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×
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 location, 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 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes. In the early afternoon of a day in early 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 · 2026-Q1
In the evening, officers responded to a reported domestic disturbance in the area of Ottawa, and altered 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 witness officers. The person on the roof, the affected person, was of unsound mind and had earlier called police reporting a break-in. They exited their residence and made their way to the building, ascending 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 cigarette and hung from a light bar attached to the exterior wall. As negotiations were ongoing, a fire truck appeared on scene. The affected person lost their grip and fell to the ground, landing feet-first, and was transported to hospital with multiple fractures of both feet.
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
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 - a civilian - holding the affected person down on the roadway. Ordered to remove himself from the affected person, the civilian 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 civilian. The affected person and the civilian were handcuffed and taken into custody. The affected person attended hospital following their release and was diagnosed with a concussion.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
In the evening of early 2026, officers from the Ottawa Police Service were responding to a reported domestic disturbance in the area of a city in Ontario when they received a related call about a male on the roof of a nearby 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 had earlier called police from their residence, reporting a break-in attempt. The affected person had exited their residence and made their way to the building, where they ascended onto the roof and perched themselves at its highest point. 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 cigarette and, on a couple of occasions, hung from a light bar 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, holding the light bar, and lost their grip, falling to the ground. The affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with multiple fractures.
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 the area of a major road and avenue. 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 other person and the affected person – at a nearby bus shelter. The other person 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 the right hand but had difficulty attaching the other cuff to the affected person’s left 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 tussle 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 right wrist.
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 early 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 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. 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_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 neighborhood. 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 the same time. 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 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 arm.
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. As was their legal right, the subject officers did not agree to interviews with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the early morning of a day in late February 2026, police officers were dispatched to the residence of a person in distress, in the area of a major intersection in Mississauga. The person had called 911 to report concerns that their family member – the affected person – was going to harm them and their children. They indicated that the affected person was in possession of firearms. The officers arrived at the address and spoke to the person. They 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 them a short distance away. They chased the affected person on foot as they turned a corner to run along a footpath back towards the street on which the residence was located before continuing in the same direction past the street. As they ran, the affected person 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 affected person continued their flight, turning left at the next intersection. The officers followed as the affected person 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 positions of cover behind a utility pole and a garage. The affected person stood at the top of the driveway, in the area of the stairs leading to the entrance, the gun in their hand. They repeatedly screamed “no” to commands that they drop the gun. The time was about 12:55 a.m. As the standoff continued on the driveway, an officer discharged their CEW. The probes struck the affected person’s clothing but did not achieve neuromuscular incapacitation. Shortly after, the affected person began to make their way across a shrub line that separated the residences, and 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 them. Almost simultaneously, the officers fired their weapons. It is unclear whether any of these shots struck the affected person, 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 on the front lawn, a distance from the affected person’s location. Approximately 30 seconds after the first volley of gunfire, the affected person fired their 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 their Glock away from them. They applied pressure to their wounds and initiated CPR. Paramedics were on scene shortly after 1:00 a.m. The affected person was pronounced deceased at 1:14 a.m. The pathologist at autopsy was of the view that the affected person’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 where a projectile was recovered, and a gunshot wound to the forehead.
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. As was their legal right, the subject officers did not agree to interviews with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the early morning of a day in late February 2026, police officers were dispatched to the residence of a person in the area of a street in Mississauga. The 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 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 back towards the street on which the residence was located before continuing in the same direction past the street. 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 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 officers took cover behind the wall of a garage, beside the driveway, and a van parked in a parking alcove adjacent to the garage. The family member stood at the top of the driveway, in the area of the stairs leading to the entrance to the residence, the gun in their hand. They repeatedly screamed “no” to commands that they drop the gun. The time was about 12:55 a.m. As the standoff continued on the driveway, 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 that separated the residences. As they did so, the family member pointed their firearm in the direction of the officers located near the van and garage, 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 family member, but they remained standing and made their way onto the driveway of another residence where they took cover behind a vehicle parked facing the house. At about this time, another officer arrived on scene armed with a rifle and positioned themselves behind a large tree on the front lawn of the residence, a distance from the family member’s location. Approximately 30 seconds after the first volley of gunfire, the family member fired their weapon again in the direction of the officers located in the area of the residence. The officer fired twice but the family member remained standing beside the vehicle. 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 1:00 a.m. The family member was pronounced deceased at 1:14 a.m. 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, including injuries to the right bicep, the left side of the back where a projectile was recovered, 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 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. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the morning of early 2026, a constable was a Community Intervention Response Team (CIRT) officer on patrol in their marked cruiser when their Automatic Licence Plate Recognition (ALPR) device detected a stolen vehicle - a Jeep Wrangler - parked outside a market in Brampton. The officer radioed for the assistance of another officer. The subject officer responded to the request and arrived in the area. Notwithstanding the tinted windows on the Jeep, it was determined that there was a male in the driver’s seat of the vehicle. The constable positioned their cruiser directly behind the Jeep to prevent its escape as the subject officer went to the driver’s door and opened it. Their intention was to arrest the driver. The affected person was sitting in the Jeep and gripped the steering wheel with their right hand as the subject officer, joined shortly by the constable, attempted to forcibly extricate them. The subject officer delivered several punches to the affected person’s head and upper body area. The affected person was forced out of the vehicle, taken to the ground and punched again in the abdomen by the subject officer before they were handcuffed behind the back. Following their arrest, the affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a broken nose.
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 fractures and injuries.
firearm_death · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with witnesses (police and non-police) and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officials did not agree to interviews with the SIU or the release of their notes. In early 2026, officers were dispatched to a residence in the area of a city to report a domestic disturbance between a couple residing in a basement apartment – the affected person and another individual. The affected person had a knife and was threatening to kill the other individual. Officers arrived on scene in the basement apartment to find that the other individual was being held in a locked bedroom by the affected person. The other individual indicated through the door that the affected person was holding a knife to her neck and would kill her if police opened the door. Officers attempted to negotiate a peaceful resolution with the affected person. They assured the affected person that they were not there to hurt him and encouraged him to open the door and allow the other individual to leave. The affected person refused to open the bedroom door. He said he would not hurt the other individual if the officers did not enter the room. Specialized officers began arriving on scene and assumed charge of police operations outside the bedroom door. At a distance from the bedroom door, an officer tried to engage the affected person in conversation but he was mostly unresponsive. At one point, the bedroom door opened and the other individual appeared in the doorway’s threshold. The affected person had left her side and she had seized the opportunity to try to escape. Before she could exit through the door, however, the affected person grabbed her by the hair, pulled her back into the room, and locked the bedroom door. The officers decided to storm the bedroom. The door was forced open and officers entered the room. The affected person grabbed the other individual from behind and held the knife to the back of her neck and head. From a distance, an officer fired a semi-automatic handgun at the affected person at the same time as other officers fired their rifles. The affected person sustained multiple gunshot wounds to the upper body and was immediately incapacitated. The other individual was not struck. The affected person was provided emergency medical attention but could not be saved. The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the affected person’s death was attributable to gunshot wounds.
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. As was their legal right, the subject officers did not agree to interviews with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the early morning of a day in late February 2026, police officers were dispatched to the residence of a person in the area of a street in Mississauga. The 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 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 back towards the street on which the residence was located before continuing in the same direction past the street. 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 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 officers took cover behind the wall of a garage, beside the driveway, and a van parked in a parking alcove adjacent to the garage. The family member stood at the top of the driveway, in the area of the stairs leading to the entrance to the residence, the gun in their hand. They repeatedly screamed “no” to commands that they drop the gun. The time was about 12:55 a.m. As the standoff continued on the driveway, 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 that separated the residences. As they did so, the family member pointed their firearm in the direction of the officers located near the van and garage, 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 family member, but they remained standing and made their way onto the driveway of another residence where they took cover behind a vehicle parked facing the house. At about this time, another officer arrived on scene armed with a rifle and positioned themselves behind a large tree on the front lawn of the residence, a distance from the family member’s location. Approximately 30 seconds after the first volley of gunfire, the family member fired their weapon again in the direction of the officers located in the area of the residence. The officer fired twice but the family member remained standing beside the vehicle. 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 1:00 a.m. The family member was pronounced deceased at 1:14 a.m. 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, including injuries to the right bicep, the left side of the back where a projectile was recovered, and a gunshot wound to the forehead.
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, and the caller was aware that the individuals involved were prohibited from being in each other’s company. The officers arrived at the location and entered the apartment. 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 police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject officer agreed to interviews with the SIU. One of the subject 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. 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 area and ultimately made his way to a location where they hid. A police dog unit was deployed to the area and eventually tracked the affected person to the location. 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 location 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 location, 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 multiple 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 injuries.
firearm_death · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the subject officer and other police and non-police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officers did not agree to interviews with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the early morning of February 2026, police officers were dispatched to the residence of the affected person, in the area of a street in Mississauga. The affected person had called 911 to report concerns that her husband – the complainant – was going to harm her and their two children. She indicated that the complainant was in possession of firearms. The officers arrived at the address and spoke to the affected person. She confirmed that the complainant was armed and had fled the residence. The officers began to search the area for the complainant and located him a short distance away. They chased him on foot as the complainant turned a corner to run along a footpath back towards the street on which the residence was located before continuing in the same direction past the street. As he ran, the complainant 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 complainant continued his flight, turning left at the next intersection. The officers followed as the complainant turned onto the driveway of a residence. By this time, other officers were arriving on scene in cruisers. With their handguns drawn, they took a position of cover behind a utility pole at the end of the driveway. The officers took cover behind the wall of a garage, beside the driveway, and a van parked in a parking alcove adjacent to the garage. The complainant stood at the top of the driveway, in the area of the stairs leading to the entrance to the residence, the gun in his hand. He repeatedly screamed “no” to commands that he drop the gun. The time was about 12:55 a.m. As the standoff continued on the driveway, an officer discharged their CEW. The probes struck the complainant’s clothing but did not achieve neuromuscular incapacitation. Shortly after, the complainant began to make his way across a shrub line that separated the residences. As he did so, the complainant pointed his firearm in the direction of the officers located near the van and garage, 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 complainant, but he remained standing and made his way onto the driveway of another residence where he took cover behind a vehicle parked facing the house. At about this time, another officer arrived on scene armed with a rifle and positioned himself behind a large tree on the front lawn of the residence, a distance from the complainant’s location. Approximately 30 seconds after the first volley of gunfire, the complainant fired his weapon again in the direction of the officers located in the area of the residence. The officer fired twice but the complainant remained standing beside the vehicle. There followed another exchange of gunfire involving the complainant and the officer, resulting in the complainant falling to the ground. Officers approached the complainant cautiously and moved his handgun away from him. They applied pressure to his wounds and initiated CPR. Paramedics were on scene shortly after 1:00 a.m. The complainant was pronounced deceased at 1:14 a.m. The pathologist at autopsy was of the view that the complainant’s death was attributable to a gunshot wound to the head. He documented multiple gunshot wounds, including injuries to the right bicep, the left side of the back where a projectile was recovered, and a gunshot wound to the forehead.
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, the officers were on patrol operating a marked cruiser. 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. 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 one of the officers 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 one of the officers 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 one of the officers and drive-stunned multiple times in the back by the other 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 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.