Director's Report Details

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.

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 Personal 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.

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 the death of a 26-year-old man (“Complainant #1”) and the serious injury of an 80-year-old man (“Complainant #2”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 7, 2024, at 9:03 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

Earlier that day, during a traffic stop in Kirkland Lake, OPP officers determined that two occupants of a vehicle were arrestable for the offence of ‘Possession for the Purposes of Trafficking’. The vehicle subsequently fled and a police pursuit was initiated that was later terminated by a sergeant in the Provincial Communications Centre (PCC). A spike belt was deployed on Highway 11 near New Liskeard [Temiskaming]. The vehicle avoided the spike belt and turned off of Highway 11 onto Portage Bay Road. The road was blocked and another spike belt was deployed. The vehicle rammed a police cruiser and ran over the spike belt, and shots were fired at officers from within the vehicle. Both suspects [now known to be Complainant #1 and CW #1] fled and ditched the vehicle, and there was a brief exchange of gunfire. A civilian [now known to be Complainant #2] was inside a nearby home and was evacuated by officers after sustaining a non-life threatening gunshot wound to the right side of his head. During a subsequent search of the area, OPP officers located one man deceased [Complainant #1] with an obvious gunshot wound to the head.

At 10:10 p.m., the OPP reported that five officers had discharged C8 rifles, and that she had arranged for the Temiskaming Detachment Commander to seize and secure the firearms.

It was also reported that WO #1 had followed the suspect vehicle after it sped past him and one of the occupants shot at him. The vehicle later stopped, and the passenger [CW #1] fled. WO #1 noticed that the driver [Complainant #1] was seated inside the vehicle deceased from a gunshot wound to the head. WO #1 handcuffed Complainant #1 and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called to the scene.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/03/08 at 7:30 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/03/08 at 2:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Persons (aka “Complainants”):

Complainant #1 26-year-old male; deceased

Complainant #2 80-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

Complainant #2 was interviewed on March 8, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Not interviewed (declined)

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on March 8, 2024.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #3 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #4 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #5 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between March 18, 2024, and June 20, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around a roadway and the driveway of a residence in New Liskeard.

The following vehicles were present at the scene:

1. OPP Dodge Charger, black and white

This was a marked police cruiser that displayed OPP graphics. The cruiser was parked on the shoulder of the roadway. The spotlight affixed to the driver’s “A” pillar was activated and faced forward. The rear window was smashed out with glass fragments on the rear deck. The front passenger window was slightly down. In the rear seat of the cruiser were two stop sticks that were outside of their carrying case.

2. OPP Ford Taurus, black and white

This was a marked police cruiser that displayed OPP graphics. The cruiser was running with the emergency lighting activated. The spotlight mounted on the driver’s “A” pillar was on. There was a paint scrape to the left front wheel well with black paint chips on the roadway. The cruiser was parked on the shoulder of the roadway. The driver’s front window was down.

3. Nissan SUV, 4-door hatchback

The vehicle was parked in the driveway of a residence. Both front doors were open. There was heavy collision damage to the front left of the vehicle. All four tires were deflated with stop stick darts visible to the right front tire. Both front seats were heavily bloodstained with pooling blood on the front passenger seat. A brass 9mm cartridge case was on the driver’s seat. [Two additional 9mm cartridge cases were subsequently located: one adhered to the roof moulding of the vehicle and another on the road, about 1177 metres from the final resting place of the Nissan.] There was a defect to the mid-front of the driver’s door panel that continued through the inner door panel under the arm rest. There was a defect to the upper right side of the driver’s door under the window frame. The path continued into the vehicle striking the “B” pillar weather stripping. There was a blood smear to the outer panel of the driver’s door and right of the door handle. The front right window was slightly down.

On the front right floormat was a bloodstained 9mm pistol. The barrel was towards the centre console and the butt towards the passenger door. The magazine was in the pistol and the slide was closed. A clear plastic baggie with white material contained within was also on the front passenger floor mat.

Complainant #1 was located on his back on the driveway. It appeared that he had been pulled out of the vehicle. His hands were handcuffed to the front. He had an apparent bullet strike to the left upper forehead area with bloodstaining present to his forehead, nose, and mouth areas.

A home was located near the driveway and the white Nissan. The residence had been struck by apparent bullets.

Physical Evidence

Item #	Description
18	Projectile
19	Cartridge Case .223
20	Cartridge Case .223
21	Cartridge Case .223
22	Cartridge Case .223
23	Cartridge Case .223
24	Cartridge Case .223
25	Cartridge Case .223
26	Cartridge Case .223
27	Cartridge Case .223
28	Cartridge Case .223
29	Cartridge Case .223
30	Cartridge Case .223
31	Cartridge Case .223
32	Cartridge Case .223
33	Cartridge Case .223
34	Cartridge Case .223
35	Cartridge Case .223
36	Cartridge Case Luger 9mm
37	Cartridge Luger 9mm
38	Glock Magazine
39	Glock 43 Pistol
40	Cartridge Case .223
41	Projectile
42	Projectile
43	GSR Kit
44	Copper Jacket Projectile
45	Fragment
46	Sweater
47	Nissan Key Fob x2
48	Candy
49	Satchel
50	Currency
51	Currency
52	Shoes
53	Socks
54	Pants
55	Underwear
56	Shirt
57	Fingernail Cutting
58	Fingernail Cutting
59	Projectile
60	Fragment
61	Lighter
62	Handcuffs
63	Colt C8 Rifle
64	Cartridge .223
65	Colt C8 Rifle
66	Cartridge .223
67	Colt C8 Rifle
68	Cartridge .223
69	Colt C8 Rifle
70	Cartridge .223
71	Colt C8 Rifle
72	Cartridge .223
73	Fragment

Home Examination

The home showed multiple projectile impacts.

1. Projectile 1: Struck a flowerpot on the deck, exited the pot, and hit the left doorframe of the entrance.
2. Projectile 2: Hit another flowerpot on the deck and exited through the rear.
3. Projectile 3: Entered through the front door, travelled inside, and struck the wall.
4. Projectile 4: Entered through the left side of the entrance door, hit the middle door hinge, and struck a chair inside the house.
5. Projectile 5: Entered through the upper portion of the front window, into the house.
6. Projectile 6: Hit the front window frame; no projectile was recovered.
7. Projectile 7: Struck the wall, exited into the residence, hit a table leg, and was found on the floor in front of the wall.

Vehicle Examinations

• Nissan
• Gunshot residue on the driver’s door window ledge.
• Two defects on the driver’s door, indicating entry and exit points.
• A bloodstained Glock model 43 - 9mm pistol with an empty magazine and a cartridge in the breech was found on the front right passenger mat.
• A clear plastic baggie with white powder, secured by OPP, on the front passenger floor mat.
• A bloodstained full metal jacket projectile in the centre console’s rear cup holder.
• A 9mm brass cartridge case on the driver’s seat cushion and a fragment on the right rear floor area.

• OPP Dodge Charger
• Damaged rear window with glass fragments inside.
• Rear compartment contained two stop sticks and an OPP duty bag; no bullet strikes were found.

• OPP Ford Explorer
• Seven defects on the engine hood and four on the windshield wiper well, indicating multiple impacts. These defects appeared to have been caused by one of the subject officials who was behind the front hood of the cruiser using it as cover as he discharged his C8 rifle.

• OPP Ford F-150
• Collision damage on the left rear quarter panel with white paint transfer.

Firearm Examination

On March 9, 2024, at 5:50 p.m., SIU forensic investigators conducted an ammunition count and collected the firearms of the following involved Subject Officials, with the following results:

• SO #2, Colt C-8 rifle, discharged four cartridges.
• SO #5, Colt C-8 rifle, discharged three cartridges.
• SO #4, Colt C-8 rifle, discharged five cartridges.
• SO #1, Colt C-8 rifle, discharged two cartridges.
• SO #3, Colt C-8 rifle, discharged three cartridges.

In total, 17 cartridges were discharged during the incident.

Figure 1 – Colt-C8 rifle deployed in the incident

Figure 2 – Colt-C8 cartridges

Forensic Evidence

The Centre of Forensic Sciences submissions made by SIU are still pending at the time of this report.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP Radio Communications

On March 7, 2024, at 1:39 p.m., WO #6 responded to a dispatcher confirming that everything was fine.

At 5:03 p.m., WO #6 reported that during an arrest attempt, two suspects [Complainant #1 and CW #1] fled driving westbound on Government Road past Archie Drive. A siren was heard in the background. The dispatcher directed a termination of any pursuit. WO #6 mentioned drug-related offences and provided the vehicle’s licence plate, registered to a rental company in London.

At 5:07 p.m., SO #5 spotted the white Nissan SUV heading west on Highway 66, as he attempted to catch up to it. A sergeant from the PCC instructed officers not to pursue the Nissan but to maintain patrol at posted speed limits. WO #6 noted that the driver had five or six weapons prohibitions and had left his identification behind.

At 5:11 p.m., SO #4 saw the Nissan southbound on Highway 11 near Peacock Hill but lost visual soon after a traffic complaint in the Inglehart area.

At 5:36 p.m., WO #1 set up a spike belt on Highway 11, south of Maille Drive.

At 5:39 p.m., a sergeant reported that the Nissan was travelling at a high rate of speed, and had avoided the spike belt by driving on a front lawn and continued southbound towards Temagami. SO #2 reported that the Nissan was on Highway 11 behind her at 5:48 p.m. The Nissan then turned onto Portage Bay Road, where another spike belt was prepared.

At 5:56 p.m., WO #1’s pick-up truck cruiser was rammed by Complainant #1, causing light damage to his pick-up and heavy damage to the Nissan. The Nissan continued and a spike belt was successfully deployed.

At 6:00 p.m., WO #1 reported shots fired from the driver [Complainant #1] at his police vehicle and warned officers to be prepared with their rifles. The Nissan was travelling at 36 km/h.

By 6:02 p.m., the Nissan driver turned the vehicle sideways to fire another shot at WO #1. Ten seconds later, WO #1 announced more shots fired, and that one of the suspects [CW #1] fled on foot.

At 6:05 p.m., an inspector took command of the situation. A homeowner called EMS to report a bullet grazed the head of an occupant, but he was awake and not severely injured.

At 7:19 p.m., WO #1, assisted by WO #3, WO #2 and WO #4, approached the residence. They found one suspect dead [Complainant #1] with a pistol.

At 7:26 p.m., WO #2 reported that Complainant #2 had been hit by what appeared to be shotgun birdshot, and EMS was called to the scene.

The OPP contained the scene, searching for the second suspect [CW #1] who had fled, and requested assistance from the OPP helicopter and Tactical Rescue Unit. EMS was staged nearby.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - WO #1

On March 7, 2024, at 5:28 p.m., WO #1 travelled on Sharpe Lake Road towards Highway 11, setting up a stop stick to intercept a white Nissan SUV.

At 5:35 p.m., he arrived at 998199 Highway 11 and blocked the northbound lane with his cruiser. He deployed a stop stick across the southbound lane.

At 5:39 p.m., the Nissan [driven by Complainant #1] avoided the stop stick by maneuvering around WO #1’s pick-up truck cruiser.

At 5:49 p.m., WO #1 reached Highway 11 and Portage Bay Road, while SO #2 was parked on the northbound shoulder of Highway 11. He proceeded onto Portage Bay Road. Around the same time, SO #5 and SO #3 headed to the area.

By 5:56 p.m., WO #1 arrived at an intersection where he partially blocked onto Portage Bay Road. The Nissan passed him and collided with his pick-up truck cruiser, then continued on.

At 5:59 p.m., WO #1 drove past two spike belt locations. He saw the Nissan in the distance and heard gunshots as the Nissan continued driving.

At 6:00 p.m., SO #5 arrived, repositioning his cruiser. SO #4 retrieved his C8 rifle and joined SO #5.

At 6:01 p.m., WO #1 cautiously followed the Nissan as it slowed. SO #3 positioned himself at SO #5’s cruiser.

At 6:02 p.m., SO #3 fired his C8 rifle as more shots were heard, and one suspect fled.

WO #1 took a defensive position by his cruiser, then proceeded to find the Nissan in the driveway of a residence. At 6:07 p.m., an inspector arrived on the scene.

WO #4 arrived at 6:16 p.m. and, at 6:28 p.m., he returned to Highway 11.

At 6:37 p.m., WO #1 responded to another call. By 7:17 p.m., WO #1 returned to the driveway and, at 7:18 p.m., his spotlight illuminated the Nissan. The OPP canine unit, led by WO #3, approached.

At 7:19 p.m., WO #1 parked his pick-up truck near the Nissan and, at 7:21 p.m., he and WO #3 removed Complainant #1 from the vehicle. Emergency Response Team officers then cleared the residences and provided medical assistance.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between March 13, 2024, and April 25, 2024:

• Occurrence Report;
• Supplementary Reports;
• Event Chronology;
• Footage from ICC of WO #1;
• Exhibit List;
• Communications recordings; and
• Notes of WO #5, WO #6, WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, and WO #4.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between March 9, 2024, and April 25, 2024:

• Complainant #2’s medical records from Temiskaming Hospital; and
• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report - Complainant #1.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, none of the subject officials agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the afternoon of March 7, 2024, Complainant #1 was operating a white Nissan SUV in Kirkland Lake when he was pulled over for a traffic infraction by WO #5 and WO #6. In the front passenger seat of the Nissan was CW #1, Complainant #1’s family member. The officers ran a check of Complainant #1 and learned that he was subject to pending charges for weapons and drug offences. As the officers had seen the vehicle parked by a known drug house, and its occupants provided an explanation for their presence in Kirkland Lake that did not make sense (they were reportedly en route from Hamilton to Collingwood), they decided to arrest the pair for drug possession. Advised that they were under arrest, Complainant #1 put the Nissan in motion and drove away. The officers pursued for a period but were soon directed to discontinue.

Complainant #1 travelled west on Highway 66 and eventually found himself southbound on Highway 11. Police officers intercepted the Nissan on several occasions and pursued it. WO #1, operating a pick-up truck cruiser, travelled north on Highway 11 and deployed a spike belt in the southbound lane just ahead of the Nissan in the area of Maille Drive. Complainant #1 veered left around the passenger side of the officer’s cruiser, stopped oriented northbound, to circumvent the spike belt, continuing south on Highway 11. WO #1 returned to his truck and travelled south, passing another southbound OPP SUV. He heard a radio broadcast indicating that the Nissan had made contact with another OPP vehicle.

WO #1 continued south and eventually learned from another officer – SO #2 – that the Nissan had turned to travel on Portage Bay Road, New Liskeard. The officer turned onto the roadway to see if he could find the Nissan. He observed the Nissan moving towards his truck from a side road. WO #1 positioned his truck in the Nissan’s path of travel and watched as it maneuvered past his driver’s side, the driver’s front of the SUV colliding with the driver’s rear of the pick-up in the process.

By the time WO #1 was driving again, the Nissan was no longer in sight. He drove past two other spike belt deployments by OPP officers before coming up on the Nissan again. Its tires appeared to have been damaged by the spike belts. Shortly thereafter, as the Nissan continued, Complainant #1 pointed a semi-automatic pistol out the driver’s window at the truck and fired. WO #1 reported that Complainant #1 had fired at him. The time was 6:00 p.m.

WO #1 slowed and momentarily stopped to create distance between the vehicles. He subsequently broadcast that the driver of the Nissan had angled his vehicle to let off another shot at him. As the officer continued, the Nissan no longer in view, additional gunfire was heard. There is evidence that one or more of the initial shots came from Complainant #1 while the remainder of the gunfire came from the C8 rifles of subject officials, each positioned in and around a nearby intersection.

In and around the time of these gunshots, the Nissan had turned, entering onto and coming to a stop on the driveway of a residence.. The passenger – CW #1 – had fled the Nissan. He would later be found and arrested without incident early the following morning. Complainant #1 was deceased in the driver’s seat of the Nissan. He was located by OPP officers holding a semi-automatic pistol in his right hand. Multiple shots fired from the subject officials struck the nearby residence, one of which appears to have been responsible for graze wounds suffered by Complainant #2, inside the house at the time, to the right side of the head.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that Complainant #1’s death was attributable to a gunshot wound of the head. Complainant #1 had sustained a bullet impact in the left upper forehead that exited above the right ear. Another bullet went through his left leg below the knee, re-entered the right inner thigh, and lodged in his right femur. A further bullet struck Complainant #1 in the left hand.

Section 34, Criminal Code - Defence of Person – Use or Threat of Force

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

(b) 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;

(c) the person’s role in the incident;

(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

Complainant #1 passed away on March 7, 2024, the result of gunfire discharged by OPP officers. Complainant #2 was seriously injured in the course of the same gunfire. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. Five OPP officers were identified as subject officials – SO #1, SO #2, SO #3, SO #4 and SO #5. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials committed a criminal offence in connection with the shooting.

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 subject officials were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties throughout the series of events culminating in their gunfire. By the time they convened around the intersection in New Liskeard, they would have heard of the gunfire Complainant #1 had directed at WO #1. In the circumstances, they were within their rights in setting up a roadblock to prevent the Nissan’s continued flight and take its occupants into custody.

I am satisfied that the gunfire discharged by the five subject officials – 17 rounds fired from the C8 rifles – was intended to deter a reasonably apprehended threat. Though none of the officers provided that evidence firsthand to the SIU, each having chosen not to avail themselves of an interview (as was their legal right), the circumstances reasonably give rise to that inference. There is evidence that Complainant #1 had fired one or more shots in the direction of WO #1, and that he then took aim and fired at the police roadblock in the intersection before the subject officials returned fire. On this record, it is evident that the subject officials were under attack and that they fired their weapons to protect against the loss of life and limb.

I am also satisfied that the police gunfire constituted reasonable force. There is evidence that the officers were under fire at the time and needed to act quickly to immediately incapacitate Complainant #1. Nothing short of return gunfire could meet that objective. Withdrawal or retreat were not viable options given the presence of residences in the area and the risk to public safety were Complainant #1 allowed to escape apprehension. It is, of course, most unfortunate that Complainant #2 was injured by what appears to have been a police bullet in the exchange. Inside the nearby residence at the time, he was in the line of police gunfire and was struck multiple times. However, given the speed with which events unfolded and the imperative in the moment to immediately neutralize Complainant #1, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the risk created by the officers’ gunfire to third-parties outweighed the countervailing risk to public safety, including officer safety, had the subject officials not fired. The officers had a difficult decision to make and only split seconds in which to make it. In the circumstances, their choice remained a reasonable one.

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

Date: July 5, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit