Impacts of Police Leadership on Public Trust

New Paragraph

November 12, 2021

Over the past several years, there have been increasing levels of community and media discussion regarding reportedly waning levels of public trust in North American policing – particularly by but not isolated to, people of colour. Much of this has emerged from high-profile inappropriate acts of use of force by police officers – some being blatant criminal acts like the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis Minnesota in 2020, which resulted in nationwide protests across the USA. Other well-publicized use of force events, although certainly questionable, were ruled to be legally justified, however remained quite concerning in the court of public opinion, particularly following the focus that came from the George Floyd tragedy. At the same any allegations of criminal behaviour police – on duty or off, receive a great deal of media and public focus, as do the disciplinary and or court processes to follow. All of them, whether proven to be false or not, leave a stain on the profession that the vast majority of honest and committed officers across the land are left to bear.

Although a number of polls have shown some recent increase in overall public trust in police since the 18 months since George Floyd’s death, it remains a serious issue of concern, and so it should. Police cannot survive without the trust of those they are sworn to serve. People are less likely to report crimes they have witnessed or suspect to police officers they do not trust to treat them fairly and with integrity, and or protect them from reprisal. And even more so, people will be very reluctant to disclose horrific details regarding cases where they have been victimized with public officials they do not trust. It also negatively impacts the profession in many other ways, including recruiting and retention issues.

Have police always committed unlawful acts but they are now better publicized through the various media platforms? Is it a failure in police recruiting processes? Are the questionable and blatant cases involving the use of force against people of colour indicative of systemic racism within police departments? Perhaps. Regardless of the causes, public trust is vital to effective policing and organizational strategies must be employed from top to bottom to sustain it.

As a student of and author/presenter on leadership, I feel it is critically important to examine the linkages between public trust in police and police leaders, as the public perception of police services is bigger than the members on patrol. I don’t believe there has been sufficient acknowledgment of the leadership impacts on these matters.

It is my belief that effective leadership can positively influence the morale of the workforce in any public sector organization or private enterprise, including policing. “Morale”, although difficult to define, ultimately impacts the productivity and performance of the workforce, as well as their behaviour, in terms of professionalism. In a police service, performance and professionalism weigh heavily in the development and sustainability of the trust of the public the agency serves.

“Trust” in the leaders of an organization is paramount to its success. Although only earned through effective leadership and not because of rank or position, if the men and women don’t trust the daily decision-making of their leaders, they can’t be expected to trust them in dire situations, and that lack of trust can lead to behavioural issues.

In my opinion, effective leadership and the morale of the organization are inextricably linked. Morale then impacts the professionalism and productivity of the organization’s members and how that productivity and trust can greatly influence public opinion and therefore the “trust” a community has in its police service, is key.

Morale

After 23 years in policing, in 2001 I was transferred into the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Eastern Region as its Commander. Following many years at General Headquarters (GHQ), I like a number of HQ colleagues, “thought” that I had a good grip on what was going on in our front-line operations. How wrong I was. I really had no idea and was about to have my mind opened on many fronts.

One of the many misconceptions I had was that morale was deplorable in our front-line detachments, particularly in the Eastern Region. “Morale” is an elusive beast in my experience, in that it’s next to impossible to measure, but the impacts can be profound where it’s poor. Over the several years prior, I’d commanded tactical and investigative units, largely comprised of hand-picked people. I was pretty spoiled in terms of being able to simply move the few poor-performers back to uniform when necessary without hesitation and never having to make the best of out of less than stellar and committed staff. I was determined to find out where morale was good or not, and why in my new are of command.

What I actually found after months of visiting detachments and through talking extensively to people from all ranks, was that although in fact morale was not rock-bottom, there was poor morale in some locations; extremely high morale in a few stations and there were pockets of high morale and low morale within others.

Factors Impacting on Morale in the Police Workplace

In my view, the factors impacting the level of morale there at that time, and largely throughout policing, was and is always related to one or more of three things, which hold true to this day:

1. Staffing levels.

There were detachments that were poorly staffed vis-à-vis workload. We had intentionally left positions open to offset budget shortfalls. Where four officers on a platoon were justified, at times only one or two were available. Where there should be sixty Constables in a detachment, at times only forty were posted there. Many officers were over-worked and therefore felt unsupported by their leaders.

2. Facilities.

That largely being infrastructure: technology, vehicles, equipment and buildings.

There were detachments that were in deplorable physical condition, as 1960’s era buildings were deteriorating and were built for a detachment complement that was half or less of the current staffing levels. In one detachment when the several Constables sat around the one or two computers in the main office at shift change, they could smell the toilets from the cell-block. Their police cruisers were in poor repair and there wasn’t enough staff to properly maintain a duty roster with adequate uniformed coverage. But surprisingly, morale there was high.

There was a similar station that was so old and run down that there was an infestation of rats in the building. Then the rats started disappearing because snakes were eating them. I kid you not. But the bottom-line was, despite the facility failings and poor staffing levels there, again, morale was high. Coincidentally, both of those detachments had strong leaders in command.

Conversely, there was a detachment that had a modern new building, newer cruisers and the staffing level was pretty good for their workload. But the morale there was rock-bottom. Other detachments, had high morale on some uniformed platoons and investigative units, low on others.

3. Leadership.

Almost without fail, the detachments or platoons having low morale – other impacting factors being relatively equal, suffered from the third factor, that being a lack of effective leadership. They had commander that seldom left their office; did not communicate effectively; picked favourites who could do no wrong and unfairly targeted others. They were not leaders in any way, shape or form. It became obvious that leadership was the over-riding factor. It raised morale in poor situations and lowered it in otherwise good conditions. It was abundantly clear to me that the effectiveness of leadership at that time directly impacted employee morale. The good leaders kept morale high and the weak, poor or non-existent leaders dragged it down.

Impacts of Morale

What is the impact of morale on a police service?

“Improving morale is good for business. The Gallup Organization estimates there are 22 million actively disengaged employees costing the American economy up to $350 billion per year in lost productivity, including absence, illness, and other problems that result when workers are unhappy at work. Leaders who keep their employees involved, engaged, and connected are ultimately improving business performance through their people. Employees want to believe their ideas are being heard and want to feel empowered to make decisions and changes in the workplace. Taking time to build relationships with employees through personal interactions is a key step that managers can take to keep morale high.” (Harrison, 2007)

When people think back on their careers, I’m sure most have had times when they felt better about themselves, the job and their organization than during others. Most of us have had peaks and valleys in our careers and personal lives, including weeks, months or even years where we felt so disconnected that we considered changing employers or professions. I was in that position myself – more than once in fact.

When people find themselves in a work-life “valley” so to speak, are they normally working for supervisors that inspire them? Do those leaders offer the confidence and support to be the best that the employees can be? Do they really care what motivates their subordinates as individuals, or what their strengths and weaknesses are? Do they do and say the right things and provide the right mentoring and encouragement for staff members to be successful? Likely not. It’s more probable that they provide little or none of that and in fact in some cases are guilty of deliberately trying to make the lives of some people a living hell.

Do people work their hardest and treat people they interact with professionally when their morale is in the toilet? Is that not the time when they do dumb things, slough off calls and conduct inadequate investigations as opposed to when feeling supported and inspired? It’s simple human nature to be more productive and professional when you go to work feeling good about your yourself and your organization.

In addition to the negative impacts low morale can have on the day-to-day performance and professionalism of police officers, i.e. attitude, public interaction and motivation, severe challenges can arise when leaders aren’t properly engaged and are not providing the best of leadership to those they lead.

If you closely examine any past major scandal in policing in North America, there has almost always been a leadership failing at some point in the chain of events. Somewhere along the timeline a supervisor or manager dropped the ball, either deliberately or because they just weren’t addressing issues and doing what they are paid to do. Those leadership failures could go as high as the Chief/Sheriff (or equivalent).

Not that poor leadership will turn a subordinate police officer into a thug; make them shake-down drug dealers or commit murders, but in the majority of these cases, when wrong-doings become public, officers are heard to say, “I knew something was going on”, or “It doesn’t surprise me knowing those guys.” In such cases, why didn’t some colleague officers report their observations and even more importantly, why didn’t supervisors see it coming and take proper action when allegations of impropriety surfaced? Why didn’t those in the chain of command appropriately act when they saw that some officers seldom left the office and rarely laid a charge, when they also knew certain officers were living well above their means financially? How were some officers allowed to spend 10 hours a shift surfing porn on the Internet without leaving the building? Where were supervisors and managers when the employee’s paperwork didn’t match their expenditures or when officers couldn’t account for their time?

I am not suggesting wilful blindness here, although at times that has been the case. Some of the officers involved in some of the more publicly known scandals, were in fact NCOs (or higher) themselves. We’ve all been guilty of trusting some subordinates more than we should. But most often, when these calamities arise and cause no end of embarrassment for a police service, some supervisors or managers, “leaders” in organizations, had neglected to do something along the path that could’ve mitigated or totally prevented the public shame.

Trust

“Trust” is a critical nexus to organizations ultimately earning and retaining public trust. Jim Burke, Former CEO, Johnson and Johnson said:

“You can’t have success without trust. The word trust embodies almost everything you can strive for that will help you succeed. You tell me any human relationship that works without trust, whether it is a marriage or a friendship or a social interaction; in the long run, the same thing is true about business, especially businesses that deal with the public.” (Constantino, 2011)

Trust impacts policing in a number of ways. The officers and personnel within the department can earn and sustain a level of public trust by their actions, on duty and off. As I have said a million times, there is a high expectation from the public that the police will be the “good guys” and incidents that portray the police in a negative light, deserved or not, totally shake public confidence in the officers as individuals and in police organizations. Unproductive and unprofessional police officers undoubtedly hurt public trust. The loss of public trust in a police service may not only result in witnesses and victims being reluctant to report crimes, but a relentless 24/7 negative focus of the media on a police organization is only one trust-impacting incident away.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Model Policy on Standards and Conduct states:

“Actions of officers that are inconsistent, incompatible, or in conflict with the values established by this agency negatively affect its reputation and that of its officers. Such actions and inactions thereby detract from the agency’s overall ability to effectively and efficiently protect the public, maintain peace and order, and conduct other essential business. Therefore, it is the policy of this law enforcement agency that officers conduct themselves at all times in a manner that reflects the ethical standards consistent with the rules contained in this policy and otherwise disseminated by this agency.” (IACP)

Public Trust

In 2011, I visited the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service and met with a number of senior officers there. They were in a state of rebuilding and rebranding that force. Following a number of scandals involving police corruption, they faced a tremendous uphill battle in earning public trust. One senior officer told me that the average citizen had the attitude that, “if you call the police they won’t come, and if they do, they’ll be corrupt anyway”. What a sad and difficult situation to recover from.

In a Message from the Director General entitled: “Management of the RCMP Disciplinary Process 2009-2010 Annual Report”, Chief Superintendent Richard Evans said:

“The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and indeed all law enforcement agencies in Canada depend on public trust to do their job well. When citizens start to question the actions of the police and that public trust is shaken, police work becomes immeasurably more difficult. This is readily apparent to the RCMP which works in communities, both large and small, all across Canada. Since local Mounties are well-known within their communities, any questionable police conduct will likely have a direct impact on the reputation of the local detachment. Law enforcement agencies depend on the willingness of the public to share information and provide assistance; neither will be forthcoming when citizens do not trust the police. Earning public trust may take years while its loss can take seconds. It is the foundation upon which rests the RCMP’s ability to protect Canadians and to enforce the law.” (RCMP website, undated)

That statement truly applies to all police departments across the world.

During a panel discussion at the 2012 International Conference for Police and Law Enforcement Executives in Seattle, Washington, in which I participated, Chief A.C. Roper of the Birmingham, Alabama Police Department said: “Community trust can be fragile. It is difficult to build and difficult to maintain. It requires a constant effort”.

The public deserves that effort.

Leadership and Trust

The issue of internal trust also impacts the ability of leaders to effectively lead and to ensure morale and thus professionalism and productivity remain high. That trust doesn’t come because a leader has rank or positional power, it has to be earned.

Trust in a leader isn’t earned overnight. For the most part, people don’t develop the trust of their leaders in crisis situations, but through their day-to-day interaction. Even when the level of trust is high, it can be impeded at the blink of an eye if leaders let their people down when things go bad, particularly if they try to pass the blame or fail to step up to the plate at the right time and in the proper way.

It’s not human nature to develop the level of trust police leaders require without a personal connection of some degree with the people they lead. Those leaders that sit in their offices, are seldom seen outside the building, rarely seen in the media, and don’t so much as say good morning to staff members in the hallways, are destined for failure.

How many times have police officers heard or said the words, “We never see him (or her)” in regards to a police leader. “He has never darkened the door of our office”. If the people don’t know the leader except for the photo on the police agency’s website or in its Annual Report, how are they ever going to develop any level of trust in him or her?

On the other hand, those leaders that take the time to casually chat with people, get to know them as much as possible by name and role, actually interact with them at public events or even in operational situations, will help develop that necessary connection.

In its 2012 “Professionalism in Policing Research Project” paper, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) stated:

“A number of questions suggest that police officers do not believe that the organization or its senior managers take an interest in their concerns. Lack of support is related to reduced trust and lower commitment to the organization’s success. To enhance support, police agencies need to communicate their concern for employees’ well-being, solicit employees’ input on decisions affecting them and provide support for employees’ goals.” (Maguire/Dyke, 2012)

The same principle holds true in terms of police leadership and the trust in him or her by the community. Open, transparent communication with media, public and governing entities; meeting with them as appropriate and being front and centre in good times and in bad, is a big part of a Chief’s role. Then ensuring a similar and consistent leadership culture throughout the organization is a must.

If the leader isn’t seen publicly except to shake hands, hand out awards and kiss babies on occasion, and isn’t regularly heard speaking in response to various policing and public safety issues, when the chips are down the public isn’t likely to say “Hey, that’s our Chief. We’re going to be okay.”

As well, the quality of investigations and response times isn’t just the responsibility of the officers on the road. All supervisors have an important role to ensure quality service is delivered and to guarantee that the members are properly resourced, trained, equipped, supported and led to be successful in doing what they do. The leaders cannot simply tell governing authorities and the public that it’s “Not my fault”, but the fault of their employees. The buck should always stop at the top.

Then once earned, trust has to be retained, for the leader to succeed. Day after day, year after year, the concerted effort on the part of the leader has to be there. Asa result, when the big and challenging event occurs, those being led will walk through broken glass to get the job done, because the leader that they trust so much will be there with them, will give them direction that they are confident in and if things go bad (and they will), he or she will stand tall, take the blame and support them through it. When things go well (and they most often do), he or she will allow the light of success shine on those being led.

CONCLUSION

In summary, I contend that morale profoundly impacts productivity and professionalism, which then impacts public trust. Public trust greatly influences the success of the police service, which in turn further builds the trust of the public. Key to all of this, is the ability of the leader to build the trust of the employees he or she leads and the community being served, therefore keeping morale and public trust both high. “Leadership” therefore is the lynch-pin to public trust.

We therefore have to develop, select and promote police leaders that truly understand that and are committed to live by that model.

Chris D. Lewis was a police officer for 36 years, retiring as the 13th Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), one of North America’s largest police services.

Including excerpts from Never Stop on a Hill (2016) by Chris D. Lewis and Impacts of Leadership on Professionalism and Public Trust in Policing, (April 23, 2012) Professional Standards in Policing (POL-4001-12W-20293), Georgian College by Chris Lewis.

___________________________

[i] Harrison, T., Change Morale Improve Productivity. InTech. May 2007. Retrieved from http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.cfm?Section=Career_Front1&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=61426

[ii] Constantino, J., How Do You Build Trust. Business Marketing Success. March 2011. Retrieved from http://businessmarketingsuccess.com/2011/03/22/how-do-you-build-trust

[iii] Model Policy on Standards of Conduct. IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center. (undated). Retrieved from http://www.theiacp.org/PoliceServices/ProfessionalAssistance/Ethics/ModelPolicyonStandardsofConduct/tabid/196/Default.aspx

[iv] Message from the Director General, Annual Report Management of the RCMP Disciplinary Process. 2011. Retrieved from http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/adj/ann-09-10/report-rapport-eng.pdf

[v] Maguire, S., Dyke, L., CACP Professionalism in Policing Research Project - Survey Results. June 2012. Retrieved from http://www.cacp.ca/media/library/download/1242/Survey_Results.pdf

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Police corruption arrests: How do we move on from here?

By Chris Lewis • February 7, 2026

Thursday’s announcement of the arrest of seven serving and one retired Toronto police officers for corruption, was a dark moment for policing in Canada and for the communities that trust their police to always do what is honest and right. At times like this it is too easy for us all to lose trust in those in which we should hold the highest level of trust in society, because of the actions of a few. I believe that we must remind ourselves about all that is good in policing in Canada – where training, standards, equipment, professionalism, governance and competence are second to none in the world. I view this as both bad news and good news stories. The bad news is that seven officers allegedly broke their oaths and committed heinous crimes. Startling, sad and completely unacceptable for the profession and more importantly for the public they were sworn to serve. The “good” news (although I struggle with the word) is that the system worked. Suspicions arose about a certain Toronto Police (TPS) officer’s potential involvement in a crime in York Region. Police there notified the Chief of the TPS, and they quickly agreed that York Regional Police (YRP) would lead the investigation, and TPS would remain in a support role by providing Professional Standards investigators and other assistance as required. I assume that would mean investigative support personnel and access to internal information about the TPS officers in question, like their schedules; what police cars they were driving; assignments and personnel file information, at minimum. By design, the TPS Chief did not have decision-making authority in the investigation. None of that raises any red flags for me. This was a large and complex investigation that eventually involved 400 officers and would require highly experienced investigators and specialty personnel. YRP and TPS have all of that and more. The leaders that addressed the media spoke competently and professionally, leaving no doubt that they would leave no stone unturned. Evidence was gathered and arrests of officers and others were made. The public was then appropriately advised of as many details as we have ever seen released in a media conference when charges were before the courts and an investigation ongoing. TPS Chief Demkiw announced he was seeking to suspend at least some of the officers without pay. That is something that has only recently became acceptable under Ontario’s policing regulations and must be used judiciously. Of course, social media “experts” and anti-police pundits took over from there. Please allow me to offer answers to some of the most consistent queries: Why wasn’t an independent oversight body like the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) brought on to investigate? Police shouldn’t investigate police! It’s not the legislated mandate of the SIU to conduct criminal investigations into police except in specific circumstances around police use of force or sexual assault. Nor is it the mandate of Ontario’s Inspectorate of Policing. These governing bodies do not possess the expertise or resources to conduct massive criminal investigations into officers and organized crime groups. Only large police services have the critical mass and knowledge to manage such difficult operations. An option for Chief Demkiw was to let his Professional Standards personnel be the liaison for TPS information and potential Police Act charges against TPS personnel that might emerge but leave the investigative support/assistance piece to another large outside service. That would’ve helped suppress any concern around TPS investigating their own. But police services often conduct criminal investigations into their own people with regularity in Ontario, unless they involve senior officers. There’s no hard and fast rule or Ministry guidelines on the issue to my knowledge. The Toronto Chief should step down. This happened under his watch. I cannot speak to his day-to-day job performance, but in my view, Chief Demkiw did not handle this case wrongly. The alleged illegal actions of 0.12% of his police personnel do not justify his removal. If he knew and didn’t take action that would be different but there is no suggestion of him doing anything but throwing his full support behind the YRP investigation. Again, perhaps he should’ve kept TPS out of it as much as possible, but that was a judgement call made in the early stages of an investigation that grew very large over time. All cops are corrupt. Why didn’t other officers stop them? What? This was seven officers in a police service of almost 6000 TPS officers and out of over 70,000 police officers in Canada. It is awful, without a doubt and concerning to say the least, but this does not mean there is a wave of police corruption and ties to organized crime across the nation. As this criminality unfolded and as we speak, thousands of officers are on the streets of Canada, saving lives and risking their own; patrolling communities; preventing crime and victimization; responding to life and death situations; arresting evil criminals and more. They do that professionally, bravely and honestly, or they are held to account under various laws and disciplinary processes. They are governed and regulated more than any other profession in Canada. Yes, some cops (even one is too many) out of those 70,000, commit crimes in their careers, which is unacceptable. Some of that occurs while they are on duty, some not. It is disappointing when it happens, but with rare exception police leaders will not accept it and will deal with it expeditiously through due process. In cases where a police supervisor or executive doesn’t take proper action, they will be held to account as well. As a rule, no one hates dirty cops more than honest cops. They hurt the profession as a whole across the continent. Canadian officers take a reputational hit regardless of where the wrongdoing occurs in North America. We don’t know the details yet of what these accused officers were doing or how much of it they were doing on the job, versus off duty. IF evidence comes to light in the ongoing investigation that colleague officers knew or participated in any way in the criminality, they will be in trouble as well. Let’s not jump to conclusions that other officers “must have known” and let the investigation run its course. Why do officers not have more oversight on the use of police databases? Police officers and a number of civilian colleagues have access to the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) database that holds all licenced driver and vehicle registration information in Ontario. Most police cars have computers in them that can access that information, which includes driver’s and owners’ addresses. It is accessed non-stop, 24/7, as a regular part of core police business. Other databases involving outstanding warrants and criminal history, as well as occurrence records are similarly accessed. Government employees that work at MTO or in some other Ministries have like access to people’s names and addresses. That is reality in all 10 provinces. We cannot limit legitimate government employee access to vital systems on the off chance they may be inappropriately used. That includes those that we entrust to carry guns and make life and death decisions. When such databases are misused in some way, proper action must be taken promptly, as it was in this case, as opposed to hamstringing the operability of several hundred thousand honest employees across Canada. Canadian police officers are internationally highly-regarded, but they are human, have frailties and will honestly err on occasion while truly trying to do their best. That can be dealt with and repaired when it occurs. But when officers commit acts of malice, they will be appropriately held accountable and dealt with through due process. That is the bedrock of Canadian policing. Public trust in police is paramount to effective policing, and largely we enjoy that in our country. We cannot let this dark day define what policing actually is in Toronto or anywhere in Canada. Canadians should move forward with confidence that the system did work in this case. Those that violated our trust are before the courts. The vast, vast majority of officers that are still out there bravely doing what they do so well, will never let us down. Please give them a chance.

U.S. ICE/Border Patrol: Where is the true leadership?

By Chris Lewis • January 26, 2026

It’s certainly not Bovino, Noem and higher. Over the past several months the U.S. President’s seemingly valid promise to close the southern border and to rid the U.S. of illegal aliens who are “killers, rapists, drug dealers and individuals from mental institutions” has evolved into something less defendable. Like him or not, it was tough to argue with the public safety need to deport dangerous criminals back to whence they came. I wish Canada would do the same, but in a more strategic way. Chasing undocumented women through Home Depot and dragging U.S. citizens out of vehicles on Main Street – while clad in mostly civilian attire, screaming profanities and with covered faces, has not worked well for ICE and CBP, in terms of public perception and community trust. Enforcing these laws is not easy for those agencies, even when acting within their legislative framework and with probable cause. Angry crowds; individuals with far-left anti-government convictions who just want to hijack the agenda and commit violent acts; and the doxing of federal agents to cause threats to them and their families, cause untold stress on and danger to law enforcement. None of that is justified and is most often a crime. The public needs to stay out of these operations. If someone interferes with the agents and/or their lawful operations, they should expect to be arrested. Placing cameras in officers faces or trying to obstruct them as they conduct an activity, does nothing but raise the temperature of the operation and will end with the placement of handcuffs. Videoing from afar is different, but some take it to the next level. If they threaten anyone with a weapon of any kind, they should anticipate being shot and perhaps killed. That is reality. But at the same time, law enforcement cannot exist without public trust. If the various Department of Homeland Security (DHS) entities that are conducting these operations always acted as per the original strategy and didn’t often violate the rights of people based on the look or colour of so-called “suspects”, as professionally as possible, there would likely not be such an inflammation of the normal American citizen psyche. After all, Trump was elected in part based on his stated “criminal illegal alien” agenda. However, the way his goal was operationalized and the questionable tactics often publicly witnessed has denigrated the trust of many citizens on both sides of the political spectrum. The most recent loss of life occurred in Minneapolis Minnesota on Saturday January 24th. I won’t pass final judgement on the actions of the agents involved in the shooting death of the U.S. citizen there before the results of a professional and unbiased investigation are released. I was obviously not on the ground with those officers to see and hear all they did from their various positions and angles. I have watched all the videos that have been posted, however, and I will say this: “At this point, it does not look good.” When I was a police commander and received information from the field of a critical incident, the initial information was seldom accurate. In fact, over the hours to follow it changed regularly. I would not make any proactive statement to the media, but if asked, I would simply say that we had the proper resources on the ground and I would await verified information, etc. If it was an officer involved shooting or chase that involved injuries or death, I would follow the protocol of the mandatory independent investigation, and would generally say: “It’s undoubtedly a tragic situation, and my thoughts are with the involved officers, citizens and their families, but it is an ongoing investigation and I cannot provide any more information than that.” But what is the DHS leadership saying? What are elected officials saying? Some have already defended the agents and others – like the Governor, are damning them. Within hours of the shooting CBP Commander Greg Bovino publicly defended the actions of the officers, saying that the deceased man had been armed and that the suspect intended to “do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” Yes, he was armed, according to local police, but lawfully licensed to do so according to the 2nd Amendment that many Americans treasure. Regardless, it is not clear in any video so far that the man held anything but a camera in his hand when brought to the ground, and Bovino himself could not bring any clarity to his early statement when asked by the press on Sunday morning. He simply fell back to letting the investigation run its course. Sorry Greg, you’re a day late and a dollar short on that one. Then DHS Secretary Kristi Noem told the media, “This looks like a situation where an individual arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement.” She acts like the deceased man brandished a gun and threatened the officers. Trump administration officials then called the dead man a “would-be assassin.” If that was the case, being shot and killed should have been the expectation, but are we seeing that? Not so far. How does any of that banter from so-called leaders lend itself to public confidence for an independent investigation that they can trust? True ‘leadership’ involves doing what is right for the people you serve first and foremost, closely followed by the people you lead. These comments do not exhibit leadership at all. ICE and CBP normally operate in enforcement environments at or near (within a hundred miles of) international border points. They absolutely make dangerous arrests at times. But are they selected and trained to operate within the urban environments we are currently witnessing? Perhaps to a degree, but DHS has hired thousands of agents this past year who have received abbreviated training. That’s never a good thing from organizational and officer risk perspectives. I’m not saying normal ICE/CBP agents aren’t as trained and capable as local and state police officers. I’ve known many and they were wonderful officers, but their basic training cannot be the same. Their operating environments may overlap but are generally different. Similarly, most local cops aren’t trained in border enforcement and immigration laws and practices either. In the Minneapolis situation, local police are not supporting the operational activities of the federal agents. The Chief of Police and Mayor are both publicly opposed. Support by local police should be a given – not for random stops of people that look Hispanic and yelling demands for proof of citizenship, but during valid probable cause arrests and the execution of warrants. To stand and watch DHS officers who are unprofessionally targeting innocent U.S. citizens – including off duty local police officers of colour, comes with a loss of public trust as well as ethical and civil liability conflicts. However, I do believe it is the duty of local police to protect DHS agents who are being attacked in the street. DHS should put an immediate halt on any operational activities outside of international border points and pull back from municipalities. Municipal and state police leaders across the country must put their heads together with DHS officials and sort out who does what and how, very quickly. The need to clarify the roles, responsibilities and rules of engagement for their agencies and their people on the street. By being intelligence-led; conducting thorough investigations; working cooperatively and professionally through their varying legislative authorities as they search for and arrest undocumented criminals, they may be able to restore some level of public trust. This cannot continue as is. CBP’s Greg Bovino gave a passionate speech on Sunday afternoon where he spoke of “choices” made by protestors, politicians and the media. It was apparent that he was passing blame on everyone but the DHS in this debacle. Undoubtedly there have been poor choices by many but come on, man. You, the DHS Secretary and your ICE counterpart need to make the “choice” to pause, reflect, regroup and strategize for the good of the people you serve, the American people. Then your President needs to make the right choice and support the change.

Law Enforcement Facial Coverings: WHY?

By Chris Lewis • January 14, 2026

I’ve been watching the enhanced and prominent activity of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers over the past several months with interest. Under President Donald Trump’s second Administration, as promised he has directed ICE to arrest and remove dangerous criminal illegal aliens, and specifically pointed out murderers, rapists, etc. That sensible goal has resulted in some bad people being taken off the streets as well as roundups of people that seem to be hardly dangerous criminals, albeit technically “illegal aliens.” Regardless, the issue I want to speak to is the ongoing controversy over ICE officers – some clad in civilian attire for the most part and others wearing ICE uniforms, but all covering their faces in some fashion. My comments are not “anti-ICE.” I am 100% behind law enforcement but I’m also always honest when I see what I believe is a wrong. I worked with and still maintain friendships with people that are now retired U.S. border and immigration officers. They were the best of the best and I’m sure most current officers are nothing but well intended. This is simply about my concerns around the covering of officer’s faces. I simply don’t get it. This is not Seal Team Six deploying on a dirt road to nowhere in Pakistan, to kill Osama Bin Laden. This law enforcement operating on Main Street USA, in commercial parking lots and sidewalks. These are law enforcement officers not an anti-terrorist unit. If ICE officers need to hide their faces for some legitimate operational reason like they are engaged in an undercover operation somewhere, they should stay out of the public and media spotlight. Members of the public that support the covering of ICE officer’s faces, speak of the dangerous work they do and threats of retaliation by relatives and extremists. ICE officials defend the practice and the Acting Director of ICE stated in a July 2025 CBS interview: “I’m not a proponent masks. however, if that's a tool that the men and women of ICE need to keep themselves and their family safe, then I'll allow it.” [1] If that’s his rationale, I hope they don’t tell him they need heat-seeking missiles with nuclear warheads too. Yes, their job comes with dangers and risk. They’re law enforcement officers not ice cream truck drivers. If the reason is to mask their identity from potential bad guys (which I simply don’t buy), there are also public accountability concerns, for the good guys. For example, identifying an officer that is alleged to have used excessive force, or has even been unprofessional, is important for the public from a process perspective. In terms of the whole pile of good guys ICE also ends up dealing with, I’m concerned for the safety of ICE when they run up to a vehicle, aggressively screaming commands through their facial coverings, sometimes with guns drawn. If I was a wanted criminal, I would likely know my goose was cooked and have to make a decision in terms of my response. That would be on me. But if I was a legally armed U.S. citizen who knew they had no warrants and had never so much as received a parking ticket, I might respond with some aggressive action of my own if not 100% sure that I was dealing with law enforcement and not some half uniformed/half civilian clothed maniac with a gun. That might include initiating a gunfight or at the very least stepping on the accelerator. That’s a frightening scenario for the lawful public and should be for the ICE officers. Uniformed police officers in Canada for the most part wear either name tags, their badge numbers or both on their uniforms. In Ontario, it’s the law. Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers wear name tags when they enforce our borders. So do many, many local and state police officers across the U.S. They also do not hide their faces except in extremely rare circumstances. Do all of these officers not make arrests of gang members; illegal aliens; drug smugglers; and dangerous criminals? Do they hide their faces and their names out of a fear of retribution? Do they testify behind a curtain and using a pseudonym during subsequent public trials? Absolutely not. The same rules apply to our police Public Order Unit (POU) officers that unfortunately have seen more violent protest operations in the past 20 years than they did in the 100 years prior. In Toronto, it has become a full-time job. In addition to a lot of good people that are just exercising their right to peaceful protest, at times POU officers deal with some very radical extremists who want to achieve absolutely nothing but cause mayhem, destroy property and if possible, fight with police. As a uniformed police officer, tactical team member and investigator – as did many colleagues, I arrested murderers, outlaw motorcycle gang members and local criminals. I interrogated murderers and rapists for hours. I testified against all these people in court. In small town Ontario, every community member knew where my family and I lived. People I had arrested (and even their parents) knocked on the door of my home to further their arguments. I curled with a local man I’d locked up a week before and against several I’d arrested or charged. I was in and out of provincial jails and federal penitentiaries on investigations and prisoner escorts. In London in the 1980s, my wife and I dined in a lovely restaurant, just two tables away from a notorious biker I’d dealt with on a raid and at biker check-points. We simply nodded at each other and ate our meals. Many of the folks I dealt with were simply not nice people. But I was doing police work! If it was all peace, love, flowers and unicorns, everyone would want to do it. Mind you through all those years, even when I had to use force to arrest some of these individuals or take them into custody at gun point, I treated them like humans. I didn’t disrespect them; didn’t use excessive force; was professional and spoke to them like they were human beings. I truly think that can make a significant difference. In fact, some very bad people I met along the way told me that it did. Some of the publicized ICE interactions with the public have been far from professional. I know their job is difficult and at times they are dealing with complete idiots, but cooler heads should most often prevail. The leaders of ICE should ensure “Professional Public Interaction” is strongly emphasized in ICE officer training and placed front and center in their rules of engagement, then ban facial coverings during public operations. Take that decision out of the hands of the frontline ICE officers that are bravely out doing their jobs. The officers will be safer and so will the law-abiding people in the community. [1] CBS News, CBS News presses ICE head on why agents can continue using masks, YouTube, July 18, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOOGyLuRkgU