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×
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
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. Shortly before midnight, in early 2026, police were asked to assist in the search of a suspect who had fled the scene of an attempted break and enter in a city and entered into a region with two accomplices in a vehicle. The vehicle had crashed on a street in the area, after which two of the suspects were arrested. The third took flight on foot and remained at large. Police deployed officers to the area of the collision and established a perimeter. Police dog teams were brought in to assist in the search, as was a police drone. Two subject officers were part of the police operations. They were paired with a dog handler, who conducted a track of the suspect across residential streets in the area and the rear yards of homes. At about 1:40 a.m., with the assistance of residents in the neighbourhood sharing their surveillance camera footage with the police, the subject officers and the dog handler located a male – the affected person – hiding underneath a covering in the rear yard of a residence in the area. They alerted other officers, who arrived at the location to assist in taking the affected person into custody. The dog handler loudly announced that officers were present and directed the affected person to surrender. Initially, there was no response from the affected person. The officer warned that they would deploy their dog if the affected person did not surrender, at which point the affected person indicated they would come out. Another brief period passed before the subject officers moved in and physically engaged the affected person. They removed them from under the covering and dragged them a distance away. The affected person was struck several times by the officers, including in the face, before they were handcuffed behind the back. Following their arrest, the affected person was seen at hospital and diagnosed with several facial fractures and a broken finger.
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, a subject officer 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), 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 person who called 911 reported a disturbance involving the affected person. They wanted the affected person removed from their residence. The subject officer arrived on scene with another officer shortly before 11:00 p.m., joined shortly by a third officer. The person who called 911 met them outside the building and provided them a key to the apartment. One of the officers opened the door, stepped inside and was splashed with cooking oil from a bottle by the affected person. The affected person 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 affected person 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 affected person was seen at a hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left wrist.
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 residence in a certain area. The homeowners had contacted police to report a person attempting to break into their 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 of the left elbow and dog bites to the left arm.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police and non-police eyewitnesses, 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 early morning, the affected person was at a nightclub in the Entertainment District. They were with friends to celebrate a birthday. They became involved in a disturbance with another group of patrons, and were escorted out of the premises by security staff. Unhappy with the manner in which security staff had treated them, one of the friends complained to officers who were outside the club policing the area. The subject officer was among the officers outside the nightclub. They and the friend had a brief verbal exchange before the affected person intervened and began to argue with the officer. The two were face to face and becoming more belligerent with each other. At one point, the subject officer told them to get out of the area or they would be arrested for public intoxication. Shortly after, the friend, standing beside the subject officer and the affected person, encroached on the officer's personal space in an aggressive fashion. The officer grabbed hold of the friend and was subsequently confronted by the affected person, who stepped in to try to separate the two. The subject officer turned their attention to the affected person and the two subsequently punched at each other before the officer grabbed hold of them and other officers took hold of their arms. The officers attempted to take the affected person to the ground. The affected person struggled against their efforts and was met with several open-hand palm strikes to the abdomen and a couple of knees to the buttocks by another officer. Following those strikes, they were forced prone on the ground and handcuffed behind the back. The affected person was seen at hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a nasal fracture and a concussion.
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 serious injury.
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 affected person 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 affected person stepped out. Asked to identify themselves, the affected person provided a false name and attempted to walk by the officers. The subject officers took hold of them and a struggle ensued. The affected person was forcibly taken to the floor and handcuffed behind the back. The affected person 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 police eyewitnesses, 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 on the lookout for a vehicle following a call to police from a person. The person 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 some point, 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 some point, the subject officer gave the signal to move in after the affected person had put the knife away from their person. Tactical officers smashed the front door windows and discharged a less-lethal weapon at the affected person and 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.
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 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 call 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 and spoke to two females, determining that there were grounds to believe that one of them had been assaulted by the affected person. Fearing 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, 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 location search returned a location in a specific 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 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 other two 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 orbital bone.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
In the late afternoon of early 2026, police officers were alerted to a recent theft of alcohol from a liquor store at a shopping centre. The suspect had fled the store and entered a nearby retail store where a security guard stopped them. The suspect dropped their backpack and fled further into the store as the officers arrived. They were chased, grounded, and handcuffed. An officer arrived shortly after the arrest to assist and was checking the backpack when they were approached by a person. This person picked up a bottle that had fallen from the backpack, claiming it belonged to them. The officer replied that it was not theirs, stood up, and removed the bottle 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 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_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.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected 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 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 and occasionally adopting a belligerent posture. The officer told the affected person that they would not be allowed to stay at the location 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 location. 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 location. 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. Another officer was by the affected person’s upper body. 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_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and the subject officer, and other police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In the early morning of November 2025, an officer, on patrol in a marked vehicle, came across a pick-up truck stopped for a red light in Oakville. When the light turned green, the pick-up did not move. The officer exited their cruiser to check the driver and noticed them asleep with their head slumped forward. After banging on the window for a period, the officer was able to rouse the driver and directed them to pull over on the other side of the intersection. The driver was the affected person. With them in the front passenger seat was a female. The affected person proceeded south through the intersection, put on their four-way flashers as if they were going to stop, and then accelerated away. The officer radioed what had happened and began to pursue the truck. Other officers heard the transmissions and headed in the area of the pursuit to assist, including another officer in an unmarked police vehicle. The officer would come to occupy the lead cruiser in pursuit, in front of the initial officer. The subject officer, also operating an unmarked police cruiser, intervened as well. The pursuit continued at speed for about 12 minutes. The affected person disregarded multiple red lights, as did police officers. A spike belt was deployed in front of the pick-up truck at one point, causing damage to the truck’s front driver side tire. As the pursuit turned onto eastbound Lakeshore Road West from Winston Churchill Boulevard in Mississauga, the three vehicles closest to the affected person’s truck – the initial officer, another officer, and the subject officer – decided to perform a rolling block. In the area of the roadway’s intersection with Avonhead Road, the subject officer overtook the truck and began to slow in front of it. The affected person brought the truck to an abrupt stop in front of the officer. The initial officer stopped their cruiser alongside the driver side of the truck (preventing the driver’s door from opening) and another officer directly behind. The subject officer exited their vehicle and approached the front of the initial officer’s cruiser, pointing their semi-automatic pistol at the affected person in the driver’s seat of the truck. The officer was joined by another officer and a third officer, who each fired their CEW s at the affected person through the open driver’s door window. Orders were shouted at the affected person to exit the vehicle. The subject officer holstered their gun and took out their OC canister, which they sprayed at the affected person. Shortly after, the subject officer climbed on top of the hood of the initial officer’s cruiser, grabbed a hold of the affected person’s leg, which had appeared through the driver’s window, and, with the help of the other officers, pulled the affected person out of the truck onto the hood. The affected person had their arms together by their chest and was on their right side on top of the hood when the subject officer punched them three times to the upper torso / head area. The affected person was pulled off the hood onto the ground in front of the initial officer’s cruiser. There were now about six officers surrounding the affected person. Among them, the subject officer punched in the direction of the affected person’s torso five times and another officer dropped their knee onto the upper body and head area two or three times. The subject officer then stood up and kicked at the affected person’s right hip area six times. Shortly after, the affected person was handcuffed, stood up and lodged in the backseat of one of the cruisers. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with multiple facial fractures.
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 cruiser and read his rights by an officer. The officer exited the cruiser, leaving the affected person alone. The officers returned to the unit to search the residence for firearms. Left alone in the cruiser, 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 white 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 cruiser. 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 the cruiser 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 EMS. The affected person was removed from the cruiser, administered two doses of Narcan and placed in the recovery position pending the arrival of paramedics. EMS arrived and the affected person was taken to hospital and treated for drug overdose.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person 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 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes. In early 2025, police officers, including the subject officer, attended at a campsite in a provincial park. A park warden had contacted police for their assistance. A short period prior, the park warden, at the campsite in connection with a noise complaint, had witnessed one of the campers - the affected person - slap someone in the face. The subject officer and another officer took custody of the affected person and handcuffed them behind the back without incident. The affected person was searched and placed in the rear of the subject officer's cruiser for transportation to a detachment. At the detachment, the affected person was lodged in a cell and held there until their release from custody later that morning. The affected person returned to the park to meet with someone in violation of a no-contact condition of their release from custody. They subsequently attended hospital that same day and were diagnosed with two broken ribs.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and a police eyewitness, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the afternoon of late 2025, the subject officer, operating a police cruiser with another officer as their passenger, stopped a vehicle in a rural area. The affected person was driving the vehicle. Police officers had been on the lookout for the affected person after they expressed suicidal ideations when they came to learn, earlier that day, that they were the subject of a sexual assault investigation. As the officers exited the cruiser to make their way to the vehicle, the affected person accessed a knife and used it to inflict a serious laceration across their neck. The subject officer and the other officer observed the wound, contacted paramedics, and attempted to apply first aid. When the affected person tried to prevent the officers from helping them, they were handcuffed to allow the officers to provide emergency care. The affected person was transported to hospital and treated for a serious neck wound.