NEARLY 350 OFFICERS DISCIPLINED
The police have high expectations placed upon them, as they are ideally a group of protectors, defenders, and enforcement of the law. While the majority of police may still meet these high expectations, a Toronto Star investigation recently uncovered some “hidden truths” in how the minority of police officers who do act badly are being disciplined and reprimanded for their poor behaviour inside and outside their role as police officers.
Overall, some overarching themes exposed through the investigation included police officers being treated too lightly for serious misconduct, and a lack of transparency. Many people would surely be shocked to find that some officers they may be approaching for help have in the past been involved in the following activities:
- A York Region rookie hits his wife with an open hand so hard he ruptures her eardrum.
- A Toronto police constable cheats on his sergeant exam on three separate occasions by having his girlfriend, who was also a police officer, radio him the answers.
- An OPP constable drives a homeless Aboriginal man several kilometres out of town, and leaves him to walk back at dusk along a busy highway in near-freezing temperatures.
The above officers are still part of the police force, and when you think of the possible scenarios that could ensue—such as a victim of domestic abuse approaching an officer for help, when he himself abuses his wife—these are terribly problematic situations.
The Star investigation found roughly one in five of 350 officers disciplined in the last five years were disciplined because he or she was guilty of assaulting his or her spouse, drunk driving, possessing drugs, or theft. The investigation also found nearly 50 officers were disciplined more than once, some just months after being penalized for past misconduct.
It is particularly contradictory that someone with a police record would almost never be hired as a cop, but the same treatment does not apply to people within the police force. Many police officers convicted of criminal offences are allowed to keep working; the Star investigation found that only seven police officers were forced out of their jobs.
Vince Hawkes, an OPP Commissioner, has stated he believes police chiefs do not have the tools to correctly punish police officers, as the current law doesn’t give them enough power to terminate police officers for serious misconduct. Therefore, there seem to be institutional barriers that continue to produce a bubble of protection for police officers who have been convicted of offences.
Additionally, when hearing officers do administer harsher punishments, including dismissal, officers commonly complain to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, the appeal body, who frequently soften their sentence. The process is also criticized as suspended officers are still paid throughout the disciplinary process, where the province shells out millions of dollars a year to suspended officers, some who have been receiving pay cheques since 2008.
Furthermore, the investigation found most police discipline cases are not reported beyond station walls, as in many decisions the judges state that media coverage of the officer’s misconduct would undermine public trust in the police. Additionally, the Star encountered many issues when seeking copies of the disciplinary records from the GTA services and the OPP, where many services took months to supply the records. The Peel Regional Police have still not provided the Star with their full decisions, whereas all other services did.
The lack of transparency promoted throughout these decisions is unsettling to say the least. Reflecting on the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women’s (MMIW) issue, many cases involve the police acting in a manner that does not support Indigenous families. When combined with the general lack of trust between the police and Indigenous people – the police promoting a lack of transparency will only cause further damage to the trust between police and Indigenous people, as well as all other Canadians.
The irony is the current police actions are doing the very opposite of maintaining public trust. I think the general public would understand that in such a large police force there are going to be ‘bad apples,’ and would be much more comforted to know those people are being identified and dealt with effectively by the police to promote a safer and more competent police force. Or at the very least these people are being held to the same standard as every other Ontarian.
The Star will continue to report their findings, but some examples of cases uncovered are:
Const. Ted Oderkirk: After racking up a bar bill of more than $700 at a Bolton Boston Pizza with OPP colleagues in 2009, Const. Oderkirk and two fellow officers drove back to their detachment, where he drunkenly swiped his access card to get into the gun vault. As a prank, he deployed a tear-gas canister into the room where his colleagues were sleeping. It caused $52,000 damage. The group used an OPP camera to film Oderkirk shirtless and wearing a gas mask. A supervisor later tried to delete the video in an apparent attempt to cover up the incident.
Officer’s defence: Oderkirk’s lawyer told the hearing the officer was extremely intoxicated and is ashamed of the embarrassment he caused the force.
In court: Oderkirk pleaded guilty to mischief over $5,000. He was granted an absolute discharge.
In the tribunal: In 2011, Oderkirk got a three-month demotion to a lower pay grade and was docked 160 hours pay.
Const. Shaun McCahery: The Toronto cop wrote 63 tickets in 2011 for made-up minor infractions, naming two homeless men with mental health problems who were known in his police division. Several of the tickets went ahead in court and the men were convicted in absentia. The officer had previously been told to improve his “performance measurables,” which were below standard.
Police “are entrusted to only place before the court those who we believe, on reasonable grounds, have committed an offence. That process is never to be used . . . for an officer to represent himself as hard working,” said the presiding officer, who called the behaviour “abhorrent.”
Officer’s defence: McCahery’s lawyer told the hearing the officer wasn’t thinking straight because he was suffering from a painful medical condition and the illness of a loved one.
Const. Christopher Merritt: The member of Toronto’s domestic violence unit sent a “sexually offensive photograph” to female colleagues on two separate occasions, once in 2009 and once in 2010. Both women said they were shocked by the images and told Merritt not to contact them again.
“These planned and deliberate acts of serious misconduct exhibited not only exceedingly poor judgment but were the antithesis of the values and principles of the service,” the hearing officer said in disciplining Merritt.
Officer’s defence: Merritt’s lawyer told the hearing the officer pleaded guilty, which not only saved the complainants from testifying but also showed remorse for his misconduct.
In the tribunal: Merritt was docked 14 days pay in 2012.