News   Jun 14, 2024
 2.4K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
 1.7K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
 850     0 

Toronto Police Service Reformation

The new lightbars are clear now. They give off a more visible flash when activated, but they have no colour while turned off. Another way they've gone more inconspicuous. In some other cities to deal with the blank LED lights, they may have a partial red and blue solid glow at all times, to be better seen.
It has nothing to do with conspicuity. LEDs now enable most colours to be generated right from the diode ('bulb') rather than created by a lens or filter. This allows an almost unlimited range of configurations simply by rearranging modules rather than requiring manufacturers the to provide different enclosures. It also eliminates the need for internal lens under the enclosure. it also allows the output to be tailored to the colour, since different colours have different electrical efficiencies. This was always the problem with blue when everything was incandescent; the blue lens absorbed so much light from the standard bulb that they were very ineffective particularly in daylight. Having a blue lamp that produced a light with the same effective illumination as a red required a more powerful bulb.

Emergency vehicle lighting varies by jurisdiction. California requires emergency vehicles to have one steady burning red lamp; a requirement which long pre-dates LEDs.

As an aside, folks seem to be wound up about grey cars. Best as I can find out, TPS dropped overall grey cars in 2016 in favour of grey with four white doors (not counting subdued markings/plain cars).
 
The new lightbars are clear now. They give off a more visible flash when activated, but they have no colour while turned off. Another way they've gone more inconspicuous. In some other cities to deal with the blank LED lights, they may have a partial red and blue solid glow at all times, to be better seen.
They had to have been the last police service in North America to switch to that style of lighting, quite a stretch to claim it's part of their rush to be inconspicuous. The cars also have white doors, and markings all around, I can see them just fine.
 
They had to have been the last police service in North America to switch to that style of lighting, quite a stretch to claim it's part of their rush to be inconspicuous. The cars also have white doors, and markings all around, I can see them just fine.
To be fair, none of the emergency services in Ontario could use blue lights until the regulation changed (2007?) then it becomes a matter of budgeting, and fleet evolution (they typically don't retrofit in-service vehicles). In regards to adopting LEDs, there's actually a fair bit of research that goes on; if for no other reason than to cut through the marketing claims. They want to be fairly certain before they order a thousand or so of something. One of the big drivers that favoured LEDs is the increasing power demands in vehicles and finite capacity.
 
Toronto Police HQ has a private licensed lounge for senior officers.

A Toronto Police Service superintendent entered a lounge with a licensed fully-stocked bar in police headquarters about three hours before he crashed his service-issued SUV into another vehicle in Pickering, Ont., and was charged with impaired driving in January 2022, CBC News has learned.

"That incident has made me very concerned," said Alok Mukherjee, former chair of the Toronto Police Service Board from 2005 to 2015.

"That raises questions about supervision and control of the room, but it raises a bigger question. Whatever may have been the culture 50 years ago — even 25 years ago — of having fully-stocked bars on premises … whether that is acceptable today?"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...r-impaired-driving-bar-headquarters-1.6797484
 
Toronto Police HQ has a private licensed lounge for senior officers.

A Toronto Police Service superintendent entered a lounge with a licensed fully-stocked bar in police headquarters about three hours before he crashed his service-issued SUV into another vehicle in Pickering, Ont., and was charged with impaired driving in January 2022, CBC News has learned.

"That incident has made me very concerned," said Alok Mukherjee, former chair of the Toronto Police Service Board from 2005 to 2015.

"That raises questions about supervision and control of the room, but it raises a bigger question. Whatever may have been the culture 50 years ago — even 25 years ago — of having fully-stocked bars on premises … whether that is acceptable today?"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...r-impaired-driving-bar-headquarters-1.6797484
Please tell me there's a "no guns allowed" sign at the bar.
 
Toronto Police HQ has a private licensed lounge for senior officers.

A Toronto Police Service superintendent entered a lounge with a licensed fully-stocked bar in police headquarters about three hours before he crashed his service-issued SUV into another vehicle in Pickering, Ont., and was charged with impaired driving in January 2022, CBC News has learned.

"That incident has made me very concerned," said Alok Mukherjee, former chair of the Toronto Police Service Board from 2005 to 2015.

"That raises questions about supervision and control of the room, but it raises a bigger question. Whatever may have been the culture 50 years ago — even 25 years ago — of having fully-stocked bars on premises … whether that is acceptable today?"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...r-impaired-driving-bar-headquarters-1.6797484

In respect of the bold; let me answer that question: "No"

I enjoy a nice glass of wine myself and am not about to tell senior officers they can't consume alcohol, once off-duty.

But to have a fully stocked bar inside police HQ is terrible optics (would seem to encourage on-duty drinking, and seems rather indulgent) entirely apart, of course from the matter of drinking and driving, which is not excusable at all.
 
Last edited:
Police lounges linked back to military messes; although they traditionally only extended to senior officers, not the junior ranks. I'm actually quite surprised Toronto's has survived, but don't know how it operates. Most others that had them have either been abandoned or downgraded to a social space to host visiting dignitaries under a Special Occasion Permit if required.
 
The Ontario government said Tuesday it is introducing a number of new measures to boost lagging police recruitment numbers, including eliminating a post-secondary education requirement to be hired as an officer and covering the costs of mandatory training.

"We need more police officers on our streets, more boots on the ground," Premier Doug Ford said at a news conference at the Ontario Police College. He was joined by Solicitor General Michael Kerzner and Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw.

Ford said he has heard from the chiefs of various police services, who said they are seeing increases in major crimes like auto thefts, break and enters and random acts of violence, but are struggling to attract new recruits.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-police-recruitment-changes-1.6821382
 
The Ontario government said Tuesday it is introducing a number of new measures to boost lagging police recruitment numbers, including eliminating a post-secondary education requirement to be hired as an officer and covering the costs of mandatory training.

"We need more police officers on our streets, more boots on the ground," Premier Doug Ford said at a news conference at the Ontario Police College. He was joined by Solicitor General Michael Kerzner and Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw.

Ford said he has heard from the chiefs of various police services, who said they are seeing increases in major crimes like auto thefts, break and enters and random acts of violence, but are struggling to attract new recruits.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-police-recruitment-changes-1.6821382
While it may have become a de facto requirement, post secondary education has never been a legal requirement under the PSA.

Edit: It seems they are doing some parallel activity. They are moving to enact the Community Safety and Policing Act which has largely been lying on the books since the Liberal government. They got motivated by some bad press arising from a complete POS OPP member who has numerous criminal convictions but is still under suspension with pay. The new Act would allow that to change. At the same time they will be tabling an amendment that would delete the requirement for post-secondary credentials from that new Act.

They are also eliminating tuition for recruit training at the Ontario Police College, which was implemented a number of years ago. The government of the day (forget which one) tried to equate it to a regular post-secondary institution, which it never was.
 
Last edited:
I'll stick this here:


Its a Star article, behind the paywall, the substance of which is........

Justice Malloy let a drug dealer, with illegal, loaded firearms his possession walk on all charges.

I entirely get why was ticked. The dealer in question's Girlfriend OD'ed; he phoned 911 to get her help, administering CPR until paramedics and police arrived on scene, at his apartment.
Paramedics took over, and took her to hospital, where she was pronounced dead.

In the mean time, without any warrant or any lawful cause, the cops proceeded to search the dealer's apartment, entering a locked washroom, where, in a drawer, they found the firearms. They in turn used this to detail the dealer, and obtain a warrant, wherein, the next day, they found various quantities of assorted drugs. Thing is, not only was the search unlawful; and nothing criminal in plain sight, but additionally, they apparently didn't advise the dealer of his rights when they detained him.

The judge, exasperatedly, noting that she's fully aware she's letting a criminal loose, having jettisoned most of the evidence, as it was obtained illegally, threw the charges out.
Police conduct here, as she identifies was appalling and an abuse of Charter rights.

However, I have to say, something I would have preferred to see, is that the judge directly compel the laying of charges against the officers involved.
That's basically never done here, but so far as my understanding, it is in within the scope of a judge's power, at the very least, she should be publicly 'advising' the crown on this point. IF this is not within scope for a judge in such case, the law should be modified to ensure that it is within scope.

The officers on scene shouldn't simply lose their badges, they should face charges of theft, criminal possession of narcotics, (they weren't lawfully obtained), trespassing, and forcible confinement (unlawful detention)
The police would freak; I'd be perfectly content to see the matter pled down, so long as they all ended up with a criminal record and were prohibited from any career in law enforcement.

The story goes on to note other recent instances of judges throwing out charges due to Toronto Police conduct, including an officer injesting drugs he seized from a suspect and OD'ing in the police station parking lot; and another officer stealing $6,000 from a suspect during a search of premises.

I want to note here, I don't want to give law-abiding officers a hard time; and I'm prepared to extend some benefit of the doubt in cases where there's room for that.......... but cases such as this one, and those listed above, leave no room for misunderstanding; the officers engaged in unlawful activity, that but for their being police, would certainly be deemed criminal. They ought to be held to the same standard as the rest of us.
 
I want to note here, I don't want to give law-abiding officers a hard time; and I'm prepared to extend some benefit of the doubt in cases where there's room for that.......... but cases such as this one, and those listed above, leave no room for misunderstanding; the officers engaged in unlawful activity, that but for their being police, would certainly be deemed criminal. They ought to be held to the same standard as the rest of us.
If you let me into your house and I snoop around and find a gun and then tell the police, I am not breaking the law. That's the same standard as the rest of us, that you mention. What you want is police to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, not the same one, which I am fine with.
 
If you let me into your house and I snoop around and find a gun and then tell the police, I am not breaking the law.

If, as described above, you enter a locked washroom w/o my permission, you are indeed breaking the law.

Which is what the judge found to be the case. (Molloy below is the judge)

"Molloy found that Karapetrov did not consent to the initial search of his apartment — or was even asked about it — nor was he informed that he was effectively being detained and could contact a lawyer."
 
I'll stick this here:


Its a Star article, behind the paywall, the substance of which is........

Justice Malloy let a drug dealer, with illegal, loaded firearms his possession walk on all charges.

I entirely get why was ticked. The dealer in question's Girlfriend OD'ed; he phoned 911 to get her help, administering CPR until paramedics and police arrived on scene, at his apartment.
Paramedics took over, and took her to hospital, where she was pronounced dead.

In the mean time, without any warrant or any lawful cause, the cops proceeded to search the dealer's apartment, entering a locked washroom, where, in a drawer, they found the firearms. They in turn used this to detail the dealer, and obtain a warrant, wherein, the next day, they found various quantities of assorted drugs. Thing is, not only was the search unlawful; and nothing criminal in plain sight, but additionally, they apparently didn't advise the dealer of his rights when they detained him.

The judge, exasperatedly, noting that she's fully aware she's letting a criminal loose, having jettisoned most of the evidence, as it was obtained illegally, threw the charges out.
Police conduct here, as she identifies was appalling and an abuse of Charter rights.

However, I have to say, something I would have preferred to see, is that the judge directly compel the laying of charges against the officers involved.
That's basically never done here, but so far as my understanding, it is in within the scope of a judge's power, at the very least, she should be publicly 'advising' the crown on this point. IF this is not within scope for a judge in such case, the law should be modified to ensure that it is within scope.

The officers on scene shouldn't simply lose their badges, they should face charges of theft, criminal possession of narcotics, (they weren't lawfully obtained), trespassing, and forcible confinement (unlawful detention)
The police would freak; I'd be perfectly content to see the matter pled down, so long as they all ended up with a criminal record and were prohibited from any career in law enforcement.

The story goes on to note other recent instances of judges throwing out charges due to Toronto Police conduct, including an officer injesting drugs he seized from a suspect and OD'ing in the police station parking lot; and another officer stealing $6,000 from a suspect during a search of premises.

I want to note here, I don't want to give law-abiding officers a hard time; and I'm prepared to extend some benefit of the doubt in cases where there's room for that.......... but cases such as this one, and those listed above, leave no room for misunderstanding; the officers engaged in unlawful activity, that but for their being police, would certainly be deemed criminal. They ought to be held to the same standard as the rest of us.
While a judge, as a natural person, can swear to a criminal information like anybody else, the concept of an investigating judiciary is not part of our justice system like it is in other countries. The role of the bench is to serve as an impartial 'decider'. Sanctioning of persons beyond the accused is pretty much limited to actions interfering with the process (contempt, etc.). Similarly, a judge, or anyone for that matter beyond the Minister, cannot compel a Crown prosecutor to swear a charge. Not only does interfere with the separation of roles and responsibilities, you can't compel someone else to form the necessary reasonable grounds. All Crowns in Ontario have been directed to follow-up on allegations of police misconduct by contacting their Service. Whether that happens in all cases, IDK.

In this case, with the limited information you describe, there were, in my mind, clear Charter breaches. If they had limited themselves to lawfully positioned plain view (they were legitimately in the residence and saw evidence in plain view, they could have frozen the property to get a warrant. Snooping and fishing is never good grounds.

If you let me into your house and I snoop around and find a gun and then tell the police, I am not breaking the law. That's the same standard as the rest of us, that you mention. What you want is police to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, not the same one, which I am fine with.
The police are held to a higher standard because their actions represent the State, and only the State can breach Charter rights. So long as you are not acting as an agent of the State, if you find a gun in my house and tell the cops, you are committing no crime and that would be valid grounds for the police to get a warrant. There might be an argument of trespass, but if you let me in, unless there was some expressed limitation on my presence, sucks to be you.
 
While a judge, as a natural person, can swear to a criminal information like anybody else, the concept of an investigating judiciary is not part of our justice system like it is in other countries. The role of the bench is to serve as an impartial 'decider'. Sanctioning of persons beyond the accused is pretty much limited to actions interfering with the process (contempt, etc.). Similarly, a judge, or anyone for that matter beyond the Minister, cannot compel a Crown prosecutor to swear a charge. Not only does interfere with the separation of roles and responsibilities, you can't compel someone else to form the necessary reasonable grounds. All Crowns in Ontario have been directed to follow-up on allegations of police misconduct by contacting their Service. Whether that happens in all cases, IDK.

I totally get what you're saying; I'm advocating for a different way of addressing police misconduct that comes to light before a judge; particularly where the substance of the facts is agreed upon and sworn to......

I think letting the guilty go free may be necessary in rare cases, but is not particularly just.

What is equally unjust is police that wilfully broke the law, at least a couple of times over, (I count 3x or more in this case as described).

To me justice demands punishing the offender, not the victim of any original crime.

The offender, in this case is at least one senior officer, and arguably those who took his direction.

I'll settle for the head of the snake.

As described, this was not an honest mistake or a small transgression, this was flagrant disregard for the law.

It should cost the officer his job and any job in law enforcement for the rest of his life.

That would be fair.

In this case, with the limited information you describe, there were, in my mind, clear Charter breaches. If they had limited themselves to lawfully positioned plain view (they were legitimately in the residence and saw evidence in plain view, they could have frozen the property to get a warrant. Snooping and fishing is never good grounds.

You have a breach of normal due process, you have a criminal breach of a locked room, you have a violation of a 'good Samaritan' statute that protects people who report overdoes from drug-related charges.

I have lots of time for good police of whom I personally know many, current and former.

Those good people should not have their reputations stained by people whose behavior is beneath contempt.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top