SIU clears Peel officer in connection with injuries sustained by man during Brampton arrest

Ontario’s police watchdog has cleared a Peel Regional Police officer after a 23-year-old man suffered an orbital fracture during his arrest in Brampton four months ago.

It happened on the evening of Sept. 2 on Trueman Street, near Kennedy Road South, when officers with the Strategic Tactical Enforcement Policing Unit encountered a group of people drinking alcohol and listening to loud music.

The officers approached the group to remind them they were not allowed to publicly drink alcohol.

Joseph Martino, the director of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), said one of the officers – referred to as witness official number 2 (WO #2) – tried to speak with one of the males, referred to as the complainant, in the group but he ran east along Orenda Court.

Peel officers chased after him, with WO #2 alerting the force they were pursuing the man on foot, believed to “armed and dangerous.”

The dispatcher asked if police saw a woman, to which one officer responded with: “We were detaining them. Once we said, ‘Get your hand out of your pocket,’ he took off on foot. Appears that he had a gun.”

The complainant scaled a fence into the parking lot of 33 Kennedy Road South, an apartment building, and ran north in the lot, falling on two occasions.

Video footage from the apartment building revealed the complainant, who appeared to be carrying a satchel, running across the parking lot just before 11:15 p.m. The satchel contained drugs, though the SIU did not disclose what.

The SIU said the complainant made it as far as some dumpsters near the building’s back exit when a police cruiser confronted him. The subject official, called the SO in the report, had driven to the area after hearing the radio transmission and stopped the vehicle.

Martino said the SO got out of the police cruiser, identified himself as an officer, and ordered the complainant to show his hands before approaching him and taking him to the ground.

One of the officers who pursued the complainant on foot arrived shortly after the grounding, and assisted the SO in handcuffing the complainant. The complainant was arrested and charged with possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking.

Body-worn camera footage was muted several times throughout the arrest and failed to capture all dialogue, the SIU noted.

In the footage, however, at around 11:30 p.m., the complainant was placed in the back seat of the police cruiser and sat with his feet on the ground. Four minutes later, the complainant was read his rights to counsel, and during that time, the complainant indicated his head was spinning.

“They hit me in my head. I’m not overreacting or acting or anything,” the complainant said in response. An officer called for an ambulance just before 11:40 p.m.

The SIU noted the footage was muted again but reactivated when WO#2 asked the complainant if he had taken anything, to which he replied, “I just don’t feel good,” before lying down.

Just before 12:25 a.m., one of the officers asked the complainant if he wanted to wait for the ambulance. He declined, indicating he wanted to go home, and police cancelled the request for an ambulance before releasing the complainant.

On Sept. 5, three days later, the complainant went to the hospital where he was diagnosed with an orbital fracture. On Sept. 6, the complainant called the SIU to report the injury, saying the officers “beat him in the course of the arrest resulting in bruising to his eyes and sore ribs.”

In the SIU report concluding the investigation, Martino determined there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the complainant’s injury and arrest.

Martino said the officer “engaged in the lawful execution of his duties” in order to detain the complainant after he was being pursued, on foot, by his colleagues.

“By that time, the officer had heard that the Complainant was armed and see him jettison a satchel he was wearing. In the circumstances, I am satisfied the SO was justified in detaining the complainant for investigation based on a reasonable suspicion that he was implicated in criminal conduct,” Martino wrote.

“With respect to the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s detention, I am unable to reasonably conclude it was anything other than legally justified. The officer says that he forced the Complainant to the ground after he refused to show his hands.”

Martino added that appeared to be a reasonable tactic. As for the punch to the “upper body or head” the SO says he struck when the Complainant struggled against his arresting efforts, Martino also deemed it reasonable.

“On the other hand, there is evidence in which it is alleged that the Complainant was taken to the ground and kicked or kneed in the head by the SO despite offering no resistance to his detention,” Martino wrote, adding this is called into question based on a civilian witness account.

“Moreover, the Complainant’s injury, which in other circumstances might have tipped the credibility contest in favour of this evidence, could well have happened as a result of the blow described by the SO.”

Martino concluded he was satisfied the evidence was “insufficiently reliable” to be tested by a court and closed the file.