Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.

Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019

Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
• Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
• Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
• Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
• Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
• Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act

Pursuant to section 14 (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
• Information that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.

Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
• Location information;
• Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence; and
• Other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation.

Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004

Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may also have been excluded from this report because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.

Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.

A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.

In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injuries of a 30-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 17, 2025, at 8:32 p.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 17, 2025, at 6:55 p.m., a YRP officer was travelling southbound on Kennedy Road and Steeles Avenue, Markham, when he identified a stolen Honda Civic. The YRP officer followed the stolen vehicle and requested assistance from additional officers for a traffic stop. At 7:03 p.m., three additional YRP vehicles responded to the area of Kennedy Road and Bonis Avenue, Toronto, where the officers stopped the vehicle with a rolling block. As this occurred, the stolen vehicle moved, contacted police vehicles, and unsuccessfully attempted to break through the containment. The YRP officers exited their vehicles and a YRP officer discharged his firearm, striking the male driver’s arm and leg. A firearm was located inside the man’s vehicle. Paramedic services were called to the scene. The man was transported to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre where he was in stable condition.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/07/17 at 9:09 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/07/17 at 11:10 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Not interviewed (declined)

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Not interviewed (declined)

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between July 19, 2025, and July 21, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on August 27, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #7 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #8 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #9 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between July 22, 2025, and July 23, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a Honda Civic in the southbound lanes of Kennedy Road, a short distance north of Bonis Avenue, Toronto.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On July 17, 2025, at 11:28 p.m., SIU forensic services attended the scene in the southbound lanes of Kennedy Road, Toronto, between Bonis Avenue and Marilyn Avenue. Kennedy Road consisted of two northbound lanes and two southbound lanes, which were separated by a centre boulevard of paved roadway covered with painted lines.

There was a TTC bus parked in the northbound passing lane of Kennedy Road, adjacent to the scene. There was a second TTC bus parked in the southbound curbside lane of Kennedy Road, just north of the scene.

There was a grey Honda Civic, oriented southbound in the southbound passing lane on Kennedy Road. The vehicle had partially encroached into the centre boulevard. The front driver’s window was lowered halfway, and the front passenger window was fully lowered.

Directly in front of the Honda Civic was a white Ford Explorer with subdued YRP graphics [the SO]. It faced westbound across the southbound passing lane and the centre boulevard. The emergency warning lights were not activated. The lights were tested and found to be functional. The driver side front door was open.

Directly behind the Honda Civic was a white Ford Explorer with subdued YRP graphics [WO #4]. It faced southbound. The subdued emergency warning lights were activated. The driver side front bumper was in contact with the passenger side rear bumper of the Honda Civic.

There was a white Dodge Charger with subdued YRP graphics [WO #1] stopped in the centre boulevard of Kennedy Road, adjacent to the Honda Civic on the driver side. It faced southbound. Both front windows were lowered. The passenger side front wheel was in contact with the driver side front wheel of the Honda Civic.

There was a grey Ford Explorer with subdued YRP graphics [WO #3] stopped in the southbound lanes directly in front of the SO’s vehicle. The emergency warning lights were activated. It faced slightly northeast towards the Honda Civic.

There was an unmarked YRP vehicle [WO #5] stopped in the southbound curb lane slightly behind and adjacent to WO #4’s vehicle. It faced southbound. The emergency warning lights were activated.

There was a Toronto Police Service (TPS) vehicle parked in the southbound curb lane just south of WO #3’s vehicle. It faced northbound. The emergency warning lights were activated.

Outside of the SO’s vehicle was a Glock magazine located on the ground just south of the open driver’s side door. There were four live rounds inside the magazine. There was a live round located on the ground just east of the SO’s vehicle.

There were three impact sites on the passenger door of the SO’s vehicle. All defects appeared to have a projectile path from the interior of the vehicle towards the exterior. The first impact perforated the interior door panel, travelled into the interior metal structure of the door, and perforated the exterior metal panel to exit. The second impact site perforated the interior panel to the right of the first impact site near the windowsill and failed to exit the vehicle metal exterior. The projectile was recovered from within the windowsill. The third impact site perforated the interior panel, travelled into the interior metal structure of the door, and failed to exit the exterior. The projectile could not be recovered.

Inside the SO’s vehicle, resting in the following locations, were 11 cartridge cases:

• One cartridge case in the driver side front footwell
• One cartridge case beneath the driver’s seat
• One cartridge case in the driver side rear footwell
• Three cartridge cases between the front passenger seat and a duty bag which rested on top of the seat
• One cartridge case in the centre console
• One cartridge case in the Plexiglas track that divided the front and rear prisoner compartment
• One cartridge case in the passenger side front footwell
• One cartridge case on the centre hump behind the driver’s seat
• One cartridge case in the cup holder on the driver’s door

On the exterior of the Complainant’s vehicle were three defects on the hood of the engine, which appeared to perforate into the vehicle, and one defect near the front headlight, which did not penetrate. There were three defects near the lowest edge of the windshield near the passenger side wiper blade, which corresponded with the path of projectiles through the three defects on the engine hood and into the windshield. One of these defects did not penetrate the windshield glass and the two others did perforate into the vehicle. There were seven perforating defects through the centre and passenger side of the windshield, and another perforating defect near the driver side visor. The rear windshield showed signs of a shatter effect but had retained its structural integrity. There was a perforating defect near the lowest edge of the centre of the rear windshield.

Image 1: SIU photograph depicting defects to the windshield and engine hood of the Honda Civic

Inside the Complainant’s vehicle was a black Springfield Armory model 1911-A1 45-calibre handgun. There were two live 45-calibre rounds loaded in the handgun. There were three live 45-calibre rounds located in the vehicle. One round was on the front driver’s seat, one was in the centre console, and another one in the front passenger door well. There were three spent 45-calibre cartridge cases inside the vehicle. One was in the front windshield well, and two were on the front passenger floor. A spent 9mm round was recovered from the windshield well.

Image 2: The Springfield Armory model 1911-A1 45-calibre handgun

Inside the Complainant’s vehicle were five perforating defects to the passenger side dash and another one to the driver side visor. There was a penetrating defect to the plastic mold panel to the right of the rear right passenger side. There was a perforating defect to the fabric of the right rear passenger seat. There was a perforating defect to the driver side rear deck over top of the trunk space near the rear windshield. There was a penetrating defect to the interior side of the trunk lid near where the trunk lid met the bumper.

There was a fired projectile recovered from the ground floor outside the north side of 2365 Kennedy Road after it was reported to have struck the window of a unit on the 18^th floor.

Two bags of clothing belonging to the Complainant were collected from the hospital. There was a pair of white socks with blood stains and a projectile embedded in one of the socks. There was a pair of briefs with a small bullet-sized hole near the waistband. There was a pair of black track pants, which had blood stains and appeared to have been cut off the Complainant. The lower leg portion of the track pants had been cut off and there was a small bullet-sized hole near the ankle cuff. There was a black hooded sweatshirt which appeared to have been cut off the Complainant. There was a small bullet-sized hole near the wrist cuff of the sleeve of the hooded sweatshirt that had been cut off. There was also a projectile, which had been recovered from inside the Complainant.

The SO’s equipment was examined by SIU forensic services. He was assigned a Glock model-45 9mm. One live round was removed from the breach and the seated magazine had 16 live rounds in it. He carried a spare magazine holder, which normally carried two additional magazines. One of the magazines was absent from its holder. The other spare magazine had 17 live rounds in it. The handgun, magazines and live rounds were collected as evidence.

Image 3: SO’s Glock model-45 9mm handgun

Forensic Evidence

Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) Submissions

The SO’s firearm, his magazine, six recovered projectiles, and the Complainant’s firearm were submitted to CFS for analysis.

Trajectory Analysis Report

A trajectory analysis was conducted with the use of trajectory rods and Leica 3D scans. Trajectory rods were inserted into defects to determine the path of projectiles. Not all defects were suitable to hold a trajectory rod. The resulting scans, below, were generated, showing the potential trajectories as indicated by the six successfully placed rods.

Image 4: Side view screen capture of trajectory rod scan overlaid on top of scene scan

Image 5: Top view screen capture of trajectory rod scan overlaid on top of scene scan

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

YRP In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage from the Vehicles of the SO, WO #1, WO #3, WO #5 and WO #4

On July 17, 2025, at 6:55:34 p.m., the SO was travelling southbound on Kennedy Road when there was a radio broadcast from a police officer [WO #1], reporting that WO #1 was following a vehicle [a Honda Civic operated by the Complainant] with a stolen licence plate. WO #1 advised the driver was arrestable for the theft of the vehicle.

At 7:00:10 p.m., the SO arrived at the intersection of Kennedy Road and McNicoll Avenue and drove behind three YRP vehicles [WO #4, WO #1 and WO #3]. All three vehicles continued southbound on Kennedy Road.

At 7:02:06 p.m., the SO broadcast a plan on the radio to stop the Honda Civic. He designated WO #3 to take the driver’s side of the Honda Civic, WO #4 would take the passenger side, and the SO would take the rear. WO #1 said he would take the front.

At 7:03:09 p.m., WO #4 activated his emergency warning lights and approached the rear end of the Honda Civic. Traffic was at a standstill and there was a transport truck on the passenger side, so WO #4 could not move his vehicle to the passenger side as planned. There was also a vehicle in front of the Honda Civic, so WO #1 could not pull in front of the Honda Civic as planned.

The Complainant turned his front wheels to the left and drove forwards until the front driver side contacted WO #1’s front passenger side. The SO said, “He’s trying to break out,” over the radio. WO #4 drove forwards and the front left side of his police vehicle contacted the rear right bumper of the Honda Civic. The SO drove forwards around the Honda Civic and YRP vehicles into the oncoming lanes, and then stopped perpendicular to the front of the Honda Civic just as traffic flow resumed.

At 7:03:38 p.m., WO #1 spoke with the Complainant and told him to keep his hands up and not to move. The SO rolled down his passenger window and pointed his firearm across his passenger seat and through his passenger window at the Honda Civic. He said, “Get out of the car,” which was followed by, “Show me your hands.” The SO repeatedly ordered the Complainant not to move. WO #3 drove his police vehicle around the driver’s side of the Honda Civic and WO #1, and around the SO’s vehicle to the passenger side of the Honda Civic, stopping the vehicle just in front of the passenger door of the Honda Civic. As he stopped, the Complainant opened the passenger door, and his fingers were seen as they unsuccessfully pried at the door to open it.

At 7:03:54 p.m., the SO said, “Watch that, watch that,” which was immediately followed by, “He’s got a gun!” There followed the sound of eight gunshots followed by a brief pause and then six more gunshots. On WO #1’s ICCS, the SO’s firearm was seen to briefly lower during the pause in gunshots and then rise again. There was no recoil seen on the SO’s firearm during the first of the second series of gunshots. On WO #3’s ICCS, the Complainant’s feet were seen on the dashboard after the first round of gunshots began.

At 7:04:02 p.m., the SO opened his driver’s door, exited, and moved to the rear corner of his vehicle. A police officer who was out of frame of the ICCS asked if the SO had seen a firearm. The SO said, “Ya, I saw him pull a gun.” WO #1 took a position near WO #3’s vehicle and instructed the Complainant to keep both hands out of the window. WO #1 told the Complainant he was under arrest for “theft of motor vehicle”. The Complainant said he was alone in the vehicle.

At 7:05:10 p.m., the Complainant rolled down his passenger side front window. He placed his hands outside the window and then both of feet as he was in a reclined position.

At 7:10:31 p.m., two plainclothes police officers [WO #2 and WO #6] approached the passenger side of the Honda Civic and took control of the Complainant’s hands. WO #1 and other newly arrived YRP officers holstered their firearms and approached the Honda Civic. WO #1 told the Complainant he would save him. The Complainant said, “Don’t save me, kill me now.” WO #3 reversed his vehicle from the passenger door of the Honda Civic. The passenger door was opened, and the Complainant was dragged out by his arms. The Complainant identified himself as, “[Alias].” YRP officers provided first-aid for a gunshot to his arm and leg.

At 7:13:54 p.m., paramedic services arrived.

At 7:14:15 p.m., the SO spoke with WO #1 out of frame of the camera. The SO said, “[H]e literally did this on the front seat…he literally did this to me…like, pointed it right at me.” WO #1 asked if the SO was okay and the SO said, “[B]ro, shaken up man, I couldn’t believe he pointed the gun at me.”

Video from Social Media Site

The SIU received a video from YRP which was posted to a social media site. The video was found by WO #9 and sent to YRP. The video showed the same events as the YRP ICCS footage, but from a different angle.

Video Footage from Toronto Transit Commission (TTC)

The footage captured the same events as the YRP ICCS footage, but from different angles.

YRP Communications Recordings – Radio

The SIU received radio communications from YRP. All radio communications were also captured on the YRP ICCS footage, the relevant portions of which are summarized above.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from YRP between July 18, 2025, and August 15, 2025.

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Arrest Report
• ICCS footage
• Canadian Police Information Centre results and mugshot for the Complainant
• Use of Force Policy
• Use of Force Training Records – the SO
• Notes – WO #1, WO #4, WO #3, WO #6 and WO #5 and WO #2
• Communications recordings
• Scene and evidence photographs
• Video footage - private residence
• Video footage - TTC buses
• Online video from social media site

The SIU obtained the following records from TPS between July 18, 2025, and August 18, 2025.

• Notes – WO #8 and WO #9
• Body-worn camera footage
• ICCS footage
• Communications recordings

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between July 21, 2025, and July 23, 2025:

• Cell phone video from CW #3

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the SO and other police and non-police witnesses, information provided by the Complainant, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of July 17, 2025, WO #1, while operating a cruiser southbound on Kennedy Road in Markham, came across a Honda Civic. He asked his dispatch to check the plate marker and learned that the plates had been reported missing. Believing that the vehicle was stolen, the officer followed the Honda and radioed for additional officers to assist with a traffic stop.

The SO heard the call and started to make his way towards WO #1 on Kennedy Road, as did WO #3 and WO #4, each operating separate cruisers. The police vehicles eventually lined up behind the Civic, which was travelling south in the passing lane. Entering Toronto and passing Finch Avenue East, the officers decided to perform a rolling block in which the Honda would be forced to a stop with cruisers positioned on all sides – the front, rear, driver and passenger side.

Just north of Bonis Avenue, almost two kilometres south of Finch Avenue East, WO #1 gave the signal to initiate the rolling block. The officer activated his emergency lights and maneuvered his cruiser adjacent to the driver side of the Honda. The SO drove around WO #1 and brought his cruiser to a stop facing west in front of the Honda. WO #3 positioned the front of his vehicle by the front passenger door of the Honda and WO #4 stopped just behind the vehicle.

The Complainant was operating the Honda. As the convoy of police vehicles started to converge around him, he attempted to escape by driving into the northbound lanes but was prevented from doing so by WO #1, the officer’s passenger side colliding with the front driver side of the Honda. Following that impact, WO #1 spoke to the Complainant through his front passenger door window, telling him to show his hands and get out of the Honda. The SO rolled down his front passenger door window, pointed his gun at the Complainant and repeatedly ordered him not to move. The Complainant climbed into the front passenger seat of the Honda and attempted to exit through the door. Unable to open the door because of WO #3’s cruiser, the Complainant reached with his right hand over to the driver’s seat and retrieved a firearm – a Springfield Armoury Model 1911-A1, 45-calibre handgun. He lifted the gun over the dashboard and was met with a barrage of gunfire.

At the sight of the gun, the SO said, “Watch that, watch that,” and, “He’s got a gun,” and fired a volley of eight gunshots in the Complainant’s direction. Following a brief pause, a further six gunshots were heard, at least five of which were fired by the SO. The time was 7:03 p.m. The SO exited his cruiser, reloaded his weapon with one of his spare magazines, and confirmed to another officer that he had seen the Complainant with a gun.

The Complainant rolled down the front passenger door window and showed his empty hands at the officers’ direction. He was eventually pulled from the Honda and arrested. He had suffered gunshot wounds to the left arm and lower left leg. Officers applied tourniquets to each limb.

Section 34, Criminal Code - Defence of Person – Use or Threat of Force

34 (1)A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) They believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) The act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) The act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

(c) the person’s role in the incident;

(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

Section 354(1), Criminal Code - Possession of Property Obtained by Crime

354 (1) Every one commits an offence who has in his possession any property or thing or any proceeds of any property or thing knowing that all or part of the property or thing or of the proceeds was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from

(a) the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or

(b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence punishable by indictment.

The Complainant was shot and wounded by a YRP officer on July 17, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming the SO the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the shooting.

Section 34 of the Criminal Code provides that conduct that would otherwise constitute an offence is legally justified if it was intended to deter a reasonably apprehended assault, actual or threatened, and was itself reasonable. The reasonableness of the conduct is to be assessed in light of all the relevant circumstances, including with respect to such considerations as the nature of the force or threat; the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force; whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon; and, the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force.

With information at their disposal that the Honda was stolen, the SO and the other involved officers were within their rights in seeking to stop the vehicle and arrest the Complainant for possession of property obtained by crime contrary to section 354(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The evidence establishes that the SO fired his gun at the Complainant to defend himself from a reasonably apprehended attack. That is what the SO told the SIU in his interview, and his evidence is supported by the prevailing circumstances. Confronted with a subject ignoring orders to desist and pointing a gun at close range in his direction, there is no doubt that the officer acted to protect himself from death or grievous bodily harm when he discharged his weapon. Indeed, there is evidence that at least one of the shots fired was discharged by the Complainant from inside the Honda.

The evidence also establishes that the use by the SO of his firearm constituted reasonable force. With his life in peril the moment the Complainant produced a firearm, it is difficult to see what else the officer could have done to preserve himself. The only weapon with the stopping power demanded of the moment was a gun. As for withdrawal or retreat, there simply was no time to create distance or seek cover given the imminent threat of gunfire. The number of shots fired by the officer – 13 - is subject to legitimate scrutiny. Here, too, I am unable to reasonably conclude that any one of these shots was unjustified. In fact, there is evidence that the Complainant was in possession of his firearm through both volleys of shots fired by the SO, and that he fired his weapon at least once (and possibly more than once). That is to say, there is reason to believe that the threat to life and limb the Complainant represented persisted through the series of shots fired by the SO.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: November 14, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit