Category Archives: Police in the News

Winnipeg Police Physical Fitness – Part III

Making the Argument for on duty workout time

(This was originally intended to be a 3 part series but has now been extended to 4)

 If you are the police union and you want the City to give you something you must first establish that there is a need and secondly, how it will benefit the city.

The recent attempt by the Winnipeg Police Association (WPA) to get the City to give  police officers on duty time to work out was based primarily on the argument that criminals are coming out of jails bulked up and more fit than in the past. The answer according to the WPA is to grant police officer on duty time to work out so they can match the fitness level of the criminals they deal with.

Unfortunately the union failed to provide data to support their position. Although the data probably exists in terms of prisoners weight and musculature upon entering and leaving prison it’s not likely anyone can access it. The union might have considered making its case using other data.  If indeed there is a trend, historical data on assaults against police officers, injuries sustained by police officers resulting from physical confrontations, and Workers Compensation claims would assist in factually establishing what is happening on the street. Making a blanket statement that bulked up criminals coming out of prisons is putting police officers at greater risk  is not a convincing argument without  supporting data.

To support its position the union  brought forward examples of other western Canadian cities that are granting officers on-duty work out time. They mounted a political argument in a context where political arguments (as opposed to evidence based arguments based on data) are ineffectual. They can’t really be blamed though for trying this approach. They just saw the Service use the same approach and obtain funding for a helicopter from the City.

During the helicopter debate the Service  relied heavily on political arguments and anecdotal examples to support its position. The Service cited other cities that use helicopters as a basis for why Winnipeg should get a helicopter. They relied on various quotes from police officers in other cities about how  a helicopter in the air equated to a large number of officers on the ground to bolster their argument. It seemed this was particularly appealing and persuasive for the mayor. 

However, this is not a two-way street. The City decides which issues will be allowed to sail through city hall with an assisting political tail wind, and which will be held up to scrutiny. The Service’s helicopter proposal was largely political (based on wants not needs) but the Service had a benefactor who provided the tailwind. A true economic business case was not asked for nor provided.

That won’t be the case in this instance.  The union  will be required to make a business case (an economic argument) to support its position on the paid work out issue.  They will be required to provide evidence, data, hard facts not just anecdotes. It’s definitely more difficult to make your case when as Bob Seger says you are “running against the wind”.

The last post in this series will look at the  approach the union took on this issue and will examine the differences between positional and interest based bargaining.

Winnipeg Police Physical Fitness – Part II

The potential cost of the proposal by the Police Union in real terms

During the helicopter debate I discussed the concept of opportunity savings which in that context dealt with the number of officer hours that the introduction of a new tool or technology might free up.  The saving comes in the form of an opportunity to redeploy officers for a period of minutes or hours to a new duty from the duty they previously were engaged in.  Such redeployment is referred to as opportunity spending.  

In both the opportunity saving and spending scenarios the bottom line in terms of budgeted spending remains static.  Change is instead reflected in the activities in which the officer’s time is invested.  In order for the equation to remain truly static an opportunity saving must be created  before opportunity spending can be contemplated. 

The recent attempt by the Winnipeg Police Association (WPA) the union representing police officers in Winnipeg to get the city to agree to paid workout time as part of their regular shift is an example of opportunity spending.  

The union would argue that it is a no cost item as officer salaries (and the salary budget) would not increase.  From the union perspective it is simply a matter of time reallocation from regular duties such as uniform patrol or investigations to time spent working out in the gym.  They would argue that there is no real ‘loss’ to the city.  From the union perspective the city would be swapping patrol time for officers who would in turn be more fit and effective during the times they are on the street.  

Because the union proposal did not contain any ‘savings’  to be invested, there would be a significant cost to the city in terms of time diverted from regular policing duties to work outs.  For union/management bargaining purposes, this body of time needs to have a dollar value attached to it.   From the city’s perspective the starting point would be to calculate a dollar value based on a scenario where all eligible officers availed themselves of the benefit at every opportunity.  For the purpose of this discussion let’s look at a scenario where all 1328 officers employed by the WPS (based on the authorized 2008 complement) chose to take advantage of either a 20 or 30 minute paid workout period during each shift worked.     

The maximum amount of  time that would be consumed if all officers were granted 20 minutes to work out per days would be roughly 64 hours per year per officer.  Multiplied by the total number of officers that works out to approximately 84,000 thousand hours.  That is the equivalent to removing 40 officers from the street for a full year.  Add to that the 20 minutes of accumulated time that would be taken by the officer and the ‘street absence’ doubles to 168,000 hours or the equivalent of 80 officers per year.  

Under the 30 minutes per workday scenario it would work out to 96 hours per officer,  representing a total of 60 person years that the city would give up and once the additional time off taken by officers is factored in, it works out to losing the equivalent of 120 officer years of street duty.     

These calculations are based on the presumption that all officers work 10 hour shifts.  The fact is that many officers work 8 or 9 hour shifts.  For officers working the shorter shifts the cost would be significantly higher since they work more days per year and would therefore have more opportunities to avail themselves of the work out time.  The calculations are done on a worst case scenario from the city perspective, assuming all officers availed themselves of the work out provision at every opportunity.  The union  would argue that would not happen and that there would not be 100 percent uptake on the program.  They are  correct but in a scenario where you don’t know what would happen you need to establish what could happen (that is, the potential risk to the city).     

In dollar terms the opportunity spending cost of this proposal would be close to 2.95 million dollars for the 20 minute plan and 4.4 million dollars for the 30 minute plan.  This again is based on a worst or best case scenario (depending on your perspective) where each officer availed themselves of the workout period during each shift.  

The union’s position has consistently been that the city requires more police officers on the street.  It is difficult to mount a logical argument to expand the police complement when in the same breath you say that removing the equivalent of between 40 or 60 officers from active street duty would not negatively affect service delivery.

The next post in this series will examine the bargaining approach the union used in this instance and the difference between positional and interest based bargaining.

Winnipeg Police Physical Fitness – Part I

The cost of the existing police physical fitness program in Winnipeg

All Police officers hired since the late 1980’s are subject to a physical fitness standard as a condition of employment.  The standard which requires completion of drills and activities that simulate on the job activities such as speed, agility, endurance and strength must be completed within a fixed period of time.  Officers are tested annually.  Because progression through the various classes of Constable and promotion to higher ranks is tied to meeting the fitness standard, the compliance rate is high. 

Officers are further encouraged to meet the standard through an incentive program which gives officers who meet or exceed the standard 20 hours of time off annually.  Officers hired prior to the introduction of the mandatory program can enter the program on a voluntary basis and if they meet the standard, they too receive 20 hours of time off annually. 

If all officers availed themselves of this provision, it would result in the granting of 26,400 hours of time off annually.    At an average wage of $35.00 per hour, the dollar cost equates to just under 1 million dollars a year.   

Other fitness incentives for police officers offered by the City include gymnasiums in the Public Safety Building as well as in the other four District Stations and the Police Academy.  The City pays for the space, heating/cooling and general maintenance of these gymnasiums.  Much of the equipment was purchased by the Police Union and the ongoing maintenance and replacement of equipments is covered by a dollar a week levy that is assessed to all users.  The facilities located in operational police buildings are open 24 hours a day. 

The City also pays the cost of fitness passes to other city owned facilities such as the Sam Southern complex, The Pan Am Pool, the Cindy Klassen Recreation Centre and others for officers who prefer these facilities to a conventional gym.    The City also picks up the salary cost for the physical fitness coordinator. 

The overall cost to the city is in the range of 1 million dollars. 

Based on the recent attempts by the Winnipeg Police Association (the union which represents police officers in Winnipeg) to negotiate paid workout time through the media (a request which was denied), the union is clearly of the view that officers are not as fit as they should be. 

Subsequent posts will look at the cost of what the union was asking for and their approach to bargaining.

San Francisco Police – Making Force Option Decisions Based on Evidence

San Francisco Police review  police shootings and use of force policy. 

George Gascon took over as the Chief of the San Francisco Police Department in July of 2009.   Early on in his tenure he realized that there might be a problem with the Department’s use of force policy.  San Francisco is one of the few major American police agencies that does not use conducted energy devices (Tasers).  This creates a gap in terms of the use of force options available to San Francisco Police officers – a gap that Gascon perhaps thought might be resulting in the overuse of the deadly force option. 

Instead of simply relying on intuition and making a unilateral move to introduce conducted energy devices to fill the apparent gap he  ordered that the issue be studied.  

The study undertaken by Assistant Chief Morris Tabak* used an evidence based approach to study the issue.  Tabak reviewed a total of 15 files that involved the use of deadly force by San Francisco police officers between 2005 and 2009.  

File data revealed that  police actions resulted in the death of the suspect in 8 of the 15 cases; the other 7 cases resulted in serious injury but the suspects survived.  Tabak concluded that the existing use of force policy (which did not include the use of conducted energy devices) was complied with in all 15 cases.  Under the existing policy the use of deadly force was justified as no less lethal option existed.       

Most, if not all, use of force policies do not consider the use of less than lethal force as an option in situations where the suspect is armed with a gun.  Seven of the 15 cases in question involved suspects armed with guns.  

The review centered on the remaining 8 cases that involved suspects not in possession of firearms.  Based on information in the case files it was concluded that in 5 of the remaining 8 cases the use of less than lethal force such as a conducted energy device would have been a viable option without endangering the lives of police officers. The study in essence superimposed a policy template that included a less than lethal force option over 5 real life scenarios to determine how the police response in  those 5 cases would have been affected had such an option existed.  

The study produced evidence  (data) that adds clarity to the issue and can be used by decision makers to debate and decide the issue on its merits.  This is an example of how evidence can be used to diminish arbitrariness in the decision-making process.  

Based on the findings, Chief Gascon will be recommending that  the use of force policy be amended to include a less than lethal option and that officers be issued with conducted energy devices.  The San Francisco Police Commission will have at its disposal research based evidence when this issue is debated and decided later this month.    

* The 185 page report written by Assistant Chief Morris Tabak is available  under the heading  –Officer Involved Shootings- A five Year Study at:

http://sf-police.org

Only as Much Force as is Necessary

The Constitution Act of 1982 (The Charter of Rights and Freedoms) guarantees basic individual rights.  Those rights include the right the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

In order to avoid anarchy and for society to function, the right to life and liberty are not absolute.  The Criminal Code gives police (and in some cases citizens) the authority to suspend the rights of persons who have violated the law.  The authority granted to police is wide-ranging and invasive.  It includes the authority to use deadly force and the authority to arrest. 

Along with this authority, come obligations and restrictions police must meet and comply with.  In order to lawfully arrest, police must have reasonable grounds to do so.  Reasonable grounds have been defined as a set of conditions or circumstances that cause an ordinary prudent individual to form a strong belief that goes beyond mere suspicion.  If resistance is encountered during the arrest process, police are given authority to use force.  The amount of force police use must be reasonable.  The law stipulates that police shall only use as much force as is necessary to carry out their lawful purpose. 

In the context of police making an arrest, this means that unless the arrest is lawful, any use of force cannot be justified.  In the case of a lawful arrest, the degree of force must be in keeping with the resistance that police encounter.  Most police departments have extensive policies that outline their use of force policy.   

In the recent case that has garnered so much media attention involving the arrest of Cody Bousquet, there is no doubt that police had the authority to arrest.  The question that must be addressed is whether the amount of force used in making the arrest was appropriate.  Could police have accomplished their lawful purpose, that purpose being to arrest Mr. Bousquet, using less force than was used, without putting themselves in danger?    

By now many have viewed the surveillance video presented in court last week during Mr. Bouquet’s trial.  Police actions on the video have been interpreted in a variety of ways.  My purpose here is not to add my interpretation to that long list.  The incident is currently under investigation by the RCMP.  The outcome of that investigation will be presented to the Crown’s office and a determination will be made if the amount of force used by police exceeded what was necessary.  In the event charges are deemed to be warranted, the officers involved will be required to appear in a court of law to justify their actions.    

The real issue that needs to be addressed is this: There are indications that the Winnipeg Police Service became aware of this video approximately a year ago. As the incident involved the Chief’s nephew, again, there is a high degree of probability that the Chief was made aware of the video and its contents.  When the video became a matter of public record last week the Winnipeg Police Service wasted no time arranging for an external investigation to be undertaken by the RCMP.  The issue then is this: why was that investigation not undertaken a year ago when the Winnipeg Police Service first became aware of the contents of the video? 

Had Mr. Bousquet quietly plead guilty and had his lawyer not brought the video forward, would the Winnipeg Police Service have asked the RCMP to initiate an investigation?  After sitting on the video for a year, it doesn’t seem likely.       

For those of you that don’t remember what happens when the Police Service does not take the appropriate steps to fully investigate the actions of its members, can you say ‘J. J. Harper’?  Can you say ‘A.J.I’?

Will the New PSB Please Step Forward

The New Mega Public Safety Building 

This is the first in a series of articles examining the re-location of police headquarters from 151 Princess Street to 266 Graham Avenue.  This series will take a  look at the expressed operational rationale behind the move and the related costs. 

The Question:  Which building will the Winnipeg Police Service be moving into when they vacate the Public Safety Building?   

A)  The Winnipeg Post Office office tower at 266 Graham,    

                                                    OR

B)  The Winnipeg Mail Processing Plant, (WMPP) illustrated in the photo below?

The Answer:  B, the Mail Prosessing Plant

There is a lot of buzz in Winnipeg these days, especially in the police community, about what has been dubbed as the new ‘Mega PSB’.  The $135 million plan recently approved by council will see police moving out of its current headquarters, the Public Safety Building at 151 Princess Street, by 2013. 

Which space are they actually moving into?  If your impression is that it will be the office tower facing Graham Avenue, featured on the City of Winnipeg website as the new headquaters, then you have the wrong impression.  In this case what you see is not what you get.  * (See web link below)  You can’t be blamed entirely, though.  The mayor and the city spin doctors (another example of your tax dollars at work) have done a nice job of spinning this one.   

The portion of the property that the police are actually getting is the old Winnipeg Mail Processing Plant – the dumpy, or shall we say, squat, four-storey structure at the south end of the property and not the impressive office tower that has been so prominently featured in the media.  (Of course, once you put that brand spanking-new shooting range on top, it might not look so squat.)  The public seems to have concluded, almost unanimously, that the police were moving into the office tower.  But even with the best spin it is difficult to fool all of the people all of the time. 

In fairness the report prepared for Council when carefully read implies that the police won’t be getting the office tower.   As is so often the case, interpretation becomes important and the devil is truly in the details. **  In this instance, the ‘details’ reveal that  the portion of the property being redeveloped is limited to the Winnipeg Mail Processing Plant and does not include the office tower which served as the backdrop for the ‘turning over the key/early Christmas present ceremony’ orchestrated by the City.  The office tower portion of the property, it turns out, is tied up in existing leases and options and will not likely be available for police use for the next 15 years. 

The current plan calls for the city to develop approximately half a million square feet of space for police use at a cost of $135 million:  $30 million to purchase the building and another $105 million to do the upgrades.  There are some important unanswered questions hanging in the air.  Anyone who has restored an old building, or watched This Old House knows that when you revive old buildings they can become money pits. Does buying and restoring a 55 year old building to replace a 45 year old building (PSB), the interior of which has been recently and extensively upgraded, make good sense from a practical business perspective?   Were other options considered?  Can this project be brought in on budget or is there a risk that this project will become a public money pit with Winnipeg taxpayers footing bill? 

Frankly, a more thorough examination of the monetary and non-monetary reasons put forward by the Police Service and the Property and Development Department in support of this proposal is needed.  Is the space being redeveloped adequate to house all Divisions, Units, and services being proposed for relocation to the site?  Is relocation of units such as the Professional Standards Unit within the confines of a police station appropriate?  Are the operational advantages and savings cited in the report real or are they empty words used to prop up the proposal and make it easier for decision makers to arrive at the ‘right’ decision?   

Those issues and questions as well as others will be examined in future posts.

In the meantime, a quick memo to Sponsor Winnipeg:  Now that the City owns the building at 266 Graham, best to put it on the naming block, and consider removing the Winnipeg Square Parkade in light of the fact that the City has already paid someone $400,000 in commissions to sell that particular property.

* Image of Post Office Tower from the City of Winnipeg website at:

http://winnipeg.ca/interhom/headquarters.stm

** Complete report on the City acquisition of the property at 266 Graham Avenue is available at:

http://winnipeg.ca/clkdmis/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=9721&SectionId=&InitUrl=

Helicopter Naming Rights

Today the City’s Executive Policy Committee approved the capital expenditure for the purchase of a helicopter for the Winnipeg Police Service.  Already, the spin from City Hall is taking the citizens of Winnipeg on a new course.  It is no longer just a helicopter: it is now a “Crime Copter”.  A catchy phrase with a  strong ‘law and order and tough on crime’ ring to it.  Politicians are astute enough to recognize the benefits of portraying that image.  

Personally, I was not surprised to see our Mayor come up with the required funding for the so-called Crime Copter.  It seems at budget time there are always a few hidden pockets or hats with rabbits or money in them tucked away for pet projects.  The helicopter money was a nice ‘pull from the hat’ at the eleventh-hour.  

What did surprise me was the discovery that the helicopter was listed on the Sponsor Winnipeg website as one of the city assets available for naming rights.   Had the debate about the merits of  purchasing a helicopter been legitimate the posting of the naming rights would have been delayed until the funding decision was made, if for no other reason than for the sake of perception.  Some people may have naively concluded that as the issue was being debated and winding its way to  EPC for a vote, a final decision was still pending.   Listing the helicopter as being available for naming rights two weeks prior to the vote suggests the decision to purchase a helicopter was made at least two weeks ago, maybe longer, but certainly not today.  

Listing a city asset as being available for naming rights before the decision to even acquire the asset is finalized is, if not an abuse of process , at the very least, inappropriate.  One could simply dismiss it as a scenario where the organization is so large that the left hand is not aware of what the right hand is doing.  Or, is it instead a situation where the right hand is simply arrogant. 

Perhaps the City should take a closer look at what else is on the ‘naming block’ and make sure we own it before naming rights are awarded.

The link below will take you to the Sponsor Winnipeg website:

http://www.sponsorwinnipeg.ca/wellness.php

Do You Swear to tell the Truth?

Tell it Like it is, or Else

Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis announced in September that he is finalizing a policy that will allow him to fire any police officer who is caught lying in the line of duty.  Davis indicated that truthfulness is fundamental to being a police officer. 

The failure on the part of some Boston police officers to be truthful has resulted in civil suits and tarnished the reputation of the Boston police force. 

The proposed policy would be a ‘one strike and you’re out policy ‘and applies to both oral and written communications by police officers.  Davis acknowledged that policies of this nature are difficult to implement.  Policies of this type also tend to result in opposition from police unions. 

The ‘no lying’ policy is also intended to address the so-called ‘code of silence’ which it is alleged exists in many police departments.  Cases of lack of truthfulness in both Canada and the United states frequently center on fabricating information to obtain search warrants and withholding information from internal investigators whose job it is to investigate allegations against police officers. 

The first two core values of the Winnipeg Police Service are:

Honesty – being truthful and open in our dealings with each other and the citizens we serve; and

Integrity – being above reproach, ethical and doing what is right.

Do these two core values recognize and reinforce the importance the Service puts on truthfulness? 

How committed is the Winnipeg Police Service to its core values and is it doing enough to ensure its core values are being adhered to?  Is the Service prepared to take a stand on the issue of truthfulness and make it a condition of employment?

Chevrolet Caprice Police Patrol Unit

Chevrolet to Re-enter the Police Car Market

Ford recently announced that it will discontinue production of the Crown Victoria, the predominant police patrol unit used by North American police departments.  Ford will be pushing the new Taurus model as a replacement for the Crown Vic. 

Discontinuation of production of the Crown Vic has created an opening for other car manufacturers to re-enter the police car market.  For several years Chrysler has been producing the Dodge Charger with a police package.

General Motors announced this week that it is planning to re-enter the police car market.  Prior to 1996 Chevrolet marketed the Caprice with a police package.  Since 1997 GM has touted the front wheel drive Chevrolet Impala as a viable police car.  It failed to gain wide acceptance with North American police departments.  Plans are underway to reintroduce the Caprice in 2011 as a police car for the North American market.  The new Caprice would be a rear wheel drive vehicle based on Gm’s Zeta architecture which is currently used in the Camaro and the Pontiac G8 models. 

The new Caprice will be available with V8 and V6 engines. 

According to GM, dealers will start taking orders in late 2010.

Photo Lineups: American Police Catching up with Canada

One of the recommendations that flowed from the Sophonow Inquiry (2000-2001) into the wrongful conviction of Thomas Sophonow centered on how police conduct photo lineups.  At the time, the practice in Winnipeg and among most police agencies in North America was to lay out a prescribed number of photographs (usually 10) before a witness who had observed a suspect and ask them to identify the suspect they had observed.  

 
The Sophonow Inquiry recommended that photographs of suspects be presented sequentially, one at a time.  This procedure was adopted by Winnipeg Police almost a decade ago.

 
Responding to a series of wrongful convictions in the United States, the Dallas Police Department started using sequential photo lineups earlier this year.  Currently five American states, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina and West Virginia either have revamped or are in the process of revamping their photo line up procedures. 

 
Sequential lineups tend to focus a witness to compare their recollection of a suspect with just one photograph.  The previous approach, it is argued, causes witnesses to conduct comparisons between photos and, and resulted in a greater likelihood of mistaken identification.