Skip to content

Sudbury Police used force in 90 cases in 2014: report

Greater Sudbury Police resorted to using force 90 times in 2014, a slight increase over the same period in 2013, when force was use 89 times.
Police_Station_3
Greater Sudbury Police says collisions at intersections in Greater Sudbury are increasing, and they are launching a special study to find out why. File photo.
Greater Sudbury Police resorted to using force 90 times in 2014, a slight increase over the same period in 2013, when force was use 89 times.

In a detailed report made public at the March 12 meeting of the police services board, members were told half of the 90 incidents in 2014 took place during afternoon shift, with 27 per cent taking place on the night shift and 23 per cent during the day.

The vast majority of incidents – 85 – “came from individual officers, leaving five from the tactical team,” the report said.

A report on an officer's use of force is required when someone is injured as a result, when a police dog injures someone, when pepper spray or a Taser is used, or whenever police use a weapon.

“Members in the training branch are also assigned the responsibility to receive, analyze and maintain a record of use of force reports,” the report said. “A comprehensive review is taken of such submissions which provides insight into trends and provides a basis to adjust the general training curriculum as necessary.”

As far as the types of incidents that most often result in use of force, the most common in 2014 was incidents when suspects were armed, accounting for 27 of the 90.

“Officers indicated that the subject was armed with an edged weapon 18 times,” the report said. “This could range from a knife to a screwdriver.”

There was one case when a suspect was armed with a rifle, compared to five incidents in 2013 when suspects had firearms. Pepper spray or motor vehicles were the weapons used by suspects in another five cases in 2014.

Domestic and other types of disturbance cases resulted in 21 reports, with robberies accounting for six, encounters with people with mental health issues another six, and injured animal complaints totalling five.

The most common type of force used was police firearms, which accounted for 47 of the incidents. The second most common was physical force, known as “empty hand techniques,” which was used in 40 cases. A police baton was used once, a Taser was used in another nine cases, while simply showing the Taser was effective 10 of 13 times.

The most common reason police resorted to force was to arrest someone, accounting for 51 per cent of the total, while personal protection was cited in 38 per cent of cases. Putting down an injured animal was the reason behind six per cent of incidents, while protecting the public accounted for another three per cent of cases.

Out of the 90 incidents, police received minor injuries in 14 of the cases, 11 of which required medical attention. A total of 21 suspects were injured during the encounters, with 14 requiring medical attention.

“There were no reports of injury to third parties,” the report said. “In 2013, two reports of injuries both requiring medical attention occurred.”

While the 2014 stats were generally in line with 2013 and previous years, the increase in the use of edged weapons against police is a matter of concern, the report said.

“Statistically, this was the most significant increase in the compiled report,” it said. “Another recognized area for attention are the dangers surrounding vehicle stops and the risks associated if that subject makes the decision to leave.

“This training program is already in development and members of our specialized plainclothes units will be the first to receive it.”

As Greater Sudbury Police enters the first full year when all officers will be armed with Tasers, they will receive additional training on using the weapons “centered on the use of de-escalation techniques first whenever possible,” the report said.

“Officers will also be required, if force is necessary, to demonstrate they have both the knowledge and understanding to ensure that their decision is both justifiable and the most appropriate considering the level of risk presented by the subject to the public, officers and him or herself.”