How Bad Cops Make All Cops Bad
A Greater Toronto Area Case Study
If you see something, say something. Snitches get stitches.
One is a phrase attributed to law enforcement, the other, criminals. But how different really is police code from organized crime code?
The blue code—also known as the blue wall of silence—is an informal rule among police officers to protect each other from punishment and scrutiny. Police sometimes characterize it as shielding each other from being “attacked” and it still appears to be alive and thriving in many police departments. Police that operate in this way protect police officers first, and victims of crimes second. The blue code manifests as officers not “ratting” on each other, actively covering up or destroying evidence of wrongdoing, and punishing officers who don’t adhere to the code.
Saying the blue code protects all police officers is incorrect, it specifically protects unethical police officers at the cost of everyone else. As Waterloo police officer whistleblower Angie Rivers puts it:
“Only in policing is it worse to expose corruption than be corrupt.”
Here I will detail some of the methods used by Canadian police officers (mainly from the Greater Toronto Area) who adhere to and enforce the blue code.
Method 1: Do not cooperate with internal investigations
Over 18 years in Canada (2000–2018) there were 461 fatal encounters with the police, resulting in 18 officers charged. Two were convicted, one of which was appealed recently resulting in a new trial. The other convicted officer’s appeal was rejected likely due to video evidence of the encounter.
This extraordinarily low conviction rate could be argued to be evidence of police officers using force only when justified or it could be seen to support the theory that police will not give evidence against other officers, and therefore video evidence is the only way to get a conviction.
James Lowry suggests the latter based on his experience. He served as a police officer for 33 years and was also tasked in investigating police corruption. Lowry reported this was difficult due to police officers being reluctant to provide evidence that could get other officers in trouble:
“It is the idea that you don’t want to place a fellow officer not only in harm’s way, but in harm’s way from an investigation […] So that’s what I ran into a significant amount of time as an internal investigator. People not wanting to talk, people hesitant to talk, people not disclosing things.”
Ex-president of the Toronto police union Craig Bromell—who has a history of misconduct allegations against him—provides additional support that this culture exists in the police force:
“If there is a wall of silence protecting each other, being a team, and stick together: I’m all for it.”
Bromell has admitted that he actively enforced the blue code in a post he wrote in his blog the Copfather (yes it’s really called that):
“I come from a time when we all stuck together. I demanded it […] We are all BLUE. If one is attacked we are all attacked. We will all fight back […] Police should have that ‘Wolf pack mentality’ […] All we have is each other and we demand respect.”
Not only that, in Canada the police officers that are the subject of probes aren’t required to give interviews to internal investigators. The Police Services Act states that police officers must cooperate with investigations of police misconduct. However, this only applies for witness officers, not officers that are the subject of a probe. Subject officers in the GTA police rarely fully cooperate with internal investigations. In 2010, only 31.7% of the subject officers in investigations agreed to an interview and turned over their notes. In 2011, it was not much better with only 38.2% subject officers cooperating with investigations.
“They are public servants who interact with the public on a daily basis and are often required to use various degrees of force. And if that results in a serious injury or death then they ought to be required to give their account of what they say happened,” — ex-SIU director Howard Morton
Toronto Police Association’s [now ex-]president Mike McCormack— who also has a history of misconduct charges against him — disagrees, arguing that police powers should not make a difference in law.
Method 2: Cover up wrongdoing
The next level above being silent or omitting information is actively covering up wrongdoing. However, cases where there is strong evidence of a police cover-up are rare. Evidence of this kind is difficult to collect since it often comes down to witness testimonies of other police officers (see Method 1) or indirect evidence of what occured. Even so, a CBC News investigation found over 50 cases in Canada during a five year period where judges concluded that police officers had given either false or misleading testimony. Remember, these were only the cases that the judge had enough evidence to make such a conclusion. People lie to hide something. What are these police officers trying to hide?
Examples:
- In 2020, Toronto Constable Heather McWilliam accused fellow officers in her division of sexual harassment: “We had just her from the workplace as our witness and they [the Toronto Police Service] had 30-some-odd witnesses — every single one of them contradicting her”. Yet the tribunal deemed McWilliam more credible than many of the witnesses, concluding that the alleged sexual harassment did take place. This suggests that those ~30 officers lied to cover up their own and fellow officers’ wrongdoing. See a summary of her allegations here.
- In 2012, a GTA police officer interrogated a suspect, but strangely had the suspect’s back to the camera. The judge presiding over the case concluded it was because the police officers had assaulted him and were trying to cover up their actions by not showing his bloody shirt and injured face.
- In 2016, two GTA off-duty police officer brothers (Michael and Christian Theriault) allege they saw Dafonte Miller trying to break into their vehicle. They chased Miller down and beat him. Miller escaped and ran to a nearby house asking for help. The brothers pursued him and were witnessed stabbing him with a metal pole (he lost sight in one eye from the attack). After the assault the Theriault brothers alleged that they were the victims, even though they were unharmed and eyewitness testimonies contradicted their stories. Despite this, Miller was charged with theft under $5,000, two counts of assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon (a pole) and possession of marijuana. All these charges were later dropped and one of the brothers was convicted of assault. The SIU is supposed to be informed of any serious incident involving officers, but was not. Ex-Directors of the SIU have said this is a pattern of behaviour, not an isolated incident. Most of the officers involved in the decision to not inform the SIU have since retired meaning they can’t be held responsible under the Police Services Act.
Method 3: Punish and intimidate accusers
Another tactic is to actively enforce the blue wall of silence by punishing and silencing people who make accusations against police or who advocate for police accountability.
This method seems to be routinely used within the police force when officers try to report misconduct. Whistleblowers are retaliated against by charging them with misconduct, diminishing their responsibilities/position, and forcing them to sign NDAs. This process intimidates people into not speaking out.
Examples:
- There is currently an ongoing investigation into Durham’s police chief and senior administrations. Preliminary findings report that “senior administration allowed, tolerated, encouraged, participated in, and/or was wilfully blind to workplace harassment of all kinds, intimidation of subordinates, retaliatory discipline, and potential alleged criminal conduct and/or misconduct under the [Police Services Act].”
- A Waterloo police constable named Kelly Donovan reported to the Police Services Board abuses of power she witnessed within internal investigations. She alleged in 2017 that investigators looking into police misconduct would choose whether or not to charge officers based on favouritism. Donovan has alleged that once she reported this behavior they investigated her for misconduct as reprisal and was taken out of her job.
- Paul Manning—an undercover Hamilton police officer—alleged in 2016 that a high-ranking police colleague divulged his identity to a Hamilton crime family and asked them to scare him off. At the time, Manning reported he was close to exposing the officer’s criminal activity. He also had a slew of other serious allegations including GTA police officers being involved in organized crime and selling guns to gang-members. He also alleges police falsely arrested him as retaliation for him suing them.
- Toronto Sgt. Jim Cassells alleged in 2006 that police covered up, refused to investigate and buried cases involving alleged police brutality, public complaints, and internal corruption. Due to him publicly coming out with these accusations the police charged him with discreditable conduct and breach of confidence. He ended up retiring soon after because “they relegated my job to no job at all”.
- Sexual harassment and assault victims within the police force in recent years have reported retaliation in the form of charges, demotion, suspension, docked pay, and their responsibilities greatly reduced. There were so many of these cases, with so many concerning details, I dedicated a separate article to just these types of cases.
Method 4: Police investigating police
Most police watchdogs in Canada are former police officers (111 out of 167), and some provinces don’t even have independent units to investigate police misconduct. Additionally, many of these agencies don’t have the power to lay charges themselves, leaving it up to the Crown to decide. They also have limited jurisdiction.
In Ontario, watchdogs can only investigate incidents where there is a serious injury (i.e., requires hospitalization), allegations of sexual assault, or someone has died. So if someone gets beat up by a cop and only ends up with bruising, then it is outside the watchdog’s jurisdiction. Police misconduct tribunals are for determining what punishments officers receive for misconduct; their judges, investigators, and prosecutors are fellow officers. Of the 350 serious misconduct tribunals that took place in the GTA from 2011–2015; 20% of these cases had criminal convictions and nearly 50 officers had been disciplined more than once, yet an overwhelming 98% were allowed back to work. Additionally, if an officer is disciplined, they can appeal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission who tends to soften their punishments.
One example of serious misconduct was an officer who took a homeless indigenous man 4 km outside the city, wrote him a ticket for loitering, and left him there beside a road in 0°C at dusk. He later joked with colleagues afterwards about doing this. He kept his job.
Method 5: Reduce monetary consequences
The Toronto police union president (McCormack) stated the union would not pay the legal fees for a detective who accused a coworker of sexual harassment. According to McCormack, the union typically only covers fees associated with internal discipline, professional misconduct charges, and some criminal matters, but not typically fees associated with Human Rights Tribunals. This means that the union ends up paying a lot of legal fees for officers charged with misconduct/crimes, but not for being a victim of such behaviour. This allows unethical officers to have little (if any) monetary repercussions from lengthy legal battles, whereas victim officers often have to foot the bill themselves.
It was found that between 1998 and 2005, over $30 million dollars was spent settling lawsuits against the Toronto police force. Furthermore, Ontario is the only province where an officer is suspended with pay to await trial, which can take years. In 2016, CBC reported there were 50 officers suspended with pay, meaning that the force would be shelling out around 4.5 million on paying those officers for that year alone.
Method 6: Influence and intimidate politicians
Police unions are in a unique position where although they are representatives of the police officers, they often have more leniency about engaging in political activities. Some of them use their power and money to directly advocate for or against candidates based on whether their platform is “police-friendly”, which generally includes being for less civilian oversight of police.
For instance, in 2000, the Toronto police union started a telemarketing fundraising campaign to unseat police-unfriendly politicians. The campaign eventually was forced to stop due to the large backlash it received and the Toronto police chief threatening to lay charges against the six union executives. The Toronto police union has also endorsed many political candidates, such as John Tory, and put out full lists of city councillors they deemed police-friendly. They also had a habit of advertising these endorsements in newspapers during elections. However, in 2004 this came to a halt after it was deemed illegal according to the Police Services Act.
There have been allegations that police board members were being surveilled by police: “people have told me they believe they were being followed or their homes were being watched”. The police chief at the time essentially admitted to this practice by saying in response “even before that decision (to start a criminal investigation) is made, sometimes there needs to be (another) investigation”. John Tory in 2016 confirmed in an interview that Toronto politicians have been afraid of Toronto Police in past.
Even today, the Toronto police union still engages in intense lobbying. In 2018, they paid for advertisements with the faces of politicians and Toronto police they disagreed with, and if you look at the union’s twitter you can find many instances of them publicly criticizing John Tory’s leadership over the police budget.
“It is a throwback to the old days of police union bosses trying to bully people.” — John Tory
In 2020, Toronto city councillors Josh Matlow and Kristyn Wong-Tam half-joked about needing to wear a bulletproof vest after bringing forth a motion to reduce funding to the police and to re-evaluate how they function.
“There’s this sense that you don’t go there or else it’ll just be a big controversy with big political pushback.” — Josh Matlow
Method 7: If all else fails, let them keep their job
If somehow all of the above did not stop an officer from being charged and convicted of misconduct or a crime, that does not necessarily mean they will lose their job. A CityNews investigation found that from 2013 to 2017, 59 police officers in the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area were convicted of serious crimes and only 2 were fired and 4 resigned. The convictions included impaired driving, fraud, domestic violence, child porn (this individual resigned), and assault. One firing occurred due to video evidence of the officer assaulting a drunk handcuffed suspect. The other fired officer stole ketamine during a drug bust and then stopped his car in a moving lane of traffic after ingesting it. It turns out the price for beating your partner in the police is 15 to 17 days’ work. Toronto police chief Mark Saunders explained that the police are stressed therefore we should give them a break.
“We know that this is an industry that deals with a lot of stress and sometimes that stress can turn into a lot of unlawful behaviour. So you have to take things into consideration as to what the cause is of the behaviour that may be criminal in nature and still try to strike a balance of being fair, but at the same time holding public trust at the forefront.”
If a person acts out violently or breaks the law when “stressed” then they should not be the ones given the power and weapons to enforce it.
“This is someone who is responsible for carrying a gun, for the powers of arrest, and all the things that come with being a police officer,”
“The officer is out on the beat, they get called for a domestic violence call. They are now taking the statement of a complainant.They have just been convicted themselves of domestic assault. Where is the credibility of managing the situation? And where is the trust?”
“And what happens if and when that officer is testifying on the stand?” —Julian Falconer (lawyer)
Many police departments have adopted the motto: “To Serve and Protect”. The implication is that they serve and protect the city’s citizens. But the reality is that they protect and serve their bad apples first, and citizens second. This is not justice, this is a problem for everyone:
- If you are a law-abiding tax-paying citizen, your money is going to fund their ~$90,000 salaries, even when they are suspended.
- If you are a victim of a crime, the cops investigating may have a similar criminal background to the perpetrator. How can you trust them?
- And god forbid you are the victim or whistleblower of a police officer; in all likelihood no justice will be served and they will try to intimidate you into silence.
They wield control over both our laws and politicians, and we pay for them out of pocket, yet our city councillors don’t even have access to what they spend our money on. As long as we keep letting the police police the police, they will continue operating the same as a criminal organization: where loyalty and protecting the bad guys is a requirement of the job and breaking that code has serious consequences.
