Skip to content

Two area police officers cleared of wrongdoing after prisoner eats cocaine

Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit determined a pair of officers with Sault Police and OPP were not criminally negligent in connection with a man’s medical episode last year
20180803-Police building exterior summer-DT
Sault Ste. Marie Police Service building. Darren Taylor/SooToday

WARNING: The following report from the Special Investigations Unit may be disturbing to some readers.

The province’s Special Investigations Unit has cleared two local police officers of any wrongdoing in connection with a medical episode suffered by a 29-year-old man while detained at the Sault Area Hospital last September.

Following a report of a man jumping onto the roadway in front of passing vehicles in Echo Bay on Sept. 15, 2023, the individual in distress was taken into custody on the strength of an outstanding arrest warrant held by the Sault Ste. Marie Police Service.

After being transported to the police station, the man was searched twice — once by an OPP officer outside the facility, and once by a Sault Police officer during the booking procedure — before being placed in a cell at around 2:45 p.m. to await a bail hearing.

Ten minutes later, an officer assigned to monitor the man observed a white powder on the cell bench, prompting he and another officer to handcuff the individual and conduct a strip search.

According to the SIU's public report, several plastic baggies containing illicit substances — fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine — were seized from the left pocket of the man’s pants during the strip search, while another plastic baggie containing cannabis and a lighter were confiscated from his underwear.

Witness officials also noticed another container packed tightly in the individual’s anus. Refusing to remove it, the man was transported to Sault Area Hospital.

The SSMPS officer, along with a special constable, monitored the man in hospital. After the individual attempted to reach under his blanket towards the inside of his pants, the officer and special constable restrained his arms to the bed rails.

At around 7 p.m., the SSMPS officer was relieved from the hospital while two officers continued to monitor the individual. Less than an hour later, the man appeared to retrieve a small plastic baggie from his rectum and attempted to empty its contents into his mouth. Officers swatted the baggie out of his hand and handcuffed the man’s right hand to the bed rail above his head to prevent him from accessing more.

According to the report, the individual had ingested cocaine, and their condition began to worsen at around 8:20 p.m. when he started convulsing. CPR was administered and the man was transferred to the ICU unconscious but expected to survive.

After compiling evidence and interviews with those involved in the case, Special Investigations Unit director Joseph Martino noted in his report that the offence up for consideration was criminal negligence causing bodily harm. His report does not identify the two officers.

Although the two officers with the OPP and SSMPS were unable to locate the drugs during initial searches at the police station, it is the SIU’s view that there were no reasonable grounds to believe they — nor any of the officials involved — committed a criminal offence in connection with the man's medical episode.

“The issue essentially comes down to the searches that were performed by the officers and how it was that the Complainant was able to bring illicit substances into police cells,” Martino wrote. “Were there evidence to establish that the drugs confiscated from the Complainant’s left pant pockets were there when he was first arrested and then entered the cells, there would be an arguable case that the searches conducted by [the two officers] were something less than careful.”

“Drawing that inference, however, is speculative in the circumstances,” he continued. “In his interview with the SIU, [the SSMPS officer] was confident that he had conducted a thorough search and there were no substances in the Complainant’s pockets. He surmised, with some support, that the drugs must have been secreted in the Complainant’s underwear when he entered the cells and then, presumably, moved by the Complainant into his pockets.”

Martino admitted that while a strip search would have been effective in discovering the drugs initially, that type of procedure is only lawful to conduct when there are reasonable grounds to believe it is necessary, which it wasn’t in this case, according to the SIU director.

“The reason for his arrest was not drug-related; he presented as coherent and sober, and denied recent drug use, when booked at the SSMPS station,” he said. “The pat-down or frisk searches that each subject official had performed had not given them any cause to suspect the Complainant had substances secreted in his underwear, let alone in his rectum.”

“On this record, it is not apparent that the failure to perform a strip search before the Complainant entered cells departed markedly from a reasonable standard of care in the circumstances.”



Alex Flood

About the Author: Alex Flood

Alex is a recent graduate from the College of Sports Media where he discovered his passion for reporting and broadcasting
Read more