SO’s use of force equipment consisted of his external ballistic resistant vest bearing his name and, “POLICE,” across the front. It was equipped with MOLLE webbing and pouches that held Narcan, a flashlight, a tourniquet, a C-8 rifle magazine, and a police radio. His duty belt held his pistol seated in its holster, a CEW in its holster, a double handcuff pouch containing two sets of handcuffs, a baton holster containing a baton, an OC pouch containing a can of OC spray, two pistol magazine pouches with magazines in each, both containing 17 live 9 mm pistol cartridges. His 9 mm Glock model 17 pistol was equipped with a pistol-mounted flashlight, and its magazine was seated. There was one live 9 mm cartridge in the breech, and 14 live 9 mm cartridges in the magazine. Based on the 52 round load carried by OPP officers, the examination determined the SO was short three live 9 mm cartridges.




Figure 5 – The SO’s Glock

Tundra Road

On October 23, 2023, SIU forensic investigators collected and retained the following:

• Three, 9 mm Luger cartridge cases located on Tundra Road.
• A portion of the lead core of a bullet recovered from within the seat material of the Toyota.
• A portion of the copper jacket of a bullet recovered from within the seat material of the Toyota.
• A portion of bullet fragment located on the driver’s floor of the Jeep.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - Police Vehicle

Recorded on October 23, 2023, beginning with an 11:15:21 a.m. [3] time-stamp, the video captured a north facing field of view from the front of the police vehicle parked facing north, on the west side of Tundra Road, essentially front bumper to front bumper with a black Jeep parked facing southbound on the west side of Tundra Road. There were no occupants visible in the Jeep.

WO #2 was captured walking past the driver’s side of the Jeep and, at two seconds into the video, deployed a spike belt behind the Jeep. At six seconds, the SO entered the camera’s field of view and walked northbound on the roadway from the passenger side of the police vehicle. He used a flashlight to illuminate the driver’s side of the Jeep before walking to and meeting WO #2 at the rear bumper of the Jeep. WO #2 walked to the Jeep’s driver door and put gloves on before walking back to the police vehicle, along its passenger side, and out of camera view. The SO walked from behind the Jeep along its passenger side, put gloves on, and left the camera’s view along the police vehicle’s driver’s side.

At 29 seconds, the audio activated. Music played. WO #2 entered the camera view and walked north on Tundra Road to beside the Jeep’s driver door. At 40 seconds, the SO entered the camera view and joined WO #2 at the driver’s door by walking along the passenger side of the Jeep and around it.

At 54 seconds, WO #2 tried the door handle. It did not open. At one minute, the head of Complainant #2, occupying the driver’s seat, emerged from below the dash. WO #2 made a right-handed gesture consistent with a non-verbal request for Complainant #2 to lower the window. The SO stood slightly behind WO #2 and to his right. At one minute, two seconds, the head of the man who occupied the passenger seat - Complainant #1 - emerged from below the dash. The SO moved to WO #2’s left. Complainant #2 raised his left hand to a common ‘surrender’ position and appeared to speak with the police officer(s). Complainant #1 sat still.

At one minute, 22 seconds, Complainant #2’s head dipped down to his right and then returned to look out the driver’s side window. Movements consistent with conversation continued between the police officers and Complainant #2, and Complainant #2 and Complainant #1. Complainant #2’s hands were sometimes up in the surrender position and at other times lowered.

At one minute, 38 seconds, a man [now known to be CW #2] entered the camera’s view and walked northbound on the east sidewalk. The movements of Complainant #2 and the police officers became slightly more animated until one minute, 44 seconds, when Complainant #2’s hand lowered, and the Jeep reversed. WO #2 struck the driver’s window with his baton as both he and the SO backed from the moving Jeep. The SO retreated backwards southbound on Tundra Road, and out of the camera’s view along the passenger side of the police vehicle. WO #2 moved backwards, east, into the middle of Tundra Road. The Jeep’s passenger side rear tire mounted the west-side curb as it reversed.

At one minute, 47 seconds, the Jeep moved forward and steered towards WO #2, who continued to retreat backwards to the east-side curb of Tundra Road. His right hand moved to the attitude of the draw of a firearm. CW #2 continued to walk northbound on the east-side sidewalk.

At one minute, 48 seconds, as the Jeep accelerated towards WO #2, he dropped his baton and right glove, drew his firearm, and pointed it at the Jeep. He continued to retreat and had, by then, backed to, and had his right foot on, the east-side boulevard. By one minute, 49 seconds, the Jeep drove at WO #2. He lowered his firearm, turned, and ran. CW #2 turned and looked behind him. The Jeep made no effort to drive south along Tundra Road, away from WO #2.

At one minute, 49 seconds, the Jeep reached WO #2 and struck him just as WO #2 and the front of the Jeep exited the camera’s frame of view to the east.

At one minute, 51 seconds, at least one voice yelled. WO #2, the Jeep, and the SO were all outside the camera’s field of view. CW #2 began to run. The first of three gunshots sounded. All sounded in about one second.

At one minute, 59 seconds, CW #2 reached a corner and ran east down that street and out of view. WO #2 made a radio broadcast, “…I’ve been hit, by a car.”

At two minutes, 19 seconds, a person [believed to be the SO] opened the passenger side, front door of the police vehicle and broadcast, “We have, my partner has been hit by a car, can we get immediate units here right away? Shots fired.” The communications centre operator’s broadcast for other police officers to attend was heard and responses came as the footage ended.

Communications Recordings

911 Calls

At 6:33:19 a.m., October 23, 2023, a 911 caller reported a suspicious black Jeep parked on the roadway. There was someone in the vehicle, and he had been coming to the area for the past couple of weeks.

At 7:19:16 a.m., another 911 caller reported being woken by gunshots outside the house. The caller saw an OPP vehicle with its trunk open, a spike belt, and two police officers: one lying on the ground, the other standing beside a car. At the call-taker’s request, the caller went outside, and a police officer advised everything was okay; an ambulance was coming.

At 10:06:49 a.m., a third 911 caller said they had video footage of the shooting that showed two police officers approaching a Jeep, and it “taking off” before the police officer defended himself shooting the vehicle.

Police Radio Communications

A 17-minute and 33-second audio file starting at 6:40:52 a.m. began with a communication centre broadcast for police officers to be aware of a suspicious vehicle parked outside a house on Tundra Road. It was an occupied black Jeep and had been in and out of the area for a couple of weeks. The communicator provided the licence plate.

At 35 seconds of the recording, information was given that the licence plate had been confirmed stolen from Peel Region.

At one minute, 17 seconds, the SO broadcast, "My partner has been hit by a car! Immediate units here right away! Shots fired!" [4]

 
At one minute, 29 seconds, the communicator asked all available police officers to head to Tundra Road. Police officers responded they were making their way.

 
At one minute, 49 seconds, the SO broadcast he needed an ambulance right away and thought his partner had a broken leg. The officer indicated that they had deployed a spike belt, and the vehicle ran over the spike belt.

 
At two minutes, 13 seconds, in response to radio broadcasts requesting information, the SO broadcast, “His right leg seems to be broken,” no one had been injured from gunshots, the vehicle involved was the Jeep from the call and there were two people in it. He also provided a correction to the Jeep’s licence plate number and a more detailed description of the Jeep.

 
At three minutes, 28 seconds, the SO confirmed WO #2 was conscious, breathing, and talking. Broadcasts were made for police officers who arrived to isolate and contain the scene, for the communications centre to expedite paramedics, and that all police officers were to ensure their body-worn cameras (BWC) were on and kept on.

 
At four minutes, 46 seconds, a police officer broadcast he had arrived at the scene. The communication centre asked for an update on WO #2 and a police officer [believed to be WO #2] broadcast, "I'm 10-4, just a broken ankle." The officer said he did not see the occupants of the Jeep to be armed but had seen drug paraphernalia in the vehicle.

 
At five minutes, 39 seconds, a police officer broadcast that paramedics had arrived.

 

Video Footage from Residence #1

Collected by the SIU, recorded on October 23, 2023, from 7:14:09 a.m., to 7:21:22 a.m., from a residence on Tundra Road, the footage captured the arrival of a police vehicle that parked facing north on the west side of Tundra Road, nose-to-nose with a Jeep facing south on the west side of the road. The Jeep was partially obscured from the camera’s view by a structural column. Two police officers – the SO and WO #2 - walked towards the Jeep [now known to be occupied by Complainant #2 and Complainant #1].

At 7:14:40 a.m., the police vehicle was moved closer to the front of the Jeep. The rear cargo hatch of the police vehicle was opened. WO #2 and the SO retrieved [what is now known to be a spike belt] from the cargo area.

At 7:15:28 a.m., two people walked southbound on the east sidewalk. At 7:16:50 a.m., a person [now known to be CW #2] walked northbound on the east sidewalk.

At 7:17:06 a.m., the Jeep reversed. WO #2 ran towards the east side of the road. The SO ran south towards the rear of the police vehicle. The Jeep travelled forward to the southeast.

 
At 7:17:12 a.m., the Jeep mounted the curb on the east side of the road, struck WO #2, then turned southbound.

At 7:17:13 a.m., a flash of light emanated from where the SO stood [now known to be muzzle flash]. Within the same second, a second muzzle flash occurred and the SO moved towards the passenger side of the Jeep as it travelled towards him. At 7:17:14 a.m., a third muzzle flash was apparent. The Jeep drove south on Tundra Road, and, at 7:17:16 a.m., disappeared from the camera’s field of view. The SO ran to WO #2 who remained on the ground. He then ran to the police vehicle. WO #2 crawled behind a vehicle in the driveway.
At 7:21:00 a.m., three people walked through the camera’s field of view.

Video Footage from Residence #2

Collected by the OPP and recorded on October 23, 2023, the video with no time-stamp was a 47-second video recorded from a residence. It captured a police vehicle [now known to be operated by the SO]. It drove slowly south, along Tundra Road, turned around and returned, slowly north.

 

Video Footage from Residence #3

Collected by the OPP and recorded on October 23, 2023, the audio and video with no time-stamp was a 12-second video recorded from a residence. It captured a Jeep accelerate forward at a police officer [now known to be WO #2], who was off the roadway on a boulevard on the east side of Tundra Road. The Jeep hit and propelled WO #2 against a parked vehicle in the driveway. The Jeep accelerated back onto Tundra Road and past a police officer – the SO – as he backed away from the vehicle from the centre of the road towards the west side of Tundra Road. The SO discharged his firearm three times as evidenced by muzzle flashes. The Jeep continued southbound on Tundra Road and out of the camera’s field of view.

Video Footage from Residence #4

Collected by the OPP and recorded on October 23, 2023, the audio and video with time-stamps was a two-minute, 58-second string of motion-activated videos recorded from a residence.

The clips recorded when motion captured passing traffic until 7:13:36 a.m., when a police vehicle [now known to be operated by the SO] travelled into the camera’s field of view from the north, turned around and drove back northbound on Tundra Road.

 
At 7:17:12 a.m., the audio captured a loud noise, the quick succession of two short horn honks, three rounds of gunfire, and the distant movement of a person [now known to be the SO] on the roadway. The gunfire stopped by 7:17:14 a.m., and the Jeep accelerated south on Tundra Road.

Video Footage from Residence #5

Collected by the OPP and recorded on October 23, 2023, the time-stamped video with no audio was 39 seconds long and recorded from a residence.

At 7:16:52 a.m., it captured two police officers - the SO and WO #2 - at the driver’s side window of a Jeep [now known to be occupied by Complainant #2 and Complainant #1], which faced south on the west side of the road. Its driver’s side taillight appeared to be illuminated. A police vehicle was parked bumper-to- bumper in front of the Jeep facing northbound on the west side of the road. One of the police officers shone a flashlight into the Jeep.

At 7:17:02 a.m., a person [now known to be CW #2] walked north, on the east-side sidewalk through and out of the camera’s field of view before the clip ended.

At 7:17:10 a.m., the video resumed and captured a police officer – WO #2 – in the middle of the road and the Jeep, with headlights illuminated, turning its front wheels to the right and reversing quickly. The police officers backed up. The video footage was interrupted. It resumed at 7:17:11 a.m., and captured the Jeep reversing, headlights illuminated, its wheels turned right over the curb.

At 7:17:12 a.m., the Jeep travelled forward. WO #2 stood in the road, close to the east side of Tundra Road, and appeared to have his firearm drawn. The Jeep accelerated directly at WO #2, who turned and ran from the Jeep, off the road, onto Tundra Road’s east-side boulevard. The Jeep followed WO #2, mounted the curb, and drove through WO #2. By 7:17:15 a.m., the Jeep disappeared from the camera’s field of view. At 7:17:18 a.m., the SO’s feet were captured as he ran to where WO #2 had run.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between October 25, 2023, and February 7, 2024:

• Video footage from residences;
• Notes – WO #1;
• Notes – WO #2;
• CAD report;
• Communications recordings;
• ICC footage – OPP Vehicle;
• Use of Force qualification records – the SO;
• OPP Policy - Use of Force;
• OPP Policy - Traffic, Enforcement, Road Safety;
• Involved Police Officer List; and
• Forensic reports.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources:

• Video footage from CW #1 (received October 23, 2023).

In the morning of October 23, 2023, the SO and his partner, WO #2, made their way to Tundra Road, Caledon. A 911 call had been received by police reporting a Jeep parked on the roadway that had been coming to the area over the past couple of weeks. The SO, operating a marked police SUV, drove south on Tundra Road past the Jeep. It was stopped facing south along the westside curb just north of the house located at 90 Tundra Road. At WO #2’s direction, the SO travelled past the Jeep, turned around and came to a stop directly in front of the vehicle, nose-to-nose. By this time, the officers had also been apprised that the Jeep had been reported stolen.

 
In the Jeep at the time were Complainant #2, in the driver’s seat, and Complainant #1, in the front passenger seat. They were asleep.

Complainant #2 awoke to the sounds of the officers attempting to communicate with him through the driver’s door window, which was slightly open. WO #2 had attempted to open the driver’s door but it was locked. Complainant #2 lifted his hands on occasion at the request of officers and otherwise looked at his passenger. Asked repeatedly to open the door and step out, Complainant #2 did not do so. After a period of time, Complainant #2 put the Jeep into reverse gear and accelerated backwards.

WO #2 was by the driver’s door and the SO was slightly south of him as the Jeep began to move. They stepped away from the Jeep as it arced eastward towards them to avoid being struck by the vehicle’s front-end. The Jeep’s backend jumped the curb behind it before it stopped and began to accelerate forward in a southeast direction towards WO #2. The officer drew his firearm and temporarily pointed it at the Jeep before he lowered his weapon, turned and ran on the grass boulevard adjacent the eastside sidewalk. The Jeep closed the gap with the officer quickly, climbed the curb and struck WO #2. The officer was propelled forward into a SUV parked on the driveway of 93 Tundra Road.

After striking WO #2, the Jeep turned to the right and accelerated back onto the roadway in the direction of the SO. The officer, his firearm drawn, fired three times at the Jeep in quick succession as the vehicle neared and then passed him. Complainant #2 would continue south and make good his escape.

The SO immediately went to WO #2’s side to render aid and radioed that shots had been fired.

Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were located in the days that followed and taken into custody. They had not been injured in the incident.

WO #2 suffered serious injuries, including a fractured right ankle.

Section 34 of the Criminal Code provides that conduct that would otherwise constitute an offence is legally justified if it was intended to deter a reasonably apprehended assault, actual or threatened, and was itself reasonable. The reasonableness of the conduct is to be assessed in light of all the relevant circumstances, including with respect to such considerations as the nature of the force or threat; the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force; whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon; and, the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force.

The officers were engaged in the lawful execution of their duties in the series of events culminating in the shooting. They had information that the Jeep was stolen and were moving to arrest Complainant #2 when he placed the Jeep in reverse and then drove forward in the direction of the officers.

I am satisfied that the SO fired his weapon believing it necessary to preserve himself and WO #2 from a reasonably apprehended attack at the hands of Complainant #2. The SO said as much in his SIU interview and the evidence backs him up. The officer had just witnessed the Jeep seemingly turn towards WO #2 and drive at him over a curb, striking him in the process, before adjusting course and accelerating in his direction.

 
I am also satisfied that the SO’s resort to gunfire constituted reasonable defensive force. Having seen WO #2 run down by the Jeep, the officer was of the view that Complainant #2 was using the vehicle as a deadly weapon. He certainly had cause to feel as he did. The video footage of the incident appears to show the Jeep purposefully travelling towards WO #2 over the curb and onto the grass boulevard, after which it turned back onto the roadway. When it did that, it became a clear and present danger to the life of the SO, who was standing on the roadway within the Jeep’s arc of travel. The officer would have been justifiably concerned that Complainant #2 would attempt to hit him next. Immediate action was necessary in the circumstances to preserve himself from grievous bodily harm or death. He might have chosen to retreat and seek a place of cover, but he was never going to outrun an accelerating vehicle and he had just witnessed WO #2 struck while turning his back to run. Instead, the SO chose to fire at Complainant #2. Shooting at moving vehicles is fraught with its own dangers to public safety. It is not likely to immediately bring a vehicle to a stop at the same time as it threatens to create a large moving object that is out of control. Those risks, in my view, were not prohibitive in the instant case. If the SO had reason to fear that Complainant #2 was intentionally driving at him, and he did, disabling the operating mind of the Jeep made sense in self-defence. The last of the three shots is subject to scrutiny as it seems the officer was by the passenger side of the Jeep and, strictly speaking, no longer in danger. However, I am persuaded that this shot did not run afoul of the remit of authorized force prescribed by section 34 given the speed with which events were unfolding, the tension of the moment, and the delay inherent in reaction times.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: February 20, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit