New Paragraph

Are our police officers 'de-policing?
February 15, 2018

In her February 12th, 2018 Ottawa Citizen article, reporter Shaamini Yogaretnam outlined a recent study conducted by Greg Brown, a former Ottawa Police Service officer and current doctoral researcher, which details a concerning situation in North American policing.

Brown interviewed thousands of police officers in Canada and in the U.S. – including hundreds in Ottawa, and claims “de-policing — or avoiding proactive policing” due to a variety of factors, is a growing trend. He describes it as “an officer choosing not to engage in discretionary or proactive aspects of police duties” due to among other things, ever-increasing public scrutiny along with the use of recording devices and resulting social media postings – which can be misinterpreted. Subsequent misconduct allegations regarding racial profiling or conduct violations can then result in disciplinary proceedings or other legal processes. That has always been the reality of policing – and so it should be, but with some real and many perceived police wrongdoings becoming viral postings on social media sites, apparently some officers have chosen to avoid the potential for conflict altogether.


Proactive policing should be a big part of what police do. It shouldn’t be all about responding to radio calls. High visibility patrols; checking out suspicious people in suspicious circumstances – not based on race; interacting with youth; preventing crime and victimization – are all critical roles for police officers.


Some are blaming the Ontario government’s regulation regarding “carding.” More commonly known as “street checks,” this activity has recently dropped significantly among a number of Ontario police services. Historically an activity that was meant to be a core function of policing in terms of delving into the suspicious actions of some, it was apparently misapplied in some jurisdictions and a disproportionate number of people of colour were seemingly targeted by some officers. This was not reported to be widespread across Ontario police services. That situation was never acceptable. Unfortunately, the inappropriate actions of a minority of officers in some police services resulted in a knee-jerk reaction by government, leaving all Ontario police services with rules that have all but ended street checks.


Police are already the most highly regulated, governed and legislated profession in Canada and the Ontario government wants to increase that under the Bill 175, Safer Ontario Act, 2017.


The Ontario Human Rights Commission; local police services boards; the Office of the Independent Review Director; the Special Investigations Unit; and internal professional standards bureaus, all endeavor to ensure that officers are playing by the rules and within the boundaries of all legislation – including the Police Services Act.


Although effective and transparent governance and oversight is a good thing for a publicly funded profession that has the immense powers of being able to restrict liberty and use deadly force against citizens, many officers feel the balance has tipped to the point where everything that they do is overly scrutinized.


All of that being said, I personally think the malaise identified by Mr. Brown is bigger than regulations, governance, public scrutiny and/or the use of social media by the public.


I believe that a key issue is declining officer morale. This is a huge problem in a number of police services. And when morale goes bad, productivity and professionalism can plummet, which is never a good thing in policing. I communicate with officers from all over North America and in the 40 years I’ve been talking to cops, I’ve never seen it worse. Why is that?


In my view, police employee morale can be negatively impacted by all of the above, as well as anti-police rhetoric and protests; violent acts against police; and the seemingly never-ending swirl of mainstream and social media criticism. Other key influencing factors are police resource challenges, change and leadership failings.


Staffing shortfalls usually cause significant morale issues. Of course, the increasing cost of policing combined with municipal revenue shortfalls contributes to the need for organizational change, and that often leads to more internal strife and morale impacts. After all, there are two things cops hate: the way things are and change. This never-ending cycle of change is here to stay and cries out for the most effective leadership humanly possible to help lead police employees through the change process, as well as the day-to-day stressors of an already difficult job.


Government and police leaders at all levels need to be supportive of their officers. That doesn’t mean writing blank cheques and throwing more resources at them. But they do need to communicate; seek feedback; involve employees in the change cycle; build trust; be honest, accessible and resilient. Simply hiding silently and hoping all the problems will go away is not leadership. Nor is publicly stating words to the effect that “if you don’t like it, quit”, as we saw one municipal leader do when dealing with police employee unrest in recent years. If employees don’t feel that they at least have a say; that their leaders appreciate and understand them and are doing their best to help meet their needs, morale will never improve among officers – the bulk of whom are dedicated, hard workers.


Many officers I have spoken to complain about the modern police leadership model that seems to focus less on people and more on strategic plans; inputs and outputs; results and statistics they can measure and then take personal credit for. Getting the best bang for the limited buck and achieving community safety results are very important. There is no doubt. But if personnel don’t trust and respect their leaders and feel the same sentiments coming towards them in reverse, morale will not improve and those critical business goals will never be met. “People” have to come first for everything else to come together.


The public and media have a role too. Officers need to feel supported and not face a constant barrage of criticism. In the current environment, the “vocal minority” of anti-police groups – some with legitimate agendas and others that will never accept anything police do as anything but racist and ill-intended, often loudly control the narrative. Yes, police will err and that should be effectively addressed by the many oversight bodies mentioned above. But what about the thousands of positive interactions that occur between the police and the public every day in this province alone? Where are the silent majority and why aren’t they speaking up to defend their police for all the brave and wonderful things they do? It’s time for them to step up to the plate and counter some of this negative nonsense.


I agree with Mr. Brown that the current situation is not good. However, I remain optimistic that the vast majority of officers out there – who are honest and committed to the communities they serve, will not turn a blind eye to illegal acts that may result in a threat to the public and victimization to those they are sworn to protect. But without support at all levels – internally and publicly, and without effective leadership from top to bottom in their services, all the strategic plans, oversight and regulations in the world are not going to keep their morale above its current state.


Without strong and effective leadership, as well as public and government support, many police officers will only do what they have to do and no more. None of us want that – not the officers or the public they serve. We want them to professionally keep us safe and secure. I truly believe that’s what the overwhelming majority of our police officers want as well.


By Chris Lewis June 6, 2026
Police become the default response to bad immigration policy
By Chris Lewis March 28, 2026
Leadership is inundated with risk, every hour of every day, in all sectors. In policing, legislative authorities and established policy are the ever-present guideposts, but occasionally policy just doesn’t apply. At times someone has to just make a decision to do something, or not, or they will fail the public they serve and the personnel it is their duty to lead. If it goes bad, time to own up, do damage control, learn from it and move forward. It always frightened me when I saw some at the senior executive level in policing think that supervisors and managers operate in a pristine little bubble where nothing should ever go wrong. Then when it did because some supervisor tried their best to make something work for all the right reasons, they wanted to pigeon-hole the person that took the risk. There were times during my own career when executives were not encouraged to take any risk either. In fact, taking risk was career risk in itself. Despite the best of intentions, if it went bad, the one ‘responsible’ be forever labelled as having failed. Even if the gamble went well, the jaundiced eyes from above would still forever look at them as being a potential liability. It became the “Oh, him. He’s the one that...” At times the daily decision making of high-level commanders would be second-guessed by those in the executive suites – some of whom had never really commanded anything. My buddy retired Chief Wayne Frechette used to describe these folks as: “They’ve never been out after dark on company time.” I know this same concept was alive in many other police services. Some at executive levels actually did serve in operational roles at some point but they never took a risk. Somehow, they were fortunate to skate through difficult situations through sheer luck as opposed to good decision-making and never developed any scar tissue along the way. They didn’t learn from failure – they survived by luck. They also were viewed by weak executives above them as being golden because there was never a milli-second of negativity around them. They were Teflon. But those that worked under their “command” (for lack of a better word) had no respect for them. They simply watched them walk around with coffee in hand, never leaving the office or making a decision. It wasn’t leadership, but it did pave the way to stardom from on high, for some. True leaders do take risks at times. Many I worked with and for did it all and did it well. They did so in the best interests of those they served and those they led, because it wasn’t about themselves, but was done in the service of those that placed their trust in them. Policy simply doesn’t fit every situation. It is most often a guide that anticipates most circumstances that employees will face, particularly the more common (high-frequency) ones. But it cannot predict every possible scenario. When that happens in policing, it can occur in very unlikely situations (low-frequency) that are incredibly high-risk. Supervisors cannot say “Sorry folks, the book doesn’t cover this one” and run away crying. They also don’t have time to tell bad guys, “Hey big fella, sit tight. We need to take a pause here and get the whiteboard out so we can have a group-think about how to stop your murderous rampage.” I think that many pseudo-leaders – far too many, are afraid to make risky decisions out of fear that an error will jeopardize their career. Instead, they risk their careers by not making decisions. Or as I like to say: “their fear of career-risk, risks their careers.” This can be fatal in the policing world. When a police supervisor shirks their responsibilities or quivers, sucks their thumb, and prays for the situation to go away, thankfully constables will come forward and do their best to get their teammates through it. Sometimes that ends well and when the supervisor emerges from their fear-induced coma, they will more often than not take credit for the success. But when the situation goes to hell-in-a-handbasket – despite best efforts, the pseudo-leader will document the risk-taking employee and add another bullet-point to their list of things they’ve done to “hold people accountable.” The panel at their next promotional interview will likely hear the false rendition proudly told. I hear examples of this practise from serving police officers across North America on a much too frequent basis. True leaders develop a culture of trust among those they lead that their suggestions and feedback are encouraged and valued. Their confidence that the leader wants their input encourages them to constantly analyze situations and give thought to what policy says and the options available when policy says nothing. That is good for the employee’s development and may save the leader’s hind-end and the continuity of the team on occasion when an employee steps forward in a crisis. Having said that, there will clearly be situations where there isn’t time for the whiteboard, and a decision needs to be made by the responsible “leader.” When it doesn’t work out, the real leader will step forward and be accountable. But when it does go well, the true leader will allow the light to shine on the team they have the honour to lead. In my view, we’re not seeing enough of that in North American policing. We need more genuine leaders at all levels of law enforcement organizations. Developing and promoting real leaders that can manage risk effectively is a must. Anything less fails everyone.
By Chris Lewis March 26, 2026
They used to be simply a "nice to have."