SIU Concludes Injury Investigation in Cornwall
Case Number: 13-OCI-124
Mississauga (1 August, 2013) — The Director of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), Ian Scott, has concluded that there are no reasonable grounds to charge a Cornwall Community Police Service officer with any criminal offence in relation to the injuries sustained by a 38-year-old man in May of 2013.
The SIU assigned three investigators and two forensic investigators to probe the circumstances of this incident. As part of the investigation, nine witness officers and four civilian witnesses were interviewed. The subject officer provided his notes but declined an interview with the SIU, as is his legal right.
The SIU investigation found that the following events took place on Friday, May 31, 2013:
• In the evening hours, the subject officer, a member of the Emergency Response Team, was assisting in executing a warrant at a residence on Saint Felix Street. The officers had information that the residence’s principal occupant may have had an unregistered firearm. There was also concern regarding the presence of a Pit Bull terrier dog.
• The subject officer was the second officer in the line of officers to forcibly enter the residence. His job was to deploy a distraction device which makes a very loud bang and emits an extremely bright light for a short duration. He threw the distraction device and it detonated as a man (an occupant in the house but not the target of the search warrant) was walking toward the officers. The device exploded near the man’s abdomen causing a deep laceration.
• The man was taken to hospital for treatment.
Director Scott said, “The subject officer was assisting in executing a valid search warrant. Therefore, he had the lawful authority to enter the residence and use reasonable force in its execution. Given the prior knowledge of a firearm and potentially vicious dog, in my view, it was a reasonable option to deploy a distraction device. Unfortunately, the complainant sustained a serious injury as a result of its deployment. On the basis of this investigation, it would appear that his injuries were likely the result of an accident as opposed to an intentional attempt to injure him. Accordingly, no criminal liability may attach to the actions of the subject officer.”
The SIU is an arm’s length agency that investigates reports involving police where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must
- consider whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation
- depending on the evidence, lay a criminal charge against the officer if appropriate or close the file without any charges being laid
- report the results of any investigations to the Attorney General.
Did he get charged with anything???? Why could the police not have waited til he left his house to arrest him, then search the house.. Nobody would have got hurt and no need for investigation.
If this happened to me, your pet bird wouldn’t be safe let alone people with the last name as officer involved.
Distraction device? Try stun grenade!!
This guy had grenade throwen at his stomach.
Well at least they dident shoot him 9 times.
Bigm to be fair a stun grenade is a stun device. It is not intended to cause harm.
we all new he wouls get away with it the policeman never talk to siu he gave his notes instead and please tell em what civilan even seen the flash bomb being trown when it was in the house and there was only one person there plus the injured man it was not a accident and we all know and not evevn a gun was found or a dog all they got was some minor drugs and food that they say was stolen now com on get real watch out people dont get stop or arrested cause you never know what will everr hapen to you what a bunch of crock this is they all stick together
plus a flsh bomb should be trown on the floor to go off not at someone stomach and left a hole the size of a grapefriut
Unbelievable!!! Cornwall has a field day publishing peoples’ names that have been charged with crimes before being convicted. They love to ruin peoples reputation without knowing the full facts behind any criminal charges… BUT… here they are protecting the name of the officer involved. Go figure!! Crap City!!!
This is a non issue.
With the concern of a gun and a viscious dog on site, the police had the right to use the “distraction device”.
An accident occured with this device and someone was injured. A shame for sure but we can’t be blaming an officer for doing his job the way he was instructed to. The officer had no intention of harming someone in that manner.