Nov. 29, 2000

Anthany Dawson Inquest

Notes by Laura Fraser

Witness John Rainer

EMA Level 2 ambulance attendant Victoria, B.C.. Received a call for a seizure. Noticed abrasions and scrapes on Anthany at first scene. When he arrived at the second site of Anthany. Anthany was on the ground with his hands cuffed. The first time Anthany was put on the stretcher Anthany was dropped. They gripped Anthany again ant put him on the stretcher. At this time his partner put the ankle straps on Anthany. He claimed different from his partner that they were going to turn Anthany around before they knew he wasn’t breathing. He referred to ambulance policy that ambulances are not to transport a patient in the prone position. He was not sure if he notified the hospital that they had a cardiac arrest. He did not receive any resistance from Anthany when he put the straps on Anthany. Rainer was the driver that day. Rainer thought that Anthany was at risk to himself or other people. He believed that the police were arresting Anthany under section 28. He claims that no one consulted with him that this was a drug overdose case. He believed that it was a stimulant drug overdose. There is no procedure to update or test attendants on new policy. He claimed that he read a notice in 1996 stating that a patient should not be transported in prone position. Brooks asked Rainer why Anthany was even placed face down in the first time. He thought that it wasn’t harmful for a short time. He does not seem to remember if someone requested him to write an occurrence report. He stated that even for a cardiac arrest, writing a report on his own would not be usual. He had no idea why ALS wasn’t available. The initial call was for an ALS to attend the site. There are only three available in Victoria. He could not testify today on the abrasions on Anthany. He remembers Anthany falling to the ground around two feet on his side. He was asked when the restraints were put on Anthany. Today he said leg restraints were put on when he was on the stretcher. In his report however the leg restraints were put on him before he was on the stretcher. Rainer was shown photos of Anthany’s body. The picture was of his right arm with a red mark. He was asked if the mark was the same width as the straps. He believed that it was not from the restraint. He believed that he removed the pillow from under Anthany before they went into the ambulance. *His partners recorded interview states that he saw Anthany’s face was face down in the pillow. Today he believes Anthany was turned over before they knew he wasn’t breathing. He could not clearly remember where the police were when he and his partner turned him over. *Partner remembers turning him over because he wasn’t breathing. He claims over hearing after they were at the emergency room, is when he heard that it was because of cocaine use. He said it was possible one of the officers that told him it was Anthany Dawson. He believed that it was appropriate to leave the handcuffs on Anthany. He believed that Anthany could be dangerous. However if someone is in cardiac arrest they are not able. It is there own body that is in danger. He said the cuffs were not in the way "his arms were fully extended". In Victoria it is "2 to 1" = EMA 2 to EMA 3vehicles available with appropriate trained staff. He could not remember if he contacted the hospital. Witness shown exhibit six indicates that he did contact E-room to notify they were on their way. Witness excused. Rainer called again by juror. He was asked why they put him in the ambulance face down in the first place. Rainer believed that it was to get Anthany out of public view. He believed that there was no medical reason at that moment to have him face up.

Sgt. Darren Lauer

Member of the Victoria Police department since 1987. Has taken over 30 different courses on use of force. He sits on three different boards on police use of force in Canada and United States. He is to give testimony as an expert. "The goal is to use as mush force as reasonable". He believes reasonable can be interpreted many different ways. Five ways to use force, "presence just being in uniform, tactical communication used with uniform advice, suggestions, or questions, Empty hand control techniques, escort, pain compliance, lever or joint manipulation, lateral neck restraint these are to be considered soft empty hand techniques. Hard empty hand control, throw and take down, punches, kicks, elbows, knees [cause consequence] motor or stunning effect. Intermediate Weapons, handcuffs, ankle restraints maximum restraint position, pepper spray effect subject for hour and a half, lungs filled, eyes blinded failure rate of 15 to 20%, failure in manic state, Tazer 98% effective, high voltage but low wattage, overrides the central nervous system. ASP baton reach advantage used to stun at a distance. Implied force presence, mechanical control, break bone or joint, Firearms, force presence, motor dysfunction or in a Lethal force, hard empty, impact weapon, firearm. Subject factors: age, size [could affect the level of use of force], strength, skills or perceived skills, multiple attackers, weapons, pre-assultive signs, mental signs. Officer factors: size, age, skills and abilities, exhaustion, injury, ground fighting, perception of threat, emanate danger of death, position, time and distance, proximity to weapon, tactical withdraw/disengagement. Environmental factors: hostile territory, availability of cover, and proximity of back up officers, weather conditions. Levels of resistance: Non-verbal intimidation, verbal non-compliance, passive resistance, active aggression, deadly force assault". [The model that is used is not a continuum an individual officer chooses the use of force] A punch can be delivered in a strike open handed, fist or chop. The graph today shows the use of force and what options are available to an officer at a moment. For there to be an accurate assessment. Step by step actions of the officers in this case needs to be accessed from all testimony given in this inquest. What about the markings on Anthany? When and what levels of use of force were appropriate? Lauer is questioned on Positional Asphyxia. He explained theory the diaphragm is unable to expand. He refers to Sudden in Custody Death Syndrome instead of Positional Asphyxiation. The training though that is being offered to his members is that a subject must be transported in a wagon so that they can role from side to side so that they can free their diaphragm. If this were the case that a prone position is not a risk, why would they instruct their officers to only place in a prone position in a wagon? Why is it that Ambulance Policy that an individual should not be transported in a prone position? There must be some consideration for Positional Asphyxiation or Sudden Custody Death Syndrome; "The risk group" sweaty, hot, exhausted, rapid breathing is the group of people that are at risk for dying while being restrained. This is instructed to police members. *Previous evidence given Anthany was still and quiet and the officer straddled him and then struck Anthany. Export gives evidence that this was excessive if witness perception is believed to be true. Constantine tries to summaries the whole incident in a matter of minutes. He then asked Lauer if he believes the officer used appropriate force. Lauer believed "yes" he used appropriate force; "less force" was probably used. Remember Lauer is not an eyewitness. He could be missing a lot of information. When and how at specific times were the uses of force? He is asked if a person is running not escaping and is passive and traffic has stopped? Back up is on the way. Is containment not an option? Lauer disagreed this was not a good option. When Anthany was flat on his back with knees raised on second scene he was passive. Why was hard-handed technique used on him? Lauer agreed he would have been passive at that moment.

Sgt. John Farrell

Member of the R.C.M.P. in Victoria. He was approached by the Chief Superintendent of the R.C.M.P. for investigating the officers of the sudden death of Anthany Dawson. Four areas looked at accidental, suicide, homicide and sudden death. This investigation was recorded through a taped format. Fifty witnesses needed to be reviewed. Farrow drafted a report based on these statements. He had also advised corners office of his investigation. His investigation also included photographing and digital videoing of scene. The information that has been brought forward by the R.C.M.P. Subject profile, copy of Victoria Police report, time line, witness statements and hospital records. He also investigated Anthany’s life before hand. He looked for previous head injuries or similar acts of behavior. He received information from the Private Investigators investigation. He was able to seize a witness list. He completed his report and handed it to Madam Coroner and City of Victoria. A copy of this report was later delivered to Crown Council. He has stated that he does not know how this report got to Crown Council. He made no other recommendations accept that it was a sudden death. He was aware that Anthany’s vehicle was queried eight times on Aug. 10 prior to Anthany’s death. Trudeau was one of the officers that are included in these queries he also issued Anthany a ticket for making noise. He did not do a neighborhood search because he believed that there was already a full picture of what happened that day. He was not able to keep Dawson family notified with his investigation. He said that his investigation was not brought forward because Dawson family had representation and the issue of Police investigating Police. He states that they did every thing could do to search for evidence. However they did not do a neighbor search. *He claims that Anthany’s vehicle was reported missing three days before the ticket. This was reason given for the queries. *Nancy Dawson reported the vehicle missing after Anthany had passed away. Yet he gives further evidence that the queries were done before the ticket. Ticket was issued Aug. 10, 1999. He did not receive any background information from Anthany’s family. In regards to a door-to-door search he stated that it has already been an expansive investigation and door-to-door search was not an option. He thought that due process was more important then talking directly to Dawson family there was a conflict because of police investigating police. Farrell recalled to the stand. It was Aug. 11, 1999 when the Dawson vehicle was reported missing. So the queries had nothing to do with missing vehicle.

Sgt. Ron Brain

Resume Nov. 30, 2000