New Paragraph

Law Enforcement Facial Coverings: WHY?
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



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.