|
|
REPORT RAPPORT |
|
|
REPORT RAPPORT |
|
DATE:
|
25 June 2012 |
|
TO/DEST:
|
Executive Director, Ottawa Police Services Board |
|
FROM/EXP:
|
Chief of Police, Ottawa Police Service |
|
SUBJECT/OBJET: |
REPORT ON S.I.U. INVESTIGATION – CUSTODY INJURY – DECEMBER 2011
|
That the Ottawa Police Services Board receives this report for information.
In the early morning hours of December, 2011, Ottawa police officers responded to a report of trespassing at a business premise. At the request of premise holder, officers requested that the individual leave the premises. The individual refused to leave and officers attempted to arrest the individual. A struggle ensued. The individual ran to a small room in the premises as officers attempted to complete the arrest. Officers continued to speak with the individual, and unsuccessfully deployed OC Spray. In attempts to gain control, the Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) was deployed. The individual was eventually subdued by officers and as a precaution, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were contacted. The individual was transported to hospital and was diagnosed as having a “nasal fracture”.
The Special Investigations Unit was contacted and invoked its mandate.
Special Investigation Unit Investigation
“Pursuant to s. 11(4) of Regulation 267/10 under the Police Services Act, I advise you that my report regarding the Custody Injury of (an individual) December, 2011, has been sent to the Attorney General.
The investigation by this Unit has been completed, the file has been closed and no further action is contemplated. In my view, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officers committed a criminal offence in relation to the injuries sustained by the complainant, in December 2011. In the early hours of that day, (the individual was in a business premise) Ottawa for an extended period of time. The manager, called the police after he had been there for over three hours and was refusing to leave. Two officers attended and he also refused to comply with their request to leave. (An Officer) approached the complainant to arrest him under the Trespass to Property Act. (The individual) resisted, then broke away and ran out of the store. (The officer) pursued him outside, and attempted to pepper spray him but his aerosol container malfunctioned. (The individual) ran back into the store, was pepper sprayed, and then ran into a storage room and closed the door. (Another officer) entered the store with a CEW. He forced open the storage room door and deployed his CEW at close range. The device was ineffective probably due to the multiple layers of clothing worn by the complainant. At this point, the fight was on… The (Officer) forced him to the ground where he and three officers, including the other subject officer, attempted to handcuff him. (The officer) deployed the CEW again in the complainant’s inner thigh area. He was then handcuffed with his hands in front of his body and his legs held together with flex-cuffs.
The complainant was taken to hospital under the authority of the Mental Health Act after being handcuffed to a gurney. He was diagnosed as sustaining a nasal fracture as well as other more minor injuries.
In my view, the involved officers had the lawful authority to arrest (the individual) under the Trespass to Property Act because the occupier had withdrawn his permission allowing the complainant to remain in the store and the latter refused to leave. He then resisted the lawful arrest by the involved officers leading to a significant altercation and his injury. The subject officers had the authority to use reasonable force to effect this arrest under the authority of s.146 of the Provincial Offences Act , and in my view, given the resistance shown by the complainant to the officers, the force used was justified in the circumstances of this lawful arrest.
Due to the provisions of the Police Service Act and the Regulations, I am unable to provide you with a copy of my report to the Attorney General. If, however, you wish to discuss any aspect of this matter, I invite you to call William Curtis, this Unit’s Executive Officer, or me.
Yours Sincerely,
Ian Scott
Director SIU”
Professional Standards Section Investigation
Pursuant to section 11 of Regulation 267/10 of the Police Services Act, an investigation was conducted by the Professional Standards Section to determine if the policies of, or services provided by, the Ottawa Police Service were adhered to at the time of this incident, and to determine if the conduct of the police officers was appropriate.
The results are as follows:
Conduct: The allegation of misconduct was investigated pursuant to the Police Services Act. Legislative provisions for Police Officers in Ontario authorize the use of force necessary to execute their duties. Officers are accountable for any force that is used beyond what is necessary in the execution of their duties.
This investigation confirmed that officers used appropriate force to make the arrest. No misconduct was identified.
Police officers re-qualify annually in their ‘use of force’ training to refresh decision making skills in live scenarios and practical skills with issued weapons. It was confirmed that the subject officer had successfully re-qualified in use of force as per legislative requirements.
Policies: As per the requirements of the Ontario Police Services Act and its regulations, every Police Service shall have policies that provide direction for the delivery of policing services. In this matter a number of policies were reviewed including Use of Force and CEW deployment policies. A review of the matter and all legislative and policy requirements related to this incident confirmed that all policies were adhered to.
Service: The Police Services Act confirms the mandate of the Police to attend to calls for service including trespassing calls. The Ottawa Police Service responded to this call as per the mandate of the police service. No service issues were identified.
No further action to be taken on this matter
(original signed by)
Charles Bordeleau
Chief of Police
