The Complainant suddenly threw his head back, became very pale, his eyelids fluttered, his eyes rolled back and he lost consciousness

A police officer is not responsible for the death of a man who died in the back of the officer's cruiser says the Special Investigations Unit (SIU).

SIU Director Tony Loparco found there is no causal connection between the actions of an OPP officer and the death of a 49-year-old man who was arrested for impaired driving on Highway 17, in Bonfield east of North Bay in December 2016.

The SIU i s an arm’s length agency that investigates reports involving the police where there has been a death, serious injury or allegation of sexual assault.

North Bay OPP officers had stopped a vehicle in the vicinity of Highway 17 and Highway 531 after a 911 call about a suspected impaired driver crossing the centre line, and driving erratically and with widely fluctuating speeds.

The driver of the vehicle was stopped and arrested for impaired driving. When he left his vehicle, his behaviour indicated that he was impaired by some substance, although the officer could not detect any presence of alcohol. A white powder residue and some burnt tin foil were seen on the centre console.

The man was handcuffed and placed into the rear of a police cruiser. Upon being arrested, he became very angry and agitated.

Within minutes, he had lost consciousness.

Emergency Medical Services ( EMS ) were notified. The officer drove a short distance and met up with the EMS where the man went Vital Signs Absent ( VSA ).

The man was pronounced dead at the hospital.

A post-mortem found that there was scar tissue on the heart indicating previous mild coronary attacks. He also found that the main artery to the heart was 90% occluded. The forensic pathologist at that time reported the suspected cause of death as “Severe Coronary Artery Disease, pending exclusionary toxicology”.

On March 7, 2017, the SIU received the final post-mortem report with respect to the Complainant. The report listed no injuries and the cause of death as “Acute Fentanyl and Cocaine Intoxification in a man with Chronic Ischemic Heart Disease”.

In his report, Loparco says, "The Complainant exited his motor vehicle; he had his head down, was moving very slowly, had great difficulty producing his driver’s licence, fumbled with papers and credit cards, had difficulty answering questions and was very confused about where he had been going or where he was coming from. The officer did not detect any indications that the Complainant was under the influence of alcohol, but he observed a white powder residue and some burnt tin foil on the centre console of the Complainant’s motor vehicle and believed he had reasonable grounds to arrest the Complainant for operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs contrary to the Criminal Code. The officer arrested the Complainant, handcuffed him and placed him into the rear of his police cruiser. When the Complainant was advised of his arrest, he became very angry, clenched his fists and began to protest loudly; he also began breathing very rapidly while huffing and snorting.

"Prior to the officer having left the scene, the Complainant suddenly threw his head back, became very pale, his eyelids fluttered, his eyes rolled back and he lost consciousness. The officer immediately called for an ambulance and drove to meet the ambulance en route, with all of his emergency equipment activated. The officer met up with the ambulance, which was being followed by another officer, and when he went to assist the Complainant, he found him to be VSA in the back of his police cruiser. He and the other officer immediately initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation ( CPR ) and the Complainant was transported to hospital where he was pronounced dead at 4:15 p.m.

"On all of the evidence, it is clear that the Complainant died due to causes totally unrelated to the actions of the officer and that the officer was acting lawfully when he stopped an erratic and potentially impaired driver and took him into custody. Unfortunately, the drugs in the system of the Complainant which caused his impairment were the same drugs that were a significant factor in his death. Frankly, the officer's intervention and arrest of the Complainant may have prevented a collision that could have harmed or killed other motorists. While the death of the Complainant was tragic, there is absolutely no causal connection between the actions of the officer and the death of the Complainant. On the contrary, on all of the evidence, it appears that the officer did everything within his power to attempt to save the life of the Complainant; he immediately called for an ambulance, he rushed the Complainant to the ambulance in order to save crucial time and he initiated life-saving techniques on the Complainant, all, unfortunately, to no avail.

"On all of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds here to believe that any criminal offence has been committed and no basis for the laying of charges."