Recherche
Recherche plein texte sur tous les incidents publiés. Les noms d'agents ne sont jamais indexés — les résultats portent sur le résumé caviardé, le nom du corps policier, la référence tribunalaire et les champs à vocabulaire contrôlé (type d'incident, constat, disposition).
- Corps policier: siu-on×
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, 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 afternoon of a day in 2026, the affected person, while detained in a cell of a police detachment, reached into their underpants, retrieved a quantity of drugs and consumed them. About an hour later, they lapsed into medical distress with seizure-like symptoms. Custodial staff were quickly alerted to the affected person’s situation. They administered several doses of Narcan and summoned EMS. Paramedics arrived on scene and transported the affected person to hospital where they were treated for an overdose. The day before, acting on the strength of a warrant, two officers had arrested the affected person. One of the officers had conducted a pat-down search at the time, but failed to discover a body-pack around the affected person’s torso, which contained a plastic container of illicit substances. After being placed in a cruiser for transport to the detachment, the affected person was able to manipulate their handcuffed arms to retrieve the container from their pack and conceal it down the front of their underwear. At the detachment, the affected person revealed they were wearing the body-pack. It was removed from their possession and a quantity of methamphetamine was confiscated. A further pat-down search before the affected person was lodged in a cell failed to discover the container they were hiding.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. In late 2025, the subject officer and the witness officer were dispatched to an apartment in the area of a city, following calls to police from the resident, the affected person. The affected person threatened to kill herself if police did not attend her residence and indicated that she had cut her wrists. The officers arrived at the address, where they were joined by paramedics. The first responders made their way to the apartment door. Finding it locked, the subject officer kicked it open. The affected person was in her bedroom at the time. She was highly agitated and belligerent with the officers. A cut was visible on her wrist. The officers handcuffed the affected person behind the back and were escorting her down a hallway in the apartment when the witness officer briefly pinned her against a wall as the affected person’s hostility escalated. The affected person turned and spat on the witness officer, and was taken to the floor by the officers in a prone position. The affected person screamed at the officers to kill her and banged her face on the floor about a half-dozen times, fracturing her nose in the process. The subject officer took hold of the affected person’s head to prevent her hurting herself. The affected person was seen at hospital after her arrest and ultimately diagnosed with a broken nose.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, 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 afternoon of early 2026, the affected person was in custody at a police detachment. Earlier that day, they had been arrested in relation to an incident at a municipal building. While being processed for release following a period in detention, the affected person objected to a condition that would prohibit their presence at a location. The officer explained that an amendment could be made but indicated that the affected person would have to be returned to cells for a period. The affected person refused to accompany the officer to cells and a struggle followed in which they were forced to the floor. The affected person was eventually handcuffed and returned to a cell. Later that day, paramedics transported the affected person to hospital where they were diagnosed with injuries.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
In the evening, officers responded to a reported domestic disturbance in the area of a city, altering course to a nearby location following a related call about a person on the roof of a building. The subject officer was the first to arrive on scene, followed by two other officers. The person on the roof, the affected person, was of unsound mind and had earlier called police from their residence, reporting a break-in attempt. They exited their residence and made their way to the building, ascending onto the roof. The officers attempted to persuade the affected person to come down safely, but they threatened to jump if not provided with a cigarette and hung from a light bar attached to the top of the exterior wall. As negotiations were ongoing, a fire truck appeared on scene. The affected person eventually lost their grip and fell to the ground, landing feet-first, and was transported to hospital with multiple fractures.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police and non-police witnesses, as well as 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. He did authorize the release of his notes. In the afternoon of early 2026, while patrolling the area of Ottawa, two officers located the affected person near a street. The affected person was wanted for robbery and assault with a weapon with respect to an incident that had happened in the weeks before. Upon observing the officers, the affected person fled on foot towards a drive. Officers subsequently lost sight of him and requested assistance from additional units to canvass the area and re-establish his location. After repositioning, the officers again observed the affected person near townhouses. When an officer called out to him, the affected person fled, prompting a foot pursuit. Additional officers subsequently joined the pursuit, which continued through the area, with officers intermittently losing sight of the affected person. At some point, the subject officer and another officer received an update that the affected person had been seen in the area and drove towards the area. Near a street, the subject officer observed civilians pointing out the affected person. He then observed the affected person standing with his back pressed against a wall. When the subject officer exited the cruiser and directed him to stop, the affected person fled on foot along a drive, through a parking lot, and eastbound on a street. As the subject officer closed the distance on the affected person, a civilian intervened. The civilian had observed the affected person running from the parking lot with two officers in pursuit yelling, "Stop." Believing the affected person was gaining a lead on the officers and wanting the pursuit to end because it was occurring around children, the civilian stepped into the affected person’s path and bear-hugged him. As the two engaged, both men rolled onto the hood of a parked vehicle and rolled off it, falling to the roadway and onto the street. Within seconds of the civilian and the affected person going to the ground, the subject officer arrived and came down onto the affected person before taking control of him and securing his arms behind the back. The subject officer arrested him for robbery, assault with a weapon, and obstruction. Another officer arrived shortly and applied handcuffs. Following his arrest, the affected person was taken to a station before being transported to hospital, where he was diagnosed with a buckle fracture of his right thumb.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, the subject officer, and other civilian eyewitnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. In the morning of early 2026, the subject officer was dispatched to the area of a domestic disturbance. On their arrival, the officer observed a male holding the affected person down on the roadway. Ordered to remove himself from the affected person, the male did so while explaining to the officer that she had damaged his property and assaulted him. The subject officer decided to arrest the affected person for assault and mischief. There followed a physical engagement between the three parties during which the subject officer used force against the affected person and the male. The affected person and the male were handcuffed and taken into custody. The affected person attended hospital following their release and was diagnosed with a concussion.
firearm_death · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with a witness officer and other police and non-police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. In the early morning of early 2026, police officers were dispatched to a residence in the area of a street in Mississauga. A person had called 911 to report concerns that her husband – the affected person – was going to harm her and their children. She indicated that the affected person was in possession of firearms. The subject officers arrived at the address and spoke to the person. She confirmed that the affected person was armed and had fled the residence. The officers began to search the area for the affected person and located him a short distance away. They chased him on foot as the affected person turned a corner to run along a footpath before continuing in the same direction. As he ran, the affected person reached into a bag he was carrying, retrieved a handgun, and dropped the bag. The bag was subsequently found to contain a firearm. Repeated commands that he stop went unheeded. The affected person continued his flight, turning left at the next intersection. The officers followed as the affected person turned onto the driveway of a residence. By this time, other officers were arriving on scene in cruisers. With their handguns drawn, the officers took a position of cover behind a utility pole at the end of the driveway. The affected person stood at the top of the driveway, the gun in his hand. He repeatedly screamed “no” to commands that he drop the gun. As the standoff continued on the driveway, an officer discharged her CEW. The probes struck the affected person’s clothing but did not achieve neuromuscular incapacitation. Shortly after, the affected person began to make his way across a shrub line that separated the residences. As he did so, the affected person pointed his firearm in the direction of the officers and fired at least one shot. A bullet struck an officer’s hat but did not physically injure the officer. Almost simultaneously, the officers fired their weapons. It is unclear whether any of these shots struck the affected person, but he remained standing and made his way onto the driveway of another residence where he took cover behind a vehicle. At about this time, another officer arrived on scene armed with a rifle and positioned himself behind a large tree on the front lawn. Approximately 30 seconds after the first volley of gunfire, the affected person fired his weapon again in the direction of the officers. The officer fired twice but the affected person remained standing beside the vehicle. There followed another exchange of gunfire involving the affected person and the officer, resulting in the affected person falling to the ground. Officers approached the affected person cautiously and moved his handgun away from him. They applied pressure to his wounds and initiated CPR. Paramedics were on scene shortly after. The affected person was pronounced deceased. The pathologist at autopsy was of the view that the affected person’s death was attributable to a gunshot wound to the head. He documented multiple gunshot wounds, including injuries to the arm, the back, and a gunshot wound to the forehead.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither of the subject officers agreed to interviews with the SIU. One of the officers did provide a written statement. In the late evening of early 2026, police officers were dispatched to a motor vehicle accident at an intersection in the area. The collision involved a single vehicle that had been stolen moments earlier. Witnesses to the collision reported that the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle – the affected person – had fled the area. The affected person had run from the site of the collision to a nearby residential street and ultimately made his way to the rear of a property where they hid in a backyard shed. A police dog unit was deployed to the area and eventually tracked the affected person to the shed. One of the officers who had been searching for the affected person called out to them but there was no response. The officer eventually opened the door to the shed and told the affected person to show their hands. When the affected person, lying on the ground, failed to do so, the officer discharged their CEW. As the affected person cried out in pain, the officer dragged them out of the shed, delivering a punch to the torso in the process. Other officers arrived on scene and joined in the arrest process. Repeated directions were given to the affected person to show and release their hands. The officer struck the affected person again in the torso and another officer punched them in the head or upper body area three times. Following another CEW discharge by the officer into the affected person’s back, their hands were controlled and handcuffed. The affected person was seen at hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose and three fractured ribs.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, the subject officer, and additional police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In early 2026, a team of officers with the Gangs and Hate Crimes Unit were looking to arrest a group of males suspected in a series of crimes. One of them - the affected person – was also subject to an arrest warrant. The team – including the subject officer – tracked the suspects to a location in Brampton. The officers surveilled the suspects and their vehicles. The affected person removed items from the trunk of their vehicle and placed them on the bed of another vehicle. After a time, the officers decided to move in to arrest the suspects. The plan was to approach the vehicles and box them in from the front and sides to prevent the males from escaping. On seeing the police vehicles converging on their location, the males entered their vehicles and tried to drive off. The affected person drove forward into a police vehicle, propelling it backwards, and then backed up and accelerated forward again, pushing the police vehicle further back. When the affected person reversed a second time, their vehicle spun to the right and came to a stop; its driver side had struck a light standard. As this was occurring, the subject officer had smashed out the driver’s window with their baton and attempted to incapacitate the affected person through the window with their CEW, but neither of their discharges were effective. With the affected person’s vehicle at rest, the subject officer and another officer struggled to remove the affected person from the driver’s seat, at least partly because the driver’s door was wedged against the light standard. The affected person was eventually forced out of the vehicle by the officers and taken to the ground where they were struck several times by the officers before being handcuffed behind the back. Paramedics attended the scene and transported the affected person to hospital where they were diagnosed with a fractured right femur.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, 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 afternoon of March 2026, the affected person, while detained in a cell of the OPP detachment, reached into their underpants, retrieved a quantity of drugs and consumed them. About an hour later, they lapsed into medical distress with seizure-like symptoms. Custodial staff were quickly alerted to the affected person’s situation. They administered several doses of Narcan and summoned EMS. Paramedics arrived on scene and transported the affected person to hospital where they were treated for an overdose. The day before, acting on the strength of a warrant, two officers had arrested the affected person. One of the officers had conducted a pat-down search at the time, but failed to discover a body-pack around the affected person’s torso, which contained a plastic container of illicit substances. After being placed in a cruiser for transport to the detachment, the affected person was able to manipulate their handcuffed arms to retrieve the container from their pack and conceal it down the front of their underwear. At the detachment, the affected person revealed they were wearing the body-pack. It was removed from their possession and a quantity of methamphetamine was confiscated. A further pat-down search before the affected person was lodged in a cell failed to discover the container they were hiding.
firearm_death · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with a witness officer and other police and non-police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. In the early morning of February 2026, police officers were dispatched to a residence in the area of a street in Mississauga. A person had called 911 to report concerns that their family member was going to harm them and their children. They indicated that the family member was in possession of firearms. The subject officers arrived at the address and spoke to the person. They confirmed that the family member was armed and had fled the residence. The officers began to search the area for the family member and located them a short distance away. They chased the family member on foot as they turned a corner to run along a footpath. As they ran, the family member reached into a bag they were carrying, retrieved a handgun, and dropped the bag. The bag was subsequently found to contain a firearm. Repeated commands that they stop went unheeded. The family member continued their flight, turning left at the next intersection. The officers followed as the family member turned onto a driveway. By this time, other officers were arriving on scene in cruisers. With their handguns drawn, the officers took a position of cover behind a utility pole and a wall. The family member stood at the top of the driveway, the gun in their hand. They repeatedly screamed “no” to commands that they drop the gun. As the standoff continued, an officer discharged their CEW. The probes struck the family member’s clothing but did not achieve neuromuscular incapacitation. Shortly after, the family member began to make their way across a shrub line and pointed their firearm in the direction of the officers. The family member fired at least one shot. Almost simultaneously, the officers fired their weapons. The family member remained standing and made their way onto the driveway of another residence. At about this time, another officer arrived on scene armed with a rifle and positioned themselves behind a tree. Approximately 30 seconds after the first volley of gunfire, the family member fired their weapon again. The officer fired twice but the family member remained standing. There followed another exchange of gunfire involving the family member and the officer, resulting in the family member falling to the ground. Officers approached the family member cautiously and moved their handgun away from them. They applied pressure to their wounds and initiated CPR. Paramedics were on scene shortly after. The family member was pronounced deceased. The pathologist at autopsy was of the view that the family member’s death was attributable to a gunshot wound to the head. They documented multiple gunshot wounds.
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 their time in custody, 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 a day in 2026, the affected person was arrested and taken into custody on the strength of outstanding warrants. A pat-down search was conducted at the scene and revealed no items of concern. The affected person was transported to the police station and subjected to a frisk search. Nothing of note was located and they were lodged in a cell. At approximately 2:15 a.m., officers monitoring the cell camera observed the affected person spending an extended period of time in the toilet and sink area. The affected person was observed facing the toilet and hunched over. Their movements suggested that they were moving something in or around the toilet, although the object itself could not be seen. They then walked away from the toilet with their hands in their pants pockets. At approximately 2:17 a.m., the affected person was removed from the cell, and a search of the cell was conducted. During the search, a clear plastic bag containing a trace amount of a white substance believed to be a narcotic was located inside one of their socks. The affected person was subsequently searched again and questioned about the substance. They admitted that it was cocaine. The affected person quickly became unresponsive. Officers assisted them to the floor, where they were observed foaming at the mouth and experiencing seizures. Two doses of naloxone were administered and EMS were called. The affected person was transported to the hospital and treated for a variety of serious medical issues, some of which were related to a multidrug overdose.
custody_transport_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, neither subject officer agreed to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the evening of early 2026, a subject officer was on patrol operating a marked cruiser. Their passenger and partner was another subject officer. At about 9:41 p.m., the officers began to follow a vehicle for failing to stop at a red light before making a right turn onto a street and heading south. The vehicle quickly turned left into an apartment complex and then left again onto a ramp to the underground parking for a building situated in the area. The cruiser, its emergency lights activated while stopped behind the vehicle, followed the vehicle as the entry gate rose and the garage door opened. The affected person was driving the vehicle. They continued down a lane between rows of parking spaces, reversed into a parking spot and exited their vehicle. They were immediately confronted by a subject officer asking where they were going. The officers had stopped their cruiser short of the vehicle in the lane. The affected person walked past the officers and towards a wall, against which they began to urinate. They were pinned against the wall by a subject officer while they continued to relieve themselves, after which they began to struggle against both officers as they tried to control their arms behind the back. The affected person was told they had failed to stop for police. The parties struggled for about five minutes. With the assistance of additional officers, the affected person was handcuffed and taken into custody. They had been forced to the ground, punched twice in the head by a subject officer and drive-stunned multiple times in the back by another subject officer. The affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis, which was attributed to trauma and the use of the CEW.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, the subject officer and other police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In the afternoon of early 2026, the subject officer and another officer were dispatched to a residence in rural Lambton County. A person had called police to request a welfare check on two individuals, whom they had reason to believe had been fighting. The caller was also aware that these individuals were prohibited from being in each other’s company. The officers arrived at the location and entered the residence. One person was arrested for assault. The affected person was located in a bedroom and arrested by the subject officer for breach of a non-association condition. The subject officer handcuffed the affected person behind the back and escorted them down an external staircase. As the pair neared the bottom of the stairs, the subject officer stepped on the affected person’s left foot. The affected person was not wearing shoes or socks at the time. The affected person was seen at hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a fractured left foot.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and additional police and non-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 location in response to a report of a person attempting to break into a residence. Two officers were the first on scene, arriving at about 3:10 a.m. They were joined shortly by a police dog handler, the subject officer, and their dog. Additional officers arrived on scene and set up a perimeter around the house as the subject officer deployed their dog to locate the suspect. It was not long before the dog led the subject officer to the rear yard and a crawl space underneath a deck. The affected person was hiding in the crawl space, which was cluttered with stored items. They failed to come out and give any indication of their presence despite repeated direction from the subject officer for them to do so. With the dog still attached to the lead, the subject officer released the dog into the crawl space. The dog’s first foray into the space was unsuccessful. The subject officer released the dog into the crawl space again. On this occasion, the dog located the affected person under some items and bit into their left arm. The affected person gave no reaction. The subject officer approached their dog and the affected person and released the dog’s hold, after which the affected person was taken into custody. The affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fracture and dog bites to the left arm.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, 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 afternoon of early 2026, the affected person was in custody at a police detachment. Earlier that day, they had been arrested in relation to an incident at a municipal building. While being processed for release following a period in detention, the affected person objected to a condition that would prohibit their presence at a location. The officer explained that an amendment could be made but indicated that the affected person would have to be returned to cells for a period. The affected person refused to accompany the officer to cells and a struggle followed in which they were forced to the floor. The affected person was eventually handcuffed and returned to a cell. Later that day, paramedics transported the affected person to hospital where they were diagnosed with injuries.
firearm_death · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with a witness officer and other police and non-police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. In the early morning of a day in late February 2026, police officers were dispatched to a residence in the area of a major intersection in Mississauga. A person had called 911 to report concerns that their spouse was going to harm them and their children. They indicated that the spouse was in possession of firearms. The subject officers arrived at the address and spoke to the person. They confirmed that the spouse was armed and had fled the residence. The officers began to search the area for the spouse and located them a short distance away. They chased the spouse on foot as the spouse turned a corner to run along a footpath before continuing in the same direction. As the spouse ran, they reached into a bag they were carrying, retrieved a handgun, and dropped the bag. The bag was subsequently found to contain a firearm. Repeated commands that they stop went unheeded. The spouse continued their flight, turning left at the next intersection. The officers followed as the spouse turned onto the driveway of a nearby residence. By this time, other officers were arriving on scene in cruisers. With their handguns drawn, the officers took a position of cover behind a utility pole and a wall. The spouse stood at the top of the driveway, the gun in their hand. They repeatedly screamed “no” to commands that they drop the gun. As the standoff continued, an officer discharged their CEW. The probes struck the spouse’s clothing but did not achieve neuromuscular incapacitation. Shortly after, the spouse began to make their way across a shrub line that separated two residences. As they did so, the spouse pointed their firearm in the direction of the officers and fired at least one shot. A bullet struck an officer’s hat but did not physically injure the officer. Almost simultaneously, the officers fired their weapons. It is unclear whether any of these shots struck the spouse, but they remained standing and made their way onto the driveway of another residence where they took cover behind a vehicle. At about this time, another officer arrived on scene armed with a rifle and positioned themselves behind a large tree. Approximately 30 seconds after the first volley of gunfire, the spouse fired their weapon again in the direction of the officers. The officer fired twice but the spouse remained standing beside the vehicle. There followed another exchange of gunfire involving the spouse and the officer, resulting in the spouse falling to the ground. Officers approached the spouse cautiously and moved their Glock away from them. They applied pressure to their wounds and initiated CPR. Paramedics were on scene shortly after. The spouse was pronounced deceased. The pathologist at autopsy was of the view that the spouse’s death was attributable to a gunshot wound to the head. They documented multiple gunshot wounds, including injuries to the right bicep, the left side of the back, and a gunshot wound to the forehead.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may be briefly summarized. In the evening of early 2026, the affected person was with her boyfriend, an off-duty officer, on a street in Toronto when the two quarreled and she left the area telling him that she was going to jump. She made her way to a bridge over a river, and called the officer using a passerby’s cellphone. She told him she was going to commit suicide and that it would be his fault. The officer called police to report that the affected person was in mental health crisis and threatening to harm herself. He would subsequently learn from a third-party whose phone the affected person had used to call him that she was in the area of the bridge and a roadway. The subject officer drove in that direction, travelling across the bridge. With him was another officer. The subject officer approached the side of the bridge, brought his vehicle to a stop and exited with the other officer. They were just out of their cruiser when the affected person scaled the bridge guardrail and jumped down the other side. She landed on the frozen river below, a distance of about eight metres. The officers made their way to the riverbank and walked onto the river to render aid to the affected person. Firefighters attended the scene and assisted in her removal. She was transported to hospital and diagnosed with serious injuries.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
In the evening of early 2026, officers from the Ottawa Police Service responded to a reported domestic disturbance in the area of a city in Ontario. They altered course to a nearby location following a related call about a male on the roof of the building. The subject officer was the first to arrive on scene, followed by two witness officers. The male on the roof was the affected person, who was of unsound mind. They had earlier called police from their residence, reporting a disturbance. They subsequently exited their residence and made their way to the location, where they ascended onto the roof. The subject officer and a witness officer attempted to persuade the affected person to come down safely. The affected person threatened to jump if not provided with a request and, on a couple of occasions, hung from a structure attached to the top of the exterior wall. As negotiations were ongoing, a fire truck appeared on scene. About seven minutes after the arrival of the police, the affected person again hung on the exterior wall of the building and lost their grip, falling to the ground. The affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with multiple injuries.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police and non-police eyewitness, and video footage that 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, the subject officer and another officer were dispatched to a convenience store in a area. A store employee had contacted police to report a male and female shoplifter. The officers arrived on scene and spoke with store staff, confirming that two suspects had left the store with alcohol and food without paying for the items. The employee showed a video clip they had taken with their cellphone, depicting the male and female. The officers located the suspects – the affected person and another individual – at a nearby bus shelter. One suspect was taken into custody by one of the officers without incident. The affected person, however, resisted when the subject officer attempted to secure them in handcuffs. The officer was able to affix a cuff to one hand but had difficulty attaching the other cuff to the affected person’s other hand. The affected person objected to their arrest, denied that they had done anything wrong, and struggled against the subject officer’s efforts to bring their arms behind their back. The struggle eventually made its way outside the bus shelter where the other officer intervened. The officers brought the affected person to the ground, after which the other officer secured both their hands in handcuffs. Following their arrest, the affected person was taken to hospital and treated for a fractured wrist.