What did the Hennepin County Medical Examiner find in George Floyd's toxicology report dated June 2020?

1. What the toxicology report actually claims — a clear inventory

The toxicology appendix in the Hennepin County autopsy documents the presence of fentanyl, the metabolite norfentanyl, the precursor 4‑ANPP, methamphetamine, and THC, along with other routine findings such as caffeine and cotinine on toxicology screens. The report gives numeric concentrations for some substances — notably fentanyl at 11 ng/mL, norfentanyl at 5.6 ng/mL, methamphetamine at 19 ng/mL, and THC at 1.2 ng/mL — and states urine screens were presumptively positive for cannabinoids, amphetamines, and fentanyl/metabolite ^[1]. These are laboratory detections, not standalone legal or clinical cause-of-death determinations; the report places these results within the broader autopsy context.

2. How the medical examiner placed toxicology into the cause-of-death determination

Hennepin County’s official conclusion listed the cause of death as cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression, classifying the manner as homicide, while also noting arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease, fentanyl intoxication, and recent methamphetamine use as other significant conditions. The toxicology findings were therefore treated as contributing or relevant medical factors, not the proximate sole cause ^{[2] [3]}. The report also documented a prior positive COVID-19 test, described as likely persistent and not clearly active at death, further complicating the medical picture ^{[4] [3]}.

3. Specific values vs. interpretive language — what the report does and does not say

The autopsy supplies concrete laboratory numbers for several drugs, which can be interpreted medically, but the report refrains from asserting that those levels alone explain the cardiopulmonary arrest. The presence of fentanyl and methamphetamine is explicitly recorded and quantified in some entries; the report uses terms like “fentanyl intoxication” and “recent methamphetamine use” as significant conditions alongside heart disease, indicating the examiner viewed them as potentially contributory but within a multifactorial explanation ^{[1] [2]}. The document’s language distinguishes between detection, intoxication, and causation, leaving room for differing medical and legal interpretations.

4. Conflicting interpretations: why experts and advocates drew different conclusions

Outside physicians and the Floyd family’s private autopsy emphasized asphyxia from sustained neck and back pressure as the proximate mechanism, while the county report emphasized a cardiopulmonary arrest with contributing substance use and heart disease — leading to competing narratives about responsibility and mechanism. The county’s inclusion of drug findings allowed defense teams to argue alternative causes or contributors, whereas civil-rights advocates and independent pathologists focused on restraint-related compression as decisive. Both perspectives rely on the same toxicology data but prioritize different elements — physical restraint and positional asphyxia versus combined medical stresses including intoxication and pre-existing disease ^{[3] [5]}.

5. How the toxicology report was used in courtroom and public debate

During litigation and public discussion, defense counsel highlighted the fentanyl and methamphetamine findings and pre-existing heart disease to argue that those factors could have caused or contributed to Floyd’s death, a line of argument repeatedly reported in trial coverage. Prosecutors and independent experts countered by pointing to the positional restraint and neck compression as the initiator of the cardiopulmonary arrest identified by the medical examiner. The toxicology data thus functioned as both objective laboratory evidence and a point of contestation about relative causation and responsibility in courtroom strategy and public messaging ^{[6] [5]}.

6. What remains omitted or unresolved in public reading of the toxicology data

The autopsy provides lab numbers and medical opinions but leaves unresolved how much each factor (drugs, heart disease, restraint) contributed quantitatively to the fatal event; that gap enabled diverging narratives. The report’s dual approach — specific toxicology values plus a multifactorial cause listing — is factual yet interpretive, requiring clinical judgment to weigh interactions between intoxication, cardiovascular disease, and mechanical restraint. Readers should note that lab detections do not by themselves establish temporal timing, impairment at the moment of death, or legal culpability; they are pieces of evidence within a broader forensic and legal assessment ^{[1] [2]}.