SIU clears 4 Toronto cops who punched, kicked man during arrest due to conflicting evidence

Special Investigations Unit (file image).

The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) will not lay charges against four Toronto police officers who punched and kicked a man while arresting him after it was unable to determine if the use of force was necessary due to conflicting evidence.

On Tuesday, the SIU, the province’s police watchdog, released its report into the July 24 altercation in the area of Finch Avenue West and Humberline Drive that left a 41-year-old man, who is the complainant, with serious injuries.

SIU Director Joseph Martino looked into the force used by four officers against the man they were arresting concerning a stolen vehicle. The complainant was found to have been punched, elbowed, kicked and kneed by police.

During his investigation, Martino probed two versions of what unfolded: the complainant being cooperative and the second portraying the opposite, which led to officers using force to apprehend the man.

“I am unable to reasonably conclude that the account describing the complainant as cooperative and the subject of unjustified force during his arrest is any closer to the truth than that offered by the officers. In fact, the opposite - there are elements of the incriminating rendition of events that render it less reliable,” Martino wrote.

“In the result, while I accept that the complainant’s injury was the result of the physical altercation that marked his arrest, I am left without a reasonable belief that any of the subject officials comported themselves other than lawfully throughout their engagement. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case.”

WHAT HAPPENED

In the report, the SIU provided details about what transpired in the early morning hours of that day, using collected evidence and interviews with the complainant and officers.

Plainclothes officers with the Toronto police Major Crime Unit (MCU) were in the neighbourhood after locating a suspect known to have a stolen Acura.

The SIU said the complainant was the suspect. He was returning to the parked Acura when members of the MCU confronted him.

The suspect ran away and officers chased him.

“The complainant’s flight led the officers in a zigzag pattern up the roadway, travelling between homes, into backyards, and back onto the roadway. He managed to make it to the Acura and enter the driver’s seat but was unable to drive off,” the SIU said.

One of the officers prevented the complainant from closing the vehicle’s door and entered the Acura lying across his lap. A struggle ensued between them.

The SIU said two officers arrived, and one of them grabbed the complainant by the back of his neck and yanked him out of the vehicle and onto the road.

Another physical altercation ensued outside the vehicle. A fourth officer arrived and delivered several strikes to the complainant. The SIU said the man was later handcuffed.

The complainant was transported to hospital following his arrest and found to have sustained a broken nose.

USE OF FORCE

In his analysis, Martino said there was a conflict in evidence regarding the officers’ use of force.

One version depicted the complainant as not resisting arrest while being pulled off from the Acura and, after that, subjected to multiple kicks, knees and punches on the ground.

The other account, which came from the officers, suggested the contrary and that the use of force was necessary to arrest the man. The first officer who struggled with the complainant inside the Acura said he elbowed him to subdue him.

From the outside of the vehicle, another officer punched the complainant twice on the left side of the face during the struggle, the SIU said. The third officer, who forcibly pulled the complainant out of the vehicle, told the SIU he did it to prevent him from starting the car.

“(The fourth officer) admits to striking the side of the complainant’s body several times on the ground as officers struggled to control his arms so he could be handcuffed. No further force was brought to bear after the Complainant was handcuffed,” Martino said.

The director was unable to conclude which of the two versions likely occurred but noted that “there are elements of the incriminating rendition of events that render it less reliable.”

In the end, Martino cleared the officers of wrongdoing, saying, “there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials committed a criminal offence in connection with the complainant’s arrest and injury.”