Sault police absolved by SIU investigation

Six weeks after a serious accident at Wellington and Gore Streets, the province's Special Investigations Unit (SIU) has disclosed details of a police chase that reached 144 kilometres an hour.

SIU investigators found that the police officer involved had brought his cruiser to almost a complete stop and de-activated his siren before the pursued vehicle mounted a curb and hit a light standard and a stone monument.

"Throughout the period of the police pursuit, the involved officer acted professionally and with due regard for public safety," the SIU said in a written statement released tonight.

The following is the full text of that statement:

****************************************************************** SIU Concludes Investigation Into Motor Vehicle Collision in Sault Ste. Marie

TORONTO, Dec. 11 - The Director of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), Peter A. Tinsley, has concluded there are no reasonable grounds to believe that a Sault Ste. Marie Police Service (SSMPS) officer is criminally liable for a collision that occurred on October 27, 2002.

The SIU was notified that SSMPS officers were attempting to stop a vehicle that was driving erratically.

The vehicle was traveling west on Wellington Street when it struck a pole and a monument.

The 37-year-old male driver was transported to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto where he was treated for serious injuries.

A female passenger was treated for injuries at the General Hospital in Sault Ste. Marie.

The SIU dispatched five investigators, including two forensic identification technicians, to the scene.

They videotaped and photographed the scene, took measurements, canvassed the area for witnesses and performed a mechanical fitness inspection of the involved vehicle.

One member of the SSMPS was designated a subject officer.

Six other members with involvement in the incident were designated witness officers.

These witness officers were interviewed and provided detailed statements to the SIU. In addition, 19 non-police witnesses, including firefighters and paramedics, were interviewed and provided statements to the SIU. The SIU received excellent cooperation from the SSMPS, from whom audiotapes, diagrams, reports, photographs, the SSMPS suspect apprehension pursuit policy and other reports were received for examination. It was revealed during the course of the SIU investigation that at approximately 10:15 p.m., SSMPS officers in a marked cruiser observed a vehicle, being driven by a male party, swerving erratically from side to side.

One officer activated the emergency roof lights and air horn in order to get the driver's attention and attempted to pull over the vehicle.

The driver did not respond and instead, accelerated rapidly in an attempt to flee.

The subject officer began to pursue the vehicle, which kept accelerating to speeds as high as 144 km/h, and drove through an amber traffic signal.

The subject officer slowed the police cruiser and almost came to a stop for the traffic signal that was now red.

He terminated the pursuit by de-activating the siren and slowing down.

The fleeing vehicle then mounted the curb and struck a light standard and a stone monument before coming to rest.

The route of the pursuit was 2.4 kilometres.

Director Tinsley concluded that throughout the period of the police pursuit, the involved officer acted professionally and with due regard for public safety.

"The evidence revealed during the course of this investigation indicated that there was no connection between the actions of the subject officer and the collision in question which would attribute liability to the subject officer," Director Tinsley stated.

The SIU is a civilian agency that investigates circumstances involving police and civilians which have resulted in serious injury, sexual assault or death.

Under Part VII, Section 113, of the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU has the sole authority to decide whether or not charges are warranted based on the findings of a complete investigation.

The Director's decision is reported to the Attorney General.

*******************************************************************