Skip to content

Why did he run? SIU clears GSPS officers after odd slow pursuit ends in broken bone

Officers found him sleeping in a car outside of Lowe's; he was injured when he fled arrest

Greater Sudbury Police did nothing wrong in November 2017 when a man broke his collarbone during an arrest outside a New Sudbury Mall.

The province's police watchdog released their investigation into the incident Friday. The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) automatically investigates cases when there's a significant injury or death when the public has an interaction with police.

In this case, police found the 44-year-old man fast asleep inside a car outside of Lowe's on Marcus Drive at 2:39 a.m. on Nov. 16, 2017. 

“The police officers shone a light into the car and were able to rouse the sleeping male, the complainant, who awoke and appeared disoriented,” the incident narrative from the SIU reads. “The complainant panicked at the sight of the officers, put his vehicle into reverse, and backed away from the police vehicle at slow speed.”

Police pursued, also at slow speed, with their lights flashing. The man continued to back up slowly, but snow covered his rear window and was unable to see where he was going.

“He backed into a storage shed in the Lowe’s parking lot,” the report said. “The complainant then exited his vehicle and ran.”

Now that he had damaged Lowe's property in the parking lot, police pursued him and a foot chase ensued.

“The complainant ignored the SO's (subject officer's) direction to stop running and, on varying accounts in the evidence, was either tackled from behind by the SO or had his jacket grabbed by the SO, resulting in both falling to the ground with the SO landing on top of the complainant,” the report said. “As both men fell, the complainant’s torso made contact with the ground, fracturing his collarbone.”

An ambulance was called, and the man was diagnosed at HSN with the fractured bone, and had a cut above his eyebrow.

The SIU was able to access two surveillance videos of the incident from security cameras, one located in the back, the other in the front of the store.

“The camera at the rear of the building showed a small SUV driving in reverse, and a police car with emergency lights activated driving towards the SUV,” the report said. “There appeared to be approximately two to three car lengths between the two vehicles. Both vehicles turned at a corner of the building and proceeded out of view.

“The second camera, at the front of the building, showed both vehicles moving across the front of the building and out of view. The position and separation of both vehicles had not changed. An ambulance arrived 10 minutes later.”

However, the cameras didn't capture the collision with the storage shed, nor the police pursuit and arrest and injury of the man. He had a three-part fracture of the right collarbone for which he was placed in a shoulder immobilizing sling. 

“He was also observed to have a laceration above his left eyebrow which was sutured.”

In coming to its decision, the SIU said police have a right to use force when someone is trying to escape arrest “if they are acting in furtherance of their lawful duties, and if they use only as much force as is reasonably necessary to effect their lawful purpose. 

“On this record, I have no hesitation in finding that both the SO and WO (witness officer) were carrying out their lawful duties first, in investigating why a motor vehicle was parked in the Lowe’s parking lot overnight with the complainant sleeping inside, and then later, in apprehending the complainant after he had caused damage to the storage sheds on display in the lot,” the report said. 

“As such, the actions of the SO in both pursuing and arresting the complainant were lawful, based on reasonable grounds, and in accordance with his duties.”

While there was a “suggestion” the man's head injuries were caused by the SO intentionally pushing his head into the ground, the SIU investigation said it was much more likely that the injury happened when he was tackled by the officer.

“In the circumstances, I believe it far more likely that the complainant’s cut was an incidental injury occurring when he was grounded by the SO, and not the product of a separate and intentional push following the fall.” 

@darrenmacd