From the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT)

EPS officers acted reasonably in fatality

On Aug. 18, 2016, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) was directed to investigate the circumstances surrounding an encounter with the Edmonton Police Service (EPS), resulting in the death of a 34-year-old man that same day in Edmonton, Alberta.

As the death occurred during an encounter with police, the man’s death was deemed to be an in-custody death, and the investigation was assigned to ASIRT.

At 8:50 p.m. on that day, EPS received a call from Alberta Hospital regarding the man, who was a resident of Alberta Hospital with a history of violence and weapons offences. The man had been released from the hospital on a pass but was not complying with his conditions and failed to return to the hospital. A warrant was issued for his arrest. EPS was advised that the man was at a family residence causing a disturbance and was believed to be intoxicated by some form of drug, “freaking out,” and sweating profusely. The man was not described as being violent, but there was concern that he may become violent.

Two EPS officers responded to the residence, which was an apartment on the 14th floor. As the officers entered the suite, they immediately spoke with the man in an attempt to calm him. The man was initially compliant, but then attempted to exit onto the balcony and appeared to throw an object over the railing. Given his intoxication and behaviour, it was determined that permitting him onto the balcony was unsafe. As a result, when he failed to comply with verbal directions, the officers tried to take him into custody. Officers told the man that he was under arrest, and each officer tried to take control of one of the man’s arms. The man immediately became aggressive and resisted, and was ultimately taken to the ground by the two officers, where he continued to struggle against being placed into handcuffs. No blows were delivered. A wrist-lock, used as a pain-compliance technique, had no impact on the man. Following a struggle, the man was fully restrained and still able to speak.

The officers notified dispatch that the man was in custody and requested the assistance of Emergency Medical Services (EMS). At this point, the man was breathing and responsive, but was described as pale and sweaty. Prior to the arrival of EMS, the man’s condition deteriorated, and he exhibited difficulty breathing and failed to respond to verbal commands. One of the officers contacted dispatch to request that EMS be expedited, while members removed the restraints and placed the man in the recovery position. While awaiting EMS, the man stopped breathing. Officers alternated performing chest compressions on the man until EMS arrived. EMS transported the man to the University of Alberta Hospital where he was pronounced dead.

A small plastic bag of methamphetamine was recovered from the man’s person, along with a bottle containing 40 yellow pills of unknown origin.

The cause of death was attributed to “excited delirium syndrome secondary to methamphetamine toxicity.” The struggle with police and subsequent restraint was noted as a contributing factor. A toxicology report confirmed the presence of methamphetamine and its metabolites, as well as a small amount of oxycodone.

The man had been staying in a hotel room since leaving Alberta Hospital, and a search of that room revealed few personal effects but clear evidence of drug use, including methamphetamine as well as used and unused syringes. The room was in complete disarray with clothing on the floor and syringes throughout the room.

Under S.25 of the Criminal Code, a police officer is permitted to use as much force as is reasonably necessary in the lawful execution of their duties. Given the fact that they had been called to the residence for assistance and the fact that there was an outstanding warrant for the arrest of the man, the officers had both the lawful ability and duty to arrest him, and were permitted to use reasonably necessary force to do so.

When the man’s behaviour escalated, some use of force was necessary both to ensure the safety of the man, but also to detain him. To allow a mentally ill and intoxicated man access to the balcony would have been both irresponsible and highly dangerous. The force used by the two officers was brief, and was used only for the purpose of gaining control of the man, who had become non-compliant and was physically resistant. No weapons were used by the officers, and the use of force ceased immediately upon the man being restrained. Once the man was restrained and when a concern emerged regarding the man’s physical condition, police called EMS, removed the restraints, and attempted first aid.

While police and medical efforts were unfortunately unsuccessful in saving the life of the man, there is no basis to suggest any degree of negligence in failing to care for the man while in medical distress, and the force used to arrest him was no more than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Having reviewed the matter, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either officer committed any Criminal Code offence while dealing with the man. While his death was tragic, the actions of the officers were not only reasonable and lawful in the circumstances, they were necessary. A failure to take custody of the man would have left him in a position where he presented a serious risk to himself, the family members who were present, and the officers.

This was a terrible event for all involved. Notwithstanding his mental health and drug issues, the man had a family who loved him and wanted him to be safe and well. The officers attended with the intention of providing assistance to both the man and his family, to ensure everyone’s safety, and to have the man returned to Alberta Hospital so he could be properly treated. The outcome was one that no one present wanted and is an example of a situation when officers attempt to do everything correctly but there is still a tragic outcome. ASIRT extends its most sincere condolences to the family of the man.