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.

Leadership involves risk, especially in policing

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.

Why Joint Forces Operations Are No Longer Optional

By Chris Lewis • March 26, 2026
They used to be simply a "nice to have."

Police investigating police: Is there another option?

By Chris Lewis • March 18, 2026
The March 17 th announcement by the Toronto Police Service (TPS) regarding the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) investigation into allegations by an Ontario Justice that three TPS officers colluded and lied during a 2024 murder trial against a man that ran over and killed TPS Constable Jeffrey Northrup in 2021, has further inflamed the debate over who should investigate alleged police wrongdoing. This instance combined with the recent arrests and ongoing police investigation into several TPS officers for their alleged involvement with organized crime, has brought this discussion to a boiling point. I appreciate the public perceptions around this investigative model given that the average citizen doesn’t necessarily understand the professionalism and commitment of police investigative teams like the recent OPP Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB) group. I have all the confidence the world in that team, but I also personally know the ability and integrity of the OPP Detective Inspector in-charge. So, if these investigations aren’t carried out by police, who will do them? They do not fall under the mandate of the Ontario Special Investigations Unit (SIU), which by the way is largely comprised of former police criminal investigators and forensic identification experts, many of whom investigated homicides in police services. For SIU to assume a larger role, they would have to grow exponentially and expand their team of ‘former cops’. These cases generally do not fall under the purview of Ontario’s Inspectorate of Policing either. They would loosely fall under the oversight role of Ontario’s Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA), who is responsible for receiving, managing and overseeing public complaints against police, but frankly they don’t have mandate or the horsepower to conduct complex criminal investigations. They oversee the “public complaints” that may lead to a criminal investigation, but the investigation would be the responsibility of a police service to conduct. An expansion of the LECA would require a tremendous amount of funding and human resources, most of whom would also be former police officers. Hiring and training civilians to conduct such investigations is an option, but largely an incomprehensible one. Police criminal investigators are trained officers that generally start out as uniformed officers responding to occurrences and investigating more routine and less serious crimes, i.e. minor assaults and property crimes. They build investigative expertise over time, including in interviewing and interrogation; gathering and securing physical evidence; legal processes like obtaining judicial authorizations; presenting evidence in court; and various investigative strategies. They learn how to work with special police units that provide specific investigative skills, and more. All of this doesn’t happen overnight, but over a period of years and with the tutelage of more experienced investigators along that journey. Trying to turn a group of young and well-educated civilians – no matter how intelligent and well-intended, into a team of elite investigators, would be a complete disaster and unfair to the public or to the officers being investigated. Over my many years as a member or as the Director of the OPP CIB, my colleagues and I investigated criminal allegations against cops from other agencies. Before the SIU was formed, we investigated officers from many Ontario police services – large and small, who had used deadly force. Many were cleared and a number were arrested and charged. We also investigated criminal allegations against police chiefs in Ontario. Again, several were appropriately cleared, and some were brought before the courts. Municipal, provincial and federal elected officials were similarly investigated and some charged. Our members also investigated police officers in other provinces, including high-ranking ones. I personally investigated two Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officers that were involved in an arrest that result in the death of a suspect. They were properly exonerated, but I would have charged them in a heartbeat if they had wrongfully killed than man. I arrested an OPP Sergeant for sexual assault. A CIB colleague investigated and arrested two different OPP officers for criminal offences. Both of those officers had been personal friends of mine and years later committed suicide. There are tons of similar examples that I can refer to over my career. All of these involved the oversight and legal analysis of a Crown Attorney, sometimes from another province. The interesting thing, and what most of the anti-police folks will never believe, is that in every single one of those investigations, the dialogue that I was involved in with other officers that I worked with or supervised, involved doing what was right. In other words, “If the allegation is substantiated, we will put the case together, arrest them and put them before the courts.” Not even once, did we think about or do anything that would give an officer a pass when they committed a criminal offence. Never. I have every confidence in the world that the vast majority of municipal and RCMP colleagues across Canada would operate under the same guiding principle. Has the occasional officer worked in conflict with that approach? Undoubtedly. Were some investigators not as committed or capable as they should be and perhaps did a poor investigation accidentally or deliberately? Quite likely so. But I truly believe those cases are the exception, not the rule in criminal investigations. Where I more often believe poor investigations or deliberate attempts to inappropriately give a colleague a break continues to occur, is in Police Act investigations, where policy or employee harassment wrongdoings are suspected. I like to think that the focus on that continues to improve, but not fast enough in some cases. Sadly, I know now that unbeknownst to me at the time, it happened under my watch. A focus for my next article. The public and police deserve the very best of investigators to ensure that bad cops are effectively put out of business and good officers are cleared. If there’s another effective option that would appease the doubting public – aside from using current officers from other agencies or creating a new and costly entity that would be staffed by former police officers, I’d like to hear it.