Tag Archives: Winnipeg police

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 Fourth Principle

Principle 4 

To recognize always that the extent to which the cooperation of the public can be secured diminishes, proportionally, the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.   

The corollary of this principle is that frequent use of force and compulsion by police is an indication of the degree of public cooperation or lack thereof.    

Most police agencies in Canada and indeed North America have adopted policies that  employ a use of force continuum.  The continuum lists the various use of force options available to police and the accompanying policy outlines the process police should employ to determine the appropriate level of force to use.  The continuum spans options that range from verbal instructions or commands to the use of deadly force at the other extreme of the spectrum.  Between those two options fall a variety of options depending on the training and policy of a particular police agency.  The continuum can include soft empty handed control, joint manipulation, pain causing techniques, non lethal weapons such as batons, pepper spray and conducted energy devices, and deadly force which involves the use of firearms. 

What this principle lays out is that a lack of public cooperation will necessitate not only more frequent but also a higher level of force and compulsion by police.  

Another interesting trend that is developing in policing is the reliance on technology based weapons such as Tasers as opposed to other methods.  The incident involving Robert Dziekanski and the RCMP at the Vancouver Airport in October of 2007 is one such example.  Prior to the introduction of Tasers, situations such as the Dziekanski incident (where there was one unruly person with a weapon [in this case a stapler] confronting four  police officers) would have resulted in the suspect being physically restrained, handcuffed and processed.  There might have been a few bumps and bruises, but everyone would have left the scene alive.  

The more frequent use of Tasers and other ‘intermediate’ weapons may come as the result of many police officers now on the streets never having policed without such options.  It may be a mindset reinforced by training.  Current training may prompt officers to resort to Tasers more quickly then police officers would have resorted to physical force or the use of a baton in the past.     

Another factor that may contribute to the policing mindset is that in the past the majority of officers cut their policing teeth by walking the beat, alone.  Walking the beat necessitated the development of superior verbal skills: the ability to negotiate and talk oneself out of many difficult situations.  That skill may no longer be as prevalent among police officers as it was in the past.  

Under Canadian law officers are entitled to use as much force as is necessary to achieve their lawful purpose.  It should never be suggested that police officers should unduly expose themselves to risk or danger, but neither should they resort to the use of force simply because they can.  Such an approach serves neither the police nor the public well.

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.

Peel’s Second Principle

Principle 2 

To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect. 

In most British Commonwealth countries the existence of the police is accepted by the citizenry as the norm.  The duties and functions of the police are also largely universal and include:

1.         The protection of life and property,

2.        Maintaining peace and good order,

3.        The prevention of crime,

4.        The detection and apprehension of offenders; and

5.        Enforcement of the laws 

With a police to population ratio of approximately 1:500 this is no easy task.  It becomes readily apparent that without public approval the police could not perform their duties effectively.   

The degree of public approval is determined by how the public views the actions and behaviors of police.  If police are seen as being progressive, responsible, open and accountable the odds are good that they will earn the approval and respect of the public.  If, on the other hand, police behave in a closed and secretive manner and view themselves as being above the law,  public respect and approval will vanish quickly.   

Through their actions police must earn a positive reputation and once earned they must work hard to maintain it.  The importance of strict discipline cannot be overstated in this regard.  The best intentions of police executives can so easily be undermined by the rogue actions of a small number of officers.  In terms of public perception nothing undermines public respect for the police more dramatically or more quickly than corruption, unethical and illegal behavior. 

Trust in police can to some degree be measured by the reporting rate of crime.  The percentage of crime that goes unreported is an indication of the extent to which the public feels that reporting will result in a meaningful outcome.    In some cases, crime statistics (which are based on reported crime) can show a drop, not because there is less crime but rather because the public has lost faith in the ability of police.   

So how do police agencies go about gaining and maintaining the respect and approval of the public? The bottom line is this; the actions of police must be always beyond reproach. The actions of just a few officers can tarnish the reputation of an entire agency.  This underscores the importance of strict discipline in policing.   

Principles 3 to 7 go into some detail as to what police should and should not do to maintain the public trust and will be discussed in  future posts.

Cameras Solve Crime

Investing in technology such as CCTV to help solve crime may be a prudent use of public funds but only if the evidence supports the investment.  The results of the Winnipeg CCTV Pilot Project are not yet known  but a recent internal police review in the UK shed some light on the effectiveness of the CCTV network in London, England.  

The study reported that in the last year in London 1000 crimes were solved as a result of CCTV.  

That may sound like an impressive number but it has prompted David Davis MP to lament the spending of crime prevention dollars on CCTV.  According to Davis CCTV is a very expensive approach considering its the minimal effectiveness.

London police are looking at measures that can be taken to increase the effectiveness of CCTV and have several projects ongoing to address the issue.  The projects center on how images are retrieved and distributed. 

In case you were wondering London has 1 million cameras in place: that equates to 1 crime solved for every 1000 cameras.