Ontario’s police oversight agency says the extent of injuries suffered by a 28-year-old London man is “highly regrettable” but it has found no reason to lay any criminal charges against the officer handling the service dog that injured him.
The unidentified man was bit several times in the buttocks, left upper arm, wrist, and his left ear was almost completely ripped off in the takedown late last year.
However, in its final report released last week, the Special Investigations Unit concluded the officer was justified in sending the police service dog after the suspect repeatedly tried to evade arrest.
The SIU says London police were contacted after a woman reported that a man, allegedly on meth and possibly in a stolen SUV, was trying to break into her apartment at around 8 a.m. on Nov. 3, 2022.
The man fled before police arrived but a witness saw him run out of the front door of the building to an SUV pulling a trailer, the SIU says.
Several times in the course of the next hour and a half, the SIU says police encountered the suspect but he failed to stop for them. Eventually, the vehicle was found abandoned at 92 Stroud Cresc., near Exeter Road and Wellington Road South.
The K9 handler’s dog picked up the suspect’s scent, and the SIU says the dog, its handler, and three other officers made their way into the neighbouring complex where they saw the suspect running northbound.
The suspect climbed over a fence and headed behind a row of homes and the K9 handler called to the suspect, telling him not to run or he would release his dog.
The SIU says the suspect turned to run and the dog quickly caught up to him in a parking lot around the corner of a unit, took him to the ground, and bit him several times. When the officers, including the K9 handler, arrived, the dog’s grip on the suspect was removed and the suspect was handcuffed and taken to hospital by ambulance.
The London Police Service would not provide comment on the case, but its website notes that the service’s K9 unit includes “German Shepherds, a German Shepherd/Belgian Malinois mix and a Labrador.”
SIU director Joseph Martino writes in his report that the K9 handler acted lawfully throughout the encounter.
Martino notes there were “a number of warrants out for (the suspect’s) arrest, he had violated the terms of a release order requiring that he abide by a curfew, and he had been operating a stolen vehicle and trailer.” He adds that the use of the police dog was justifiable because the suspect had attempted to evade arrest at several points.
He also addressed concerns about criminal negligence related to the extent of injuries, noting that his understanding is that a police dog is trained to bite and hold only when the subject fails to stop and surrender.
“The number of bites should be the minimum required to subdue a subject, and the neck and head area are to be avoided,” he writes.
However, in this case, the suspect’s left ear was severed, and the suspect claimed that he did not resist the dog. Martino says that claim is “contested to an extent by the police evidence” — which did not include an interview with the K9 handler or a review of his notes — but, regardless, there is not enough evidence to suggest the officer acted unlawfully in using the dog, which was fully certified and qualified for deployment.
“In the result, while it is highly regrettable that the Complainant was injured in the way he was by the police service dog, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than lawfully throughout their engagement,” Martino concludes.
“As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.”