posted June 1, 2004

Correspondence with the Ontario Attorney General about handling complaints about the police

May, 2004: We sent the newsletter with the story of "Mary, Joe and the baby" to the office of the Hon. Michael Bryant, Attorney General of Ontario. He sent back an invitation for input on how to improve the police complaints system (To civilianoversight@jus.gov.on.ca

An invitation from Michael Bryant, Attorney General:

April 7, 2004

Ms.Jane Price, President, Friends of Dufferin Grove Park

Dear Ms.Price,

I am writing today to inform you that I have been asked by Premier Dalton MGuinty to review the province's system of public complaints about police conduct, one of the most important aspects of civilian oversight of police.

As you know, the McGuinty government is working to deliver real, positive change in the priority areas that matter most to Ontarians. That's why we're working with people across the province to build strong, safe communities that work. Our communities rely on excellent police work. And our police depend on the confidence and cooperation of the public. So a strong civilian oversight system that is fair and equitable to both the public and trhe police is enormously important to our government and the people we serve. While I have the utmost faith in the integrity and professionalism of our province's police services, complaints against individual officers do arise. How those complaints are considered and resolved is critical to sustaining or strengthening the bond between police and citizens -- and public safety is only as strong as that bond.

We plan on engaging people in a review of civilian oversight during the late spring or early summer. Once we have received the public's and stakeholders' advice, the government will take the necessary steps to meet its commitment to implement a stronger police complaints system.

I am interested in knowing which groups and individuals you think we should consult with. Please share this letter with anyone you believe would be interested. If you have ideas on issues you believe need to be canvassed, I would also be interested in hearing them at this time.

Please feel free to submit your response to me by email at the following address: civilianoversight@jus.gov.on.ca

Michael Bryant Attorney General

cc.The Honourable Monte Kwinter, Minister of Community Safety & Correctional Services.

Our letter to Michael Bryant in Response

Friends of Dufferin Grove Park c/o 242 Havelock St. Toronto, Ontario M6H 3B9

The Honourable Michael Bryant Attorney General Minister Responsible for Native Affairs Minister Responsible for Democratic Renewal 720 Bay Street 11th floor Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

Dear Mr. Bryant,

Thank you for your invitation to offer our suggestions about key issues we feel need to be addressed in your upcoming review of how public complaints against the police are handled. Over the past several years many people in our neighbourhood have been deeply troubled by some things the police have done and failed to do in Dufferin Grove Park and the surrounding neighbourhood. We have included four experiences (as examples) in the appendix to this letter. We are very troubled by the lack of responsiveness our community has met with in the face of our complaints. As a separate appendix, we have listed a number of key questions and issues which have arisen out of our experiences. We hope that these may be helpful to consider as you plan your review.

In light of our experiences, many of us who live in the neighbourhood and use Dufferin Grove Park are troubled by the fact that, in instances where we have come forward and made statements in good faith to police and police supervisors, our word has been given no credence. Even more disturbing is the existing situation in our area that any citizen, including those of some standing in the neighbourhood, who stop to observe police behaviour, feel vulnerable to a charge of obstructing a police officer. The situation is so acute that at this point, we are seeking support and advice from a criminal lawyer.

We agree with you that a responsive, thoughtful response to people's complaints to certain actions or inaction by the police is a fundamental and essential cornerstone of the public's responsibility and ability to ensure that police use the significant power granted to them in a constructive way. To us, a constructive way is one which responds to the priorities and actual difficulties that people want to see addressed in their own neighborhood. Surely, we would observe that this is what the Metro Police Force's own motto of "to serve and protect…. Serving people in their communities" was intended to mean.

Our community wants to make it clear that the right kind of service from public servants is good communication and sensible actions, not silence or dismissal.

Should you wish to read about any of these incidents in more detail, you might wish to look at our website at www.dufferinpark.ca , click on "police/safety." If you would like to discuss any of these matters further, please feel free to call me at 416-532-5170.

Yours truly,

Belinda Cole Friends of Dufferin Grove Park

This is Appendix 1 to the response letter we wrote to the Attorney General in response to his request for input into the matter of handling complaints about the police.

Appendix 1: some examples

September 2000

Eleven people from various streets in the neighbourhood faxed a joint letter to Superintendent Paul Gottschalk of Fourteen Division, about the September 3 group attack on a young man who was beaten unconscious at our park. The police response to this attack was minimal; in fact, for the first week after the attack, they said they had no record of the occurrence. The following week it was presented as an unimportant incident. The community letter emphasized that the community does not regard any group attack as a minor incident. They asked Supt. Gottschalk to clarify the police position on group violence in our park. Two weeks later, the first person on the list of signatures received a reply from Staff Inspector K.L. Forde of "Complaints Review" who said that the chief of Police does not have to "deal with any complaint made by any member of the public if he… decides that the complainant was not directly affected by the policy, service or conduct that is the subject of the complaint." No reference was made to the multiple signatures in the community letter. The matter was treated as though this was an isolated complaint by one citizen which did not merit a response. Subsequently the group was denied permission to make a deputation to the Police Services Board about this matter.

November 2001

A park user commented on a puzzling gun search by police of the regular basketball players, who are mostly young black men. The police were asked whether there was a particular reason to worry about criminal activities in the park at that time. The answer was very reassuring on that count: there had been no alarming park-related reports. This raised the question of why police came several times and searched the basketball players. During one search, police told the youth that they were responding to community complaints about them being in the park too much. In response, our group wrote to Sup't Paul Gottschalk of Fourteen Division, asking him or a representative to come and speak about such searches. He replied in a very brief letter: "I have reviewed the circumstances referred to in your letter. I am satisfied that the actions taken by 14 Division officers were appropriate and lawful." The request for a meeting was declined.

May 2003

As many park users have observed, Toronto Police officers periodically approach young men of colour at the park and ask to see their i.d. It's called "going fishing" - approaching people out of the blue in case they might be arrestable. Since this is illegal, our group's secretary, on one occasion when this occurred, questioned one of three officers, who had stopped a young black man and asked to see his i.d. The officer told he to "go hug a tree". She wrote a letter about this to the chief of police, and was then asked to come for a taped interview at the police station. The interview resulted in a bound report, with appendices. In defence of the apparently random police questioning of the man, the report cited: 1) statistical increase in car thefts in the police division; 2) the fact that car thieves tend to use cell phones and this young man had been talking on a cell phone; and, 3) that as they observed the man, he changed direction (actually walking back up the sidewalk towards the police). The report also suggested that anyone citizen who stops to observe police questioning could easily be charged with obstructing police, a charge carrying a possible jail sentence of two years less a day. In addition, the document reported as fact what the officers recalled about the event, which contradicted what our group's secretary had seen and reported, and in effect, suggested that she must be a liar or a meddlesome fool, or both.

November 2003

From our November 2003 Dufferin Grove Park newsletter:

Mary (not her real name), a young woman of 17, her 4 month old baby, the baby's dad, Joe, and a lot of their friends, many of whom are from the Caribbean, come to the park often. One evening Mary was walking home from the park to nurse her baby, when two young police officers on bikes stopped her and asked for i.d. Jutta Mason, who was also working at the park that evening, noticed the police, and came over to see what was going on with Mary. One of the officers told Mary that there was a warrant out for her arrest. Mary said that couldn't be. Officer 5404 (she had no name, but a number) said Mary might be lying, and she handcuffed Mary's hands behind her back. Officer 5404 searched Mary's pockets and found a cell phone and two twenty-dollar bills, and asked her why she had so much money, and - when the cell phone rang - why the phone rang so much. Then officer 5404 summoned a cruiser and prepared to take Mary away. Mary was not permitted to call home to let Joe know she was arrested, but a friend who was watching this had called Joe.

Jutta asked the officer if Mary would be allowed to nurse the baby before she was taken away. The officer asked Jutta who she was, and when she said she worked in the park, Officer 5404 said Jutta should move along then, and go about her business. Jutta asked again if Mary could nurse the baby, but then Officer 5404 said she should be quiet or she would be arrested too - for obstructing the police.

The police car and Joe, carrying the baby, arrived at the park about the same time. The baby was crying and Jutta asked the officers again if Mary could just nurse the baby in the police car before she was taken away. The officer driving the car joined with Officer 5404 in warning Jutta again: if she didn't stop talking to them, she would be arrested and her bike would be confiscated. They said Mary could not nurse the baby, that Mary would be taken to Eleven Division, and Joe could take a cab and go to the station separately - that was none of their concern.

Mary asked Joe to hold up the baby so she could kiss it goodbye. But Officer 5404 jerked Mary away by the handcuffs, and put her in the cruiser.

Mary was there only a short time. As soon as she got there, the people at Eleven Division checked her name and realized this had all been a computer error - there was no arrest warrant. Apparently the computer was acting up - this was the fifth such error that evening. Mary was told she was free to go.

Jutta told this story to the Superintendent Kaproski, of Fourteen Division, Officer 5404's boss. He said he'd look into it and call back, but he never did.

This is Appendix 2 to the response letter we wrote to the Attorney General in response to his request for input into the matter of handling complaints about the police.

Appendix 2: Questions and Issues - Review of public complaints about the police

Complaints process

When and why was the complaints process established?

Was the process set up in response to any actual situation(s) or concern(s)?

What was the complaints process set up to achieve? In simple, practical terms, how was this goal to be achieved?

Was the complaints process set up to respond to particular types of complaints about the police?

• Were there any types of complaints that the process was not intended to handle, and if so why not?
• Was the complaints process designed to treat concerns that citizens have about police behaviour in public space in a special or different way than other types of complaints? Why or why not? For example, is there or was there ever any intention to look at citizens' concerns about "community policing" in response to the goals of "community policing".
  • for example, we feel that complaints relating to inappropriate police behaviour in public space, often "community policing" must be dealt with differently than other types of incidents because they reduce the trust built up between different groups in the park, and therefore they reduce the harmony and good order of the park

Was the complaints process envisaged as a solely formal mechanism or was there an effort to allow for the possibility for people to explore informal ways of resolving their concerns about the police?

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
• What, in practice, are the formal and informal avenues available to a person or group of people who wish to complain about the police? For example, can and do people, in practice:
  • talk to the police officers whose behaviour has troubled them? ** invite police officers and supervisors responsible for the park and neighbourhood to visit their neighbourhood/park/area and learn more about what happens there?
  • talk to supervisors about troubling incidents with the option of triggering or not pursuing a formal complaint, according to their degree of satisfaction?
  • in our experience, existing complaints are either ignored or dealt with as formal complaints which offers no possibility of discussion

How much flexibility is there in the process for people, acting either on their own or with other people in their neighbourhood, to put forward ideas for resolving their concerns other than those set out in the process?

• Have the advantages and disadvantages of this type of flexibility been considered?
• Why or why not?

How has the complaints process worked/not worked?

• how and by whom is this success/lack of success determined?
• is the degree of success or lack of success evaluated by the people for whom the complaints process was set up to respond to?
• in a very practical sense, what is different about police behaviour and the way that complaints about the police are handled since this process was established?

What are the costs of the existing complaints process?

• Has a cost comparison been done between formal vs. informal means of handling complaints?

What is commonly understood/presumed to be the context in which the people responsible for responding to public complaints operate?

• For example, what is the rationale behind appointing the people who respond to complaints about the police?
• Has there been any consideration of the problems with the inherent conflict of interest? For example, what are the advantages/limitations that "fact-finders" and decision-makers who respond to complaints about the police take on all the roles of prosecutor, judge and jury?
• Whose interests and which goals are furthered by the choice of decision-makers?
• What degree of independence is needed in order for fact-finders and decision-makers to think and act in a way that will help people to resolve their concerns about the police?
• How much discretion does the decision-maker have with respect to handling any aspect of the complaint? What are the practical, informal or formal checks on the proper use of this discretionary power?
• What, if anything do the people who make decisions about complaints need to know about the following:
  • the neighbourhood/area in which the person/people making the complaint live(s)?
  • previous experiences (both good and bad) that people in the area may have had with the police
  • other specific complaints by individuals or groups of people in the neighbourhood and how these complaints have or have not been resolved
  • whether any pattern has emerged between how people in the neighbourhood view the police and citizens' abilities to strike up a productive relationship so as to further the aims of people who live in the community
  • for example, we have made repeated attempts over the past 13 years to work co-operatively with the police who work in our neighbourhood and park; these efforts have been continually rebuffed. In our view, anyone who fields a complaint about the police has a much better chance of responding to the complaint thoughtfully and sensibly if he or she knows something of this history
• What information is needed to deal with a particular issue and why?
  • For example, how does the decision-maker decide what weight to give to statements by citizens, either observers or people being stopped by police, and the police, particularly when elements of these stories contradict one another?
  • What criteria does a decision-maker use to decide whether or not the person complaining is or is not "directly affected by the policy, service or conduct that is the subject of the complaint" ?
  • What is the decision-maker's obligation to communicate the person/people who have complained?

Observers

What is the role of observers in the (formal or informal) complaints process, as it was initially conceived?

• How are observers viewed, in practice, by both police and decision-makers?
  • In our experience, observers are viewed as a threat to police officers and as unwelcome meddlers with little or no credibility by decision-makers * What, in either formal or informal terms, can be done to encourage citizens to continue to observe police actions or inaction which concerns them?
• How can citizens protect themselves from charges of obstruction? What kind of information or help is available to citizens who wish to keep an eye on what the police are doing in their neighbourhood, but fear a charge of obstruction?

Community Policing

• Although the issues related to community policing do not refer directly to the complaints process, we feel that these issues are key to an understanding of the concerns we have that lead to complaints about the police
• What are the priorities of "community policing" and how are they determined? - - By whom?
  • As the people who live in our neighbourhood and spend time in our park, we are clearly the people who know what we wish the police to help us with. However, in our experience, the police priorities are not only very different from ours, but in many cases, the work that the police view as important, has left us with problems and distrust among different groups of people who use the park
  • For example, we want police to respond immediately to our calls for help in the following cases:
    • any situation involving violence;
    • to pursue vandals;
    • to city by-laws which attempt to balance the interests of different people and groups who use the park (e.g. enforce noise by-laws, etc.)
• How are officers recruited and trained for "community policing"? What do they understand to be their obligations in this context?
• What are their understandings of their roles and the roles of those people who live in the neighbourhood?
• What do they know about/need to know about the neighbourhood in which they work? How do they get this knowledge?