Search
Full-text search across every published incident. Officer names are never indexed — search hits match the redacted summary, agency name, tribunal citation, and the controlled-vocabulary fields (incident type, finding, disposition).
- Agency: siu-on×
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In early 2026, police officers were dispatched to a residence. A resident had called police to remove an intoxicated and unwelcome guest – the affected person – who was refusing to leave. Officers arrived on scene and took a belligerent affected person into custody to prevent a breach of the peace. They were placed in a cruiser and transported to the police detachment. The affected person remained confrontational at the detachment. At one point, after they had been stood facing a wall to be searched, the affected person turned and started to close their hand in the direction of one of the searching officers. The officer standing behind the affected person – the subject officer – reacted by wrapping an arm around their neck, forcing them to the floor and delivering a punch in the direction of their upper body. The affected person, prone on the floor, did not readily release their arms at the officers’ direction and was met with several punches to the legs and torso by the officers. The officers wrestled control of their arms after the strikes and handcuffed them behind their back. The affected person was subsequently transported to hospital when they complained of facial pain. They were diagnosed with a broken nose.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes. In the early morning of early 2026, the affected person was driving in Brampton when a police cruiser started to follow their vehicle, attempting to pull them over. The affected person did not stop for the cruiser. They turned into some side streets, ultimately losing control of their vehicle because of icy road conditions and striking parked cars. The affected person exited their car and fled the scene on foot through some backyards. An officer was on patrol when their ALPR registered a hit on the affected person's vehicle, indicating that the registered owner was a suspended driver. The officer briefly chased the affected person on foot and broadcast they were subject to arrest for failing to remain at the scene of an accident. The affected person made their way home to the area of the city, about six kilometres east of the collision scene. The subject officer was waiting for them in the area and grabbed a hold of the affected person, throwing them to the ground, just as they were attempting to enter a house. The officer kept the affected person pinned to the ground with their body weight for a period before they were joined by another officer, responding to the scene. The affected person struggled against the officers' efforts to control their arms and bit an officer's finger. The subject officer kneed the affected person in the left ribs and pulled them onto their left side. The parties continued to wrestle for control of the affected person's arms and the subject officer delivered another knee strike to the torso. With the arrival and intervention of additional officers, the affected person was handcuffed and taken into custody. The affected person was charged with multiple offences and released at the scene. They subsequently attended hospital and were diagnosed with a fractured left rib.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the evening of early 2026, police were dispatched to an apartment in the area of a city. The complainant had called 911 to report a disturbance. The complainant wanted to be removed from their residence. The subject officer arrived on scene with a witness officer shortly before 11:00 p.m., joined shortly by another witness officer. The complainant met them outside the building and provided them a key to the apartment. A witness officer opened the door, stepped inside and was splashed with cooking oil from a bottle by the complainant. The complainant retreated into the kitchen area and was physically engaged by the officers. They were taken to the floor and handcuffed behind the back by the subject officer. The complainant was placed in the backseat of the subject officer's cruiser and transported to a police detention facility. En route, they slipped the handcuffs under their legs so that they were then positioned in front of their body. In statements made to police personnel at the station, they would explain that the pain in their left wrist was the result of this maneuver. The next day, the complainant was seen at hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left wrist.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police witnesses and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes. In early 2026, two officers were dispatched to a location in Toronto following a 911 call. The caller did not address the call-taker but utterances were heard in the background suggesting an ongoing and potentially violent disturbance involving a male and female. The officers entered the home despite objections from the woman who opened the door – the affected person. The affected person was placed under arrest by one of the officers after he observed a male – the affected person – with a cut to the forehead. The affected person refused to cooperate as the officer sought to question him about what had happened. Standing on a second floor landing, the affected person asked the officers to leave and then called 911 asking for additional officers. The officers told the affected person to disconnect the 911 call as they were the police. When he failed to do so, they warned that he would be arrested for public mischief. Shortly after, the officers took hold of the affected person to take him into custody. The affected person refused to surrender his arms to be handcuffed and was grounded. On the floor, he resisted the officers’ efforts to control his arms behind the back and was met with a punch to the face by one of the officers. Moments later, as the struggle continued, the officer delivered two punches to the affected person’s head in quick succession. It would take another five minutes, during which the other officer kicked the affected person once or twice in the legs and exhorted him verbally to give up his arms, before the officers wrestled control of his arms behind the back and secured them in handcuffs. The affected person was transported to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. In the afternoon of early 2026, the complainant was at a square to protest against a demonstration by a movement. The demonstrators had made their way to the square from another location, where they had initially gathered. The complainant, with a group of other people, had also been at the initial location attempting to disrupt the demonstration. Officers had been assigned to police the demonstration and counter-protest. They were to preserve the peace and attempt to keep the rival factions separated. At the square, officers used their bicycles to erect a perimeter between the demonstrators, at the centre of the square, and the counter-protesters, on its periphery. The complainant was in the area of the northeast corner of the square when they and others were asked to leave the square. The complainant began to slowly walk away but stopped to object to the treatment of a person, who was being physically escorted by police in the direction of a street. An officer ordered them to leave or they would be arrested for obstructing police. The officer then pushed the complainant by the arms northward towards the street, the roadway that bordered the square to the north. The complainant told the officer that they did not have to touch them and turned to face the officer. The officer reacted by turning them around and pushing them in the back towards the street. The complainant stumbled forward and fell onto the sidewalk, fracturing their hip in the process. The complainant was transported by paramedics to hospital and treated for their injury.
siu_code:tcd · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. The subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes, as was their legal right. In the early afternoon of Q4 2025, Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers were called to a hotel located in the Yonge Street area of Toronto. Hotel staff had contacted police to seek the removal of a guest — the complainant. The complainant had caused a commotion in the lobby and accused hotel employees of being associated with persons seeking her death. The complainant was of unsound mind at the time of her interaction with the officers. Since checking into the hotel a few days earlier, the complainant had frequently attended the front desk to complain about persons wanting her dead. She had returned to her room by the time of the officers' arrival. A group of TPS officers arrived on scene and, accompanied by the hotel manager, took the elevator to the 18th floor and attended at the complainant's room. Among them was the subject officer. The subject officer knocked on the door and asked for the complainant. The complainant indicated she had not called police and refused to open the door. The subject officer indicated that the officers would open the door if she did not let them in. The complainant did not respond. A female officer interjected and attempted to speak with the complainant, assuring her she was not in trouble and that they simply wanted to talk. Still, there was no response. Officers attempted to open the door, including with a master card key, but were unsuccessful as it had been double-locked from the inside. A TPS Mobile Crisis Intervention Team (MCIT) arrived on scene and also tried to have the complainant open the door. On learning from hotel staff that the complainant's room had a Juliet balcony from which the complainant could jump, a witness officer entered an adjacent room and onto its balcony. From that vantage point, the officer observed that the door to the Juliet balcony was open. Looking down, the officer observed the complainant lying on the roof of the third floor and immediately radioed for paramedics. The roof was accessed by Toronto Fire Service. The complainant was pronounced deceased shortly thereafter. At autopsy, the pathologist was of the preliminary view that the complainant's death was attributable to multiple blunt force trauma.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes. In early 2026, police officers were on the lookout for a vehicle following a call to police from a woman. The woman had called to report that a family member – the affected person – had left their residence in the vehicle. They were of unsound mind and experiencing suicidal ideation. An officer located the vehicle and attempted to pull it over. The affected person refused to stop and picked up their speed. Two other officers, driving separate cruisers, joined the first officer. The three of them decided to attempt a rolling block of the vehicle. At about 12:40 a.m., the officers positioned their cruisers around the vehicle and brought it to a stop. The officers exited their cruisers and attempted to engage with the affected person. The affected person had a knife that they occasionally held at their neck and abdomen. The officers realized that the affected person was only a risk to themselves, and put their firearms away. They were upset and asked the officers to kill them. They talked of being infected with spores and fungi. As time went by, the affected person became less responsive to the officers’ overtures. A team of tactical officers arrived on scene and surrounded the vehicle. Among their ranks was a trained negotiator who also attempted to bring the standoff to a peaceful resolution. The affected person could not be persuaded to let go of the knife and exit the vehicle. A plan was agreed that the tactical officers would storm the vehicle to take the affected person into custody when and if they placed the knife away from their person. At a later time, the subject officer gave the signal to move in after the affected person had put the knife on the front passenger seat. Tactical officers smashed the front door windows and discharged CEWs at the affected person and OC spray into the vehicle. The affected person retrieved the knife and suffered a stab wound to the abdomen. The officers took possession of the knife and removed the affected person from the vehicle. The affected person was transported to hospital by paramedics and treated for a laceration to their abdomen.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and other witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the morning of early 2026, staff at a housing support centre in a regional town contacted police to have a woman – the affected person – removed from the facility. The affected person was causing a disturbance and had behaved rudely to staff. They were subject to an order prohibiting their attendance at the centre. The officer arrived on scene and approached the affected person. They were seated on a sofa in the reception area. The officer stood a distance from them and explained that they needed to leave. The affected person refused to leave. After a period of further conversation, the officer approached the affected person and took hold of their arm. The affected person moved down the sofa away from the officer. They flailed their legs at the officer and fought against their efforts to take them into custody. The struggle moved to the floor where the officer attempted to wrestle control of their arms behind their back. The affected person resisted strenuously for a period of time, even as the officer tried to keep them pinned to the floor with their knees and hands. It was only with the arrival of two additional officers that the affected person was handcuffed with their hands behind their back. Following their arrest, the affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a broken nose.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
In the late afternoon of early 2026, officers were alerted to a recent theft of alcohol from a store. The suspect had fled the store and entered a nearby retail location where a security guard stopped him. The suspect dropped a backpack containing stolen items and fled further into the store as the officers arrived on scene. He was chased by the officers, grounded and handcuffed behind the back. An officer arrived shortly after the arrest to assist. The officer was checking the backpack when they were approached by a person. The person reached down and picked up an item that had fallen from the backpack, telling the officer that it belonged to them. The officer replied that it was not theirs, stood up, and removed the item from the person's hand. The person swiped the officer's hand away, and then swiped it away again as the officer reached out to grab them. The officer moved towards the person, grabbed them by the upper body and used their leg to sweep the person's legs out from under them. The person fell onto their back and immediately favoured their right knee. They were handcuffed behind the back and taken into custody. The person was seen at hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a fractured right knee.
siu_code:tcd · 2025-Q4
The SIU investigated an incident involving Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers who attended at an address in the area of Jane Street and Wilson Avenue in Toronto in the evening of late December 2025. A civilian witness had called police to report being assaulted by the complainant, and had fled the apartment to a nearby location before officers arrived. Three witness officers arrived at the door of the apartment at approximately 11:40 p.m. and knocked and called out, receiving no response. While officers remained at the door awaiting a master key from the landlord, video footage from a camera on an adjacent building captured the complainant falling from height and impacting the ground at approximately 11:42 p.m. Officers entered the apartment after the key arrived shortly after midnight, and found the complainant was not inside. An officer then went onto the apartment balcony and observed the complainant on the ground below. First responders attended and the complainant was found to be deceased. The complainant had been intoxicated by drugs and alcohol in the period leading to their death. A pathologist attributed the cause of death to blunt impact injuries sustained from a descent from height. The SIU's evidence included a civilian witness interview and video footage that largely captured the incident.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and a subject officer, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, one of the subject officers did not agree to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the afternoon of early 2026, two subject officers were on-duty together assigned to a neighbourhood resource team, a proactive policing initiative by the service. The officers attended an apartment complex in the area to perform welfare checks, enforce conditions of release and execute outstanding arrest warrants. The complainant was identified as a person associated with the building who was subject to an arrest warrant on theft charges. The officers were just outside the elevator when it opened and the complainant stepped out. Asked to identify themselves, the complainant provided a false name and attempted to walk by the officers. The officers took hold of the complainant and a struggle ensued. The complainant was forcibly taken to the floor and handcuffed behind the back. The complainant was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a fractured left knee.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and other witnesses (police and non-police), gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer chose not to interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. Shortly before noon, in early 2026, police officers responded to a location in Sudbury. A 911 call had been received suggesting a potentially violent disturbance inside a vehicle. The caller did not communicate directly with the call-taker but the police were able to use her cell phone to approximate a location from where she was calling. An officer found the vehicle in the area. They spoke to two females and determined that there were grounds to believe that one of them had been assaulted by the affected person. Fearing their imminent arrest, the affected person, inside the rear of the vehicle, exited and fled the scene. They ran a short distance and entered into the rear, enclosed deck of a house in the area, where they sought to conceal themselves in a crawl space under a staircase. A police dog handler – the subject officer – and their dog arrived at the site of the vehicle from which the affected person had fled. Joined by other officers, the subject officer and their dog initiated a track of the affected person. They were not hard to find. The officers followed a set of footprints in the snow to the house in the area, spoke to one of the homeowners briefly, and entered the rear deck. The affected person was quickly located inside a crawl space. The subject officer released their police dog. The dog approached the affected person and bit their right hand. With the dog still latched onto their hand, the affected person was removed from the crawl space and positioned on the floor in a prone position. They were handcuffed behind the back and the dog separated from their right hand. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a fracture of the small finger on the right hand.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer chose not to interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the evening of early 2026, police officers were looking for the affected person. They had left the scene of a domestic disturbance threatening suicide and the police were concerned for their wellbeing. A “ping” of the cell phone in the affected person’s possession returned a location in the area. The subject officer, in the company of two other officers, arrived in the area. There was no answer at the first house they approached but one of the officers had noticed a light on at the house next door. The affected person had fled the scene of the disturbance and taken refuge in an empty house in the area. When one of the officers initially approached the house and asked them to identify themselves, the affected person provided a false name. With the officer now off the property, the affected person made their way outside to the rear of the property and inside a steel shed. They had a knife in their possession. Not long after the officer had left the residence where they encountered the affected person, the officer learned that, in fact, they had been dealing with the affected person. They, the subject officer, and the other officer returned to the residence and eventually located the affected person in the rear shed. The affected person displayed a knife and began to walk with purpose towards the officers, repeatedly telling them to shoot them. The subject officer and one of the other officers walked away from the shed and ordered the affected person to drop the knife. They did so, throwing it away, and continued their advance. When they were within striking range of the subject officer, the officer punched them in the face. The affected person was felled by the blow but continued to resist on the ground by refusing to surrender their arms. The two other officers delivered several more strikes to the torso and legs, after which the affected person was handcuffed behind the back. The affected person was diagnosed at hospital after their arrest with a fractured left orbital bone.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, the subject officer and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In the evening of late 2025, police officers were dispatched to a location. The police had received a call about a disturbance involving the affected person and their partner. The subject officer arrived on scene and was joined by other officers. A crisis worker was also in attendance with the police. The subject officer was met by the affected person and allowed inside. The two made their way to the rear yard to talk. The other officers and the crisis worker remained in the house to speak with the partner. Over the course of the next 45 minutes, the subject officer attempted to have the affected person explain what had happened. An intoxicated affected person engaged with the officer in fits and starts, unable to provide a coherent account of the events that preceded the officers’ arrival and occasionally adopting a belligerent posture with the subject officer. The officer told the affected person that they would not be allowed to stay at the home that night, and would need to explore alternative accommodations. The affected person became increasingly frustrated, unable to secure themselves a place for the night. Near the end of their discourse, the affected person walked towards the rear door of the residence. The subject officer grabbed a hold of them, told them they were under arrest for public intoxication, and attempted to pull them away from the home. The affected person resisted the officer by pulling in the opposite direction. There followed an altercation. The subject officer threw the affected person to the ground and positioned themselves overtop their supine torso. The affected person thrashed their legs about. The subject officer delivered a series of elbow strikes to the affected person’s face, after which their arms were controlled in front of their body and handcuffed. Following their arrest, the affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured shoulder.
custody_transport_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer (SO) did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the evening in early November 2025, two witness officers (WO #1 and WO #2) were dispatched to a residence in the area of Ellesmere Road and Meadowvale Road, Toronto, in connection with a reported disturbance. The complainant had been quarrelling with another person and the argument had turned physical. The complainant was belligerent with the officers and refused to be assessed by attending paramedics. At one point, while outside in front of the ambulance, the complainant swatted WO #1's hands. The officer reacted by pushing the complainant backward towards the ambulance and through the open side door. The two tussled briefly before WO #1 delivered a series of punches to the complainant's head area. Shortly after, the complainant was handcuffed and subsequently brought to 43 Division and lodged in a cell. Early the following day, a special constable (SEW #1) attended the cell to retrieve the complainant to speak with duty counsel. The complainant refused to exit the cell and then prevented the special constable from closing the cell door by continually positioning a leg to block its closure. Additional officers attended and, following a struggle, removed the complainant from the cell in order to place them in another cell. The second cell had a "D" ring that could be used to further restrain the complainant while in the cell. The complainant refused to cooperate with the relocation and was dragged from the first cell to the second cell and forced inside. Just inside the second cell, the complainant grabbed hold of the SO's left leg. The officer reacted by punching the complainant six times to the head, after which the complainant let go of the leg. Additional officers entered the cell and assisted in handcuffing the complainant to the "D" ring. The complainant was transported to hospital later that same day. Their left eye was swollen and their nose had started bleeding. They were diagnosed with a fracture of the left orbital bone.
custody_transport_injury · 2025-Q4
Just after midnight in late December 2025, Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers were called to the scene of a reported hit and run in a residential area of the city. A woman on the roadway had been struck by a vehicle — a Ford Edge — that had left and then returned to the scene. Firefighters were the first to arrive, followed shortly by the subject officer and their partner, a witness officer. A crowd of persons had gathered around the injured woman, including family members. The officers ordered the crowd back so the firefighters could render care. Within seconds of the officers' arrival, a family member of the injured woman approached the Ford Edge, parked nearby at the curb. They tried to open the door of the vehicle and were pushed away by the witness officer. The subject officer arrived at the driver's door of the Ford Edge, opened it, and took hold of the driver — the complainant. The subject officer detected the smell of alcohol emanating from the complainant. The officer repeatedly told the complainant to exit the vehicle and then forcibly removed them from their seat when they did not comply. The subject officer and witness officer escorted the complainant to the rear of the Ford Edge, where the subject officer grounded the complainant front first. The complainant was subsequently handcuffed behind the back and placed in the backseat of a police cruiser. The complainant was transported to hospital following their arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, a subject officer and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, a subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the evening of late 2025, police officers, including two subject officers, attended an apartment in the area of a city. The resident – the affected person – had contacted police to report that an inebriated individual was in her apartment and she wanted them removed. The officers entered the apartment and approached the individual in the living room. They were seated on a sofa and speaking on the phone with a police call-taker. After a period, the individual ended their conversation on the phone, stood up from the sofa and walked a short distance towards the door. Just before the door, the officers took hold of their arms. The individual attempted to free their arms and the officers maintained their grip. Other officers intervened and the individual fell forward to the floor, striking their head off the edge of a wall in the process. Officers fell with the individual and landed on top of them. They were handcuffed in quick order and taken into custody. Following their arrest, the individual was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a reduced level of consciousness and a scalp laceration with emphysema and subgaleal hematoma.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes. In the morning of late 2025, the police received a call from hospital security reporting that a patient who had been discharged and escorted out of the hospital – the affected person – was in the parking lot, refusing to leave. The subject officer and another officer of the Emergency Response Team were dispatched. Upon arrival, the officers spoke with security and confirmed the information provided in the call. Security advised that the affected person had been discharged and provided with medication but refused to leave the hospital. They had to physically escort them out of the building; however, they still would not leave the property and wanted to return to the hospital. They were trespassed. Hospital staff did not want them back inside and wanted them removed. The briefing did not include information indicating that the affected person had a particular medical condition. The subject officer approached the affected person and informed them that they were required to leave the premises. The affected person stated that they wanted to return to the hospital because they were in pain. They were advised that they could seek care at another hospital, that they had been trespassed from this one, and that they must either leave or be arrested and removed from the premises. During the conversation, the affected person moved away from the vehicle where they had been standing and proceeded in the direction of the hospital doors. As they walked past, the subject officer asked where they were going and took hold of their arm. As the subject officer began to turn them around, an audible cracking sound was heard and the arm appeared to rotate in an abnormal manner consistent with having snapped. The affected person was permitted to re-enter the hospital so that their injury could be addressed. They were diagnosed with, and subsequently treated for, a comminuted and displaced fracture of the left distal humerus.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant, the subject officer and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In the afternoon of late 2025, the subject officer and their partner, another officer, were on the lookout for the complainant. The complainant was wanted for a number of break and enters, and subject to an outstanding arrest warrant. The officers located the complainant at a gas station in a rural area. The complainant was pumping gas into a vehicle. The officers pulled up in their unmarked vehicle, and exited. The subject officer approached the complainant and advised them they were under arrest. The complainant walked around the front of their vehicle away from the subject officer and towards the driver’s door. They confronted the other officer beside the door and pushed them out of the way, attempting to enter the vehicle. The other officer pushed back against the driver’s door to prevent it opening. The subject officer moved to assist. There followed a protracted struggle in the course of which the subject officer used force against the complainant multiple times. With the assistance of civilians on scene, the officers overcame the complainant’s resistance and handcuffed them behind the back. The complainant was transported to hospital where diagnostic imaging was unable to rule out injuries.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the subject officer and another police eyewitness, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. In the evening of late 2025, police officers, including the subject officer, were dispatched to a location in a town. A resident of the multi-unit location had contacted police to report concern with the wellbeing of a male – the affected person – causing a disturbance at the property. He had been talking to himself and threatening to kill someone. The subject officer arrived on scene, joined by other officers. They attended at a unit of the building and arrested the affected person on a warrant in effect for their arrest for breach of a probation order. He was handcuffed behind the back, escorted outside and searched by the officers. A number of items were seized. The affected person was subsequently placed in the backseat of a police vehicle and read his rights by an officer. The officer exited the vehicle, leaving the affected person alone. The officer and another officer returned to the unit to search the residence for firearms. Left alone in the vehicle, the affected person slipped their handcuffed arms below their legs and repositioned them to the front. They subsequently reached towards the crotch area of their pants, retrieved a bag and ingested a substance it contained. Shortly after the affected person’s consumption of the substance, the subject officer began to monitor the affected person from outside the vehicle using the lights from their vehicle and a flashlight. The affected person brought their hands up to their mouth area on several occasions. Having concluded the search of the unit, an officer returned to their vehicle and checked on the affected person in the rear. The affected person was shaking and pale. Noting that the handcuffs were now to the front, and suspecting a drug overdose, the officer requested emergency medical services. The affected person was removed from the vehicle, administered treatment and placed in the recovery position pending the arrival of paramedics. Emergency medical services arrived and the affected person was taken to hospital and treated for a drug overdose.