Opening comments: More at the end.
Must be so nice being a Canadian cop, law just doesn't apply to you! Have no problem seeing the investigators and Peels finest sit down to a few brews to decide this one.
As for the spelling - it is as it was posted and they carry on if I make a spelling error like it is a big thing - well I am not paid or have a paid proof reader, so just what is your major malfunction!
Mississauga News - Dec. 6, 2007 - By Louie Rosella, lrosella@mississauga.net
Officer caused crash, but won't face charges
Ontario's police watchdog has determined that an OPP officer will not face charges after he caused a two-vehicle crash last summer in Mississauga that sent a man to hospital.
James Cornish, director of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), a civilian government agency that investigates circumstances involving police and civilians which have resulted in serious injury or death, has concluded that there are no grounds to believe "the subject officer in this case committed a criminal offence in connection with the collision," that sent a 27-year-old man to hospital with a broken arm.
The SIU investigation revealed that just before 10 a.m. on Aug. 28, an OPP surveillance team was conducting an undercover investigation in the area of Wolfedale Rd.
The officer was driving a black unmarked SUV and traveling north along Wolfedale Rd. in the passing lane. He was talking on his cell phone while making a lane change when he collided with a car that was travelling north in the curb lane.
A passenger in the other vehile suffered a broken arm.
Cornish concluded the crash was caused by the OPP officer.
"The officer should have ensured that the roadway was clear before embarking on his lane change but this lapse of care occurred in an instant," he said. "It is important to note that the officer was engaged in a surveillance operation at the time that required him to use the cellular telephone."
Beyond that, Cornish said, "the officer's speed in the moments prior to the collision was well below the speed limit and no cause for concern. There is no evidence that the subject officer's driving imperilled other motorists or pedestrians. In all these circumstances, I am of the view that the officer's driving fell within the limits prescribed by the criminal law."
Home Page - Main Table of Contents - Back up a page - Back to Top
[COMMENTS BY DON B. - ]