Tag Archives: ethics

Peel’s Seventh Principle

Principle Seven 

To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community welfare and existence. 

Peel’s seventh principle is perhaps the most well know and most often quoted.  The historic tradition referenced by Peel is the tradition of community members coming to each other’s aid.  The principle in essence says that it is incumbent on all citizens to perform, on a part time basis, the policing function in the interest of community welfare and existence.  Police officers are simply citizens paid to do on a full time basis what all citizens are expected to do on an ad hoc basis.  This principle embodies the foundation of what has more recently come to be known as community policing. 

So what does it mean for the public to be the police.  Firstly it implies that the public has a stake and interest in the welfare of the community.  It also requires that the public act in the best interests of the community.  It means that it is incumbent on the public to take action when ‘community welfare’ is threatened. 

Although this principle is often cited by community activists and used as an indicator of the degree of alienation that exists between the police and the public, the fact is that maintaining the tradition enunciated in this principle is a two edged sword.  The principle puts a heavy emphasis on both the police and the public to do their part. 

It is not uncommon to hear complaints from the community that the police are not fulfilling their obligations.  An equally common complaint in policing circles is that the public is not living up to its obligation.  We often hear the comment ‘the police cannot do it alone’.  When you examine the ratio of police to population which is in the range of 1:500 it becomes obvious why the police need public assistance.

The police have an obligation to deliver professional police services on behalf of the public and the public has an obligation to assist the police. 

This means that the public is under an obligation to take action when ‘community welfare’ is threatened. 

Community welfare is a somewhat nebulous term.  It embodies the notion of maintaining a set of community standards and values that allow society to function in keeping with the values of society. 

In Canadian society we value our personal freedoms and rights.  One of those rights is the ownership of personal property and the enjoyment of that property.  The commission of crimes that affect that right, such as auto theft and break-ins, represent a threat to our personal rights and to community welfare.  Under Peel’s model the public has an obligation to assist police in preventing such crimes, and in instances where crimes are or have been committed in assisting police in apprehending the culprits.

The community cannot simply say ‘let the police handle it, that is what they are paid to do’.   Although that is indeed what the police are paid to do, if the police are expected to do it alone without public support, then the size of police departments needs to be increased dramatically if crime is to be held in check. 

So what type of public action did Peel envision on the part of the public?  British Common Law and the Canadian Criminal Code provide provision for members of the public to make citizen arrests in certain circumstances.  In the 1800’s, when criminals were much less likely to be armed this was a more viable option than at present.  Because of the dangers inherent in citizen arrests most police agencies discourage citizens from making arrests.  

There are, however, other measures that, citizens can take.  In the communication era citizens can be in almost instant contact with police via cell phone and provide real time information about crimes in progress.  Also, with existing technology digital photographs that can provide evidence can be taken.  As well, citizens who learn information about crime can pass that information on to police, not to collect a Crime Stoppers reward, but as an obligation of citizenship.    

On the police side of the equation, police must be equipped to receive and deal with information from the public in a professional manner.  One of the often heard complaints from the public is that information passed on to police seems to enter a void, a massive black hole and does not result in action by police.  When police receive information from the public they are under an obligation to deal with it in a professional manner and to report back to citizens what action if any was taken.  The public does not expect miracles but they do expect and have a right to know what action was taken as a result of the information they provided.  Police failure to provide feedback and close the communication loop is often cited as the reason citizens no longer call police and provide information as frequently as in the past.   

So who is mandated to maintain the traditional relationship between the police and the public?  It’s the police.  How do police maintain the relationship?  By living up to their professional obligations and embodying in their day to day practices the values and attitudes espoused by Peel in the first six principles.      

That, however, is much easier said than done and requires a dedicated commitment to the community that few police agencies are prepared to make.

Peel’s Sixth Principle

Principle Six

To use physical force only when the  exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public cooperation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order; and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

This principle can be divided into two sub-principles.  The first deals with the hierarchy of approaches that should be used by police in securing observance of the law or to restore order in situations where the law has been violated.  The second deals with situations where a decision has been made that the use of physical force is appropriate and deals with the degree or amount of force that should be used. 

Peel makes it clear  the initial approach by police should be to use methods such as persuasion, advice and warning in preference to physical force.  This implies a rational approach to situations.  The corollary is that police are dealing with rational individuals.  Irrational individuals are not likely to respond positively to a verbal exchange. 

The majority of situations involving exchanges between police and citizens are rational exchanges.  This is reflected in the National Use of Force Framework promoted by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.  A visual representation of the framework is presented here to add clarity. 

  05-Nuff

 Source:  Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.  Available at: http://www.cacp.ca/media/library/download/266/Useofforcemodel.pdf 

This framework assists officers in their decision making process in terms of ensuring the approach they use is not only appropriate but also effective in the given situation they are facing.   

The chart is read starting from the 12 o’clock position.  The center of the chart represents the situation faced by a police officer and may vary from friendly/passive encounters to life and death scenarios.   

The first police response is simply a physical presence.  In many situations the presence of a police officer is all that is required to quell a situation.  The second response (the 2 o’clock position on the chart) is communication.  In many situations a conversation between an officer and a citizen(s) is all that is required to ensure compliance with the law and/or to restore order.  This second response can be related to Peel’s ‘persuasion, advice and warning’. 

The subsequent responses in the use of force framework rely on an ever increasing use of force in the form of hard physical control, intermediate weapons and ultimately the use of lethal force. 

The principle goes on to state that if non-physical measures are not adequate to secure observance of the law or to restore order then only as much force as is necessary should be used by police. 

This is an area that often causes  conflict between police and the public.  Many citizens when arrested claim that the amount of force used against them was excessive based on what their intention was.  They may have known what their intention was but the police officer did not and cannot assume what the citizen’s intention might be.  For that reason most use of force polices in Canada employ the ‘plus one doctrine’ which sees police officers use force that is one step above the force or resistance they encounter.  This approach is taken to ensure the safety of the officer. 

One of the shortcomings of the use of force policies of most policing agencies is their failure to educate the public as to what the policy is.  Proper education and perhaps even publication of the use of force policy would address the issue of people not understanding what the police are likely to do in a given situation, and why.  Using the plus one doctrine, police are justified, by policy, in using lethal force when confronted by an aggressive suspect with a weapon such as a knife,  if the suspect does not drop the weapon when ordered to do so.  Perhaps if suspects were aware of this they would be more likely to drop the knife when ordered to do so by police.

Racial Bias Exists in the Toronto Police Service

Does Racial Bias Exist within the Winnipeg Police Service?

Proposition 1     Racial bias exists in society at large.

Proposition 2     Police agencies hire employees that are representative of society.

Conclusion          Some police officers hold racially biased views.

The question should not be,” does racial bias exist?” but rather, how prevalent is it and how does it affect the delivery of police services to the citizens of Winnipeg. 

The first step in effectively dealing with racial bias in police agencies is recognition from the very top of the organization that it exists.  No organization is able to take effective steps to address an issue until it first recognizes that the issue exists.  If a police chief does not recognize that racial bias exists within a police service, then there is no need to address it.  Racial bias is not an issue that lends itself to change percolating up from the bottom of the organization.  It requires decisive leadership from the top. 

 As recently as 2002, then Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino took the position that racial bias did not exist within the Toronto Police Service.  The police union followed up with a $2.7 billion class action libel lawsuit against the Toronto Star. * Seven years later current Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair not only recognized that racial bias exists within the Toronto Police Service but also recognized that racial profiling is a problem.   

The recognition by Chief Blair that racial bias exists within the Toronto Police Service demonstrates true leadership.  It makes it easier for other police chiefs to admit the obvious.  If racial bias exists within the Toronto Police Service it’s hard to imagine that somehow Winnipeg and other major Canadian police agencies are immune. 

In Toronto, Chief Blair has followed up with action that has created positive results in the area of female and visible minority recruitment and hiring. The hiring of women and visible minorities has increased dramatically.  Recruit classes used to have from 10-15 percent female and visible minority representation.  Women and visible minorities now account for 30-40 percent of recruits in typical recruit classes.   The Toronto Police Service has also invited the Ontario Human Rights commission to conduct a review of its policy and procedure. 

Some measures that the Winnipeg Police Service might consider to improve race relations and address the racial bias issue are:

  • Public recognition that racial bias exists within the Service and a commitment from  the top to address it;
  • Employ innovative recruiting strategies to boost the hiring of members of minority groups;
  • Revamp the mandate of the existing Race Relations Unit, and staff it appropriately;
  • Provide meaningful training and education on racial bias and racial profiling at all levels of the organization;
  • Develop partnerships with minority communities;
  • Fully investigate all race related complaints and demonstrate that race motivated misconduct will not be tolerated;
  • Develop a partnership with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission and invite a review of the Service’s personnel policies and procedures;
  • Form research relationships with the two local Universities and engage in proactive research to establish the extent of racial bias within the Service and approaches to address it.

 

*The lawsuit was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada which upheld a previous Ontario Superior Court decision.

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?

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.

Peel’s Fifth Principle

Principle 5 

To seek and to preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustices of the substance of individual laws; by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing; by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life. 

This principle gets to the meat of the matter in terms of separating policing from political influence. Public favour is maintained not by catering to the wants and needs of interest groups in society but rather by complete and total impartial service to the law.  Everyone is deemed equal before the law and through observance of the rule of impartiality the police can make that a reality.  

Police policies must be independent of political influence and they cannot and should not be over-ridden by political agendas.  Police policy must provide equality of service to all citizens.  It must not matter that one knows the premier, a member of the Legislative Assembly, the mayor or a city counselor.  The true test of the equality of a system is the ability to get the same service and treatment despite the fact that you have no political connections.  This separation of politics and policy does not imply that politicians cannot provide policy direction.  It simply means that once policy has been put in place there should be no attempt by politicians to influence outcomes or interject themselves into situations on a case by case basis.  To do so would “pierce the sacred veil of operations”, the veil being the invisible barrier that separates political decision making from operational decision making.   

Police must refrain from being publicly critical of existing legislation.  The role of the police is to enforce laws, not to criticize legislation.  The police must also refrain from criticizing judicial decisions as doing so undermines the administration of justice.  Criticism of the law and judicial decisions, especially in terms of sentencing decisions, reveals a glaring lack of their understanding of the police role in the criminal justice system.  If police officers are not able to accept that at a personal level that they will not agree with some judicial decision then they are in the wrong line of work. Not only will it cause frustration, it may also lead to flawed decision making and differential treatment of members of the public.     

 It is especially troublesome when senior police executives don’t understand their role and make public comment critical of judicial decisions.  Police executives certainly have a role to play in this regard but it should not be one of offering criticism in a public forum.  They have access to politicians both on an individual basis and through advocacy organization such as associations of chiefs of police at both the provincial and federal level which afford the opportunity to air their concerns and make recommendations for change.      

This principle also makes it clear that individual wealth and social standing should not affect the level of service citizens receive from police.  Because these principles were written in the early 1800’s, race is not mentioned as British society at that time was not racially diverse.  In modern society the delivery of police services and race has become an issue and police service delivery must not only be blind in terms of wealth and social standing, it must also be color blind.  It is ironic that most police agencies as part of the screening process, test applicants for colour blindness.  Applicants who are colour blind (in terms of the primary colours) are screened out.  In a broader social sense, police agencies should in fact attempt to identify and hire recruits that are truly ‘colour blind’.          

The last aspect of this principle addresses the willingness to make individual sacrifices to protect and preserve life.  Police agencies have an obligation to create a safe workplace for police officers through training, policy, procedures and the use of technology and appropriate equipment.  It must be recognized that some aspects of police work are inherently dangerous.  This principle addresses the issue of officer safety from the perspective of ensuring that procedures not become so restrictive that the safety of citizens is negatively affected.  An example might be a restriction that does not allow an officer to go to the assistance of a citizen at risk unless accompanied by another officer.  A healthy balance must be struck between officer safety concerns and the safety of citizens.

Peel’s Third Principle

Principle 3 

To recognize always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also securing the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of the laws.    

This principle takes police community involvement and co-operation to the next step.  Securing and maintaining the respect of the public for the police is one thing.  Securing the willing co-operation of the public in terms of observance of the laws is another.  

The test for willing observance of the law is much like the test for personal integrity.  Integrity or the lack thereof is revealed in situations where an individual chooses a course of action free of coercion or compulsion based solely on a set of principles and values.  In the sporting world when Bobby Jones called a two stroke penalty on himself when he could have chosen not to do so (and subsequently lost the 1925 United States Open Golf Championship by one stroke) is a fine example of personal integrity.  When praised for his integrity Jones commented “You may as well praise a man for not robbing a bank.”  Willing observance of the law requires obeying traffic laws, by-laws and criminal law as a matter of principle, not out of fear of being caught.  

The ratio of police to public (1:500) is such that a police presence throughout the entire community at all times is impossible to maintain.  Police patrols at best serve as a reminder to the public that failure to observe laws can have repercussions.  If the public has not ingrained the notion of observance of the laws even without a police presence, social order and observance of the laws cannot be maintained.  To use a sports analogy, it is like the difference between golf where competitors call penalties on themselves based on the principle of adherence to the rules and other sports like hockey or football where competitors attempt to hide their transgression and go to great lengths arguing that they did not violate the rules, when they, and everyone else watching the match knows they did.  

The role of the police, therefore, is not only to enforce the laws but also to educate the public as to what the rules (laws) are, demonstrate strict observance of the laws themselves and convince the public of the merits and virtues of willingly observing the law.  

There is a direct relationship between police workload, and the types of activities police occupy themselves with and the degree of willing observance of the laws by the public. The degree of willing observance of the law, determines how much energy must be devoted to enforcement.  

If police are freed up from enforcing laws involving what are normally viewed as law abiding citizens, their numbers can be reduced and they are then in a position to concentrate on serious criminal activities perpetrated by career criminals, gangs and other organized crime groups.

Minneapolis Strike Force Shut Down

Metro Gang Strike Force Implodes 

The creation of special units within police agencies, or strike forces made up of officers from a number of agencies, are common responses to address specific forms of criminal activity such as organized crime, drug trafficking and serial property crimes.  

The concept of a special unit or strike force is sound from an investigative and enforcement perspective.  It facilitates the sharing and exchange of information, assists in the co-ordination of enforcement efforts and may create the synergy and critical mass required to address certain forms of criminal activity.  

Special units and strike forces are often viewed as ‘elite’ units both internally and externally. They normally operate from a distinct location separate and apart from normal police operations.  They tend to operate under a limited and distinct mandate which is usually quite narrow.  They normally use different, in some cases unique and innovative, approaches to achieve their mandate.  They are often issued with different, in many cases ‘better’ equipment in terms of uniforms (in the case of identifiable units), firearms, vehicles, communications devices, and the like.  All this adds to the perception of being an elite unit.  

Special units and strike forces are often staffed by officers who have earned a reputation for achieving results.  Some of these officers do a balancing act in terms of tip-toeing along the fine line that separates legitimate aggressive enforcement and non-sanctioned (and in some cases illegal) activity.  At times what is seen as the need to get the job done may overshadow ethical and legal concerns and restraints.  When this happens the unit or strike force invariably implodes.  

A recent example is the collapse of the Metro Gang Strike Force.  This Strike Force was primarily staffed by officers from the Minneapolis and St. Paul Police Departments, and the Ramsay County Sheriff’s Office.  The Strike Force was disbanded in July of this year and the FBI is currently investigating possible criminal conduct by some Strike Force members.  

The activities of the Strike force were examined by a state panel co-chaired by Andy Luger.  The panel concluded that as many as 12 members of the 34 members of the Strike Force had committed crimes.  The panel identified activities such as improper warrantless searches, improper seizure of property, and the conversion of seized property to personal use.  

Unlike the Canadian funding model where special units are usually fully funded up-front by one (or a combination) of the three levels of government the, American model encourages ‘self funding’.  This requires the seizure of evidence (assets) that are converted to cash to fund the unit.  This practice is fraught with the possibility of corruption.  This practice has been identified as a concern in the Minneapolis case.  

The following are some basic guidelines that should be applied when creating a stand-alone ad hoc unit or strike force: 

  • Avoid creating a  special unit or task force that is viewed by others or sees itself as elite
  • Fully fund the unit at start-up to avoid the need for ‘self funding’
  • Create clear lines of accountability to either a designated office or position within one of the contributing agencies or to a steering committee that represents all the participating agencies
  • Make the unit subject to existing policy and procedures to reinforce the importance and needs for accountable ethical behavior
  • Establish a clear mandate
  • Require the approval of operational plans
  • Ensure strategies and tactics are ethically and legally sound
  • Have a well thought-out staffing plan when selecting personnel to staff the unit