Lesson 3-4 UNITE 2 CC 291-PD 291

docx

School

Wilfrid Laurier University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

CC 291

Subject

Sociology

Date

Jun 2, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by LieutenantWildcat2949

LESSON 3: POLICE AUTHORITIES AND USE OF FORCE TASKS  Post to Lesson 3 discussion forum.  Note: there are sections with additional readings discussed to enhance the Lesson material, these are not required readings. Required readings are listed in the 'Readings' section LEARNING OUTCOMES By the end of this lesson you should be able to:  Define and provide examples of police powers  List the legal provisions for police use of force  Describe the National Use of Force Framework in contrast to a progressive use of force model  Explain the procedure for obtaining a search warrant  Compare and contrast less than lethal and lethal force and the conditions under which they are used READINGS  Griffiths Chp 7  Lesson 3 Warning: The following will re-count real-world cases to prepare you for discussion on police powers and use of less than and lethal force. Please be advised the material may be graphic. INTRODUCTION: POLICE POWERS Police Use of Force: Wikimedia Commons Police powers are derived from the Criminal Code and various provincial statutes and vary from search and seizure (Sec 487), to arrest, (Sec. 495) use of force, up to and, including lethal force (Sec. 25). The purpose of allowing police these authorities is to ensure order within the community and to pursue offenders.

Powers include: Detention and Arrest (Sec. 495) Detention is defined as “assuming control over the movement of a person by demand or direction” which typically occurs during an investigation, i.e. a traffic stop is a good example of detention. The Charter requires that officers inform the person under detention (and arrest) promptly why they are being held. If once the investigation is concluded and there are no longer reasonable grounds to detain a person they are to be released. Detention does not always result in arrest. An arrest is made to prevent a crime from being committed or to terminate a crime in progress and serves the primary purpose of compelling a person to appear in court. This can be done by obtaining a warrant, in which an officer swears before a Justice of the Peace (JP) that they believe there are “reasonable grounds” and it is necessary to arrest in order to protect the public. If there is not time for obtaining a warrant, officers may arrest without a warrant when:  officers catch a person in the act of a crime  officers reasonably believe the person has committed an offence  officers reasonably believe the person is about to commit an offence It is important to note that officers may not arrest if they do not have reasonable grounds. This is an important stipulation because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly states “everyone has the right to …security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”. http://laws- lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html (Consitution Act, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, Government of Canada, Justice Laws Website). A “necessary” arrest, in the “public’s interest”, occurs when:  an officer must establish the identity of a person  evidence must be secured or preserved  it is necessary to prevent the continuation or repetition of an offence or the commission of another offence Search and Seizure (Sec. 8, and 487) Officers are granted the power to search persons/places and to seize items and/or belongings believed to be evidence of a crime. Searches are typically conducted through the process of obtaining a search warrant. This requires officers to swear before a JP that there are “reasonable and probably grounds” of:  evidence of a criminal act taking place within a specific location  evidence related to criminal act exists within a specific location

 evidence intended to be used to commit an offence exists within a specific location The Supreme Court of Canada has stipulated that a search warrant is required when:  state agents are secretly recording a conversation  cases of video surveillance are required  perimeter searches of residential premises are conducted  the installation of tracking devices to monitor peoples movements is required However, the Charter (Sec 8) protects citizens from unlawful and “unreasonable” searches. The Supreme Court held in R. V. S.A.B, 2003 ( https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc- csc/scc-csc/en/item/2094/index.do ), that a search is reasonable only when:  it is authorized by law (search warrant)  the law itself is reasonable  the manner in which the search is carried out is reasonable There is, of course, considerable room for interpretation in the courts decision. As a result, searches typically require a search warrant in order to protect Charter rights; the most significant case that has set the precedent for obtaining a search warrant is R. V. Feeny (See R. V. Feeny Chp 7; https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1508/index.do ). Searches conducted without a warrant are considered illegal unless :  at the time of arrest; officers may search the person and the surrounding area (e.g. vehicle the person was occupying) for the purpose of protection, prevention of escape, and/or the destruction of evidence  during an emergency where the officer reasonably believes an offence is being, or is about to be committed Learning Activity To test your knowledge of the terminology, match the following terms: Term Warrantless Search: The power to seize evidence believed to be evidence of a crime SearchWarrant: A document that permits officers to search a specific location and take specific items related to a crime Detention: Officers assume control over the movement of a person by demand Arrest: Primary purpose is to compel an accused to appear at trial Feeny: Police must obtain a search warrant before entering a dwelling to arrest a suspect LESSON 3: POLICE AUTHORITIES AND USE OF FORCE USE OF FORCE (SEC. 25, 26, 27, 33, 37)

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

The use of force is the single, most defining feature of policing and is often the cause for debate and occasionally public outcry. But, before we discuss the application of force, it is a good idea to understand how often it is used. In Canada, research (though limited) has found that the majority of police-citizen encounters result in no use of force, and the force occurs less than 2% of the time. The number of fatal use of force encounters is even less, with an estimated 10 deadly encounters, across Canada, each year (Public Safety Canada, 2015). Though any life taken is a tragedy, the numbers are limited, and in comparison to the US, where it is estimated that 300 people are shot and killed by police, Canada is not experiencing an epidemic in deadly citizen-police encounters. (Public Safety Canada, 2015; https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/cllctn-nlss-dt-frc/ index-en.aspx) The lesser number of use of force encounters in Canadian policing is in keeping with Robert Peels’ principles of limiting its use; he noted physical force should be used only “after persuasion and warnings failed” (Griffiths, 2014, P.29). Peel was aware that use of unnecessary force could/would undermine the legitimacy of police who were, after all, “servicing the interests of all citizens”. To protect the rights of Canadian citizens, and the legitimacy of police, the use of force, like that of the use of police authority, is governed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Sec 25). In addition to the Charter, the application of force is also governed by the Criminal Code (sections 26, 27, and 33) and provincial laws; including provincial police services acts, e.g. The Ontario Police Services Act https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/18p03a . Under these provisions, officers are allowed to resort to physical force to affect an arrest and/or prevent an offender from escaping. The degree of force is constrained by the principles of “ proportionality, necessity, and reasonableness” ( https://scc- csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7845/index.do ). Meaning, officers are only allowed to use force that is directly proportionate to the situation and that which is necessary to maintain safety and security. This is best captured in the “one-plus-one principle which suggests that officers have the authority to use one higher level of force than that which they are confronted with. In Canada, officers are trained to apply various forms of force depending on the situation and the perceived level of threat. Force options and officer/citizen encounters are conceptualized in The National Use of Force Framework (Griffiths, Chp 7) which reflects the process by which officers assess and determine the proper action needed to protect themselves and the public. The National Use of Force Model is unique in that it is not a stair step model, i.e. if action “A” is taken, then the greater action “B” must be taken. Rather, the model is represented as concentric circles to demonstrate fluidity in behaviour and action and allows for transitioning from one force option to another; with or without, escalation of force. This means that, an officer may be interviewing a suspect who

becomes physically threatening resulting in the officer drawing their firearm due to demonstrated threat. However, as the officer gives verbal commands the suspect complies and is no longer perceived to be a threat, the officer can holster their firearm and select a less-lethal option such as a physical restraint. Example: Use of Force – Stair Step or Progression model Take a moment . . . Have a look at the National Use-of-Force Framework (NUFF) provided in your textbook (Box 7.6 of Griffiths, 2014, p.193) and note the various forms of force and how each is applied:  Officer presence  Dialogue  Empty hands  Compliance tools  Lethal force Note the contrasts between a progressive model of force and the NUFF. Which model reflects a dynamic understanding of officer/citizen behavior; in what ways? Which model would account for de-escalation of behavior/force, explain? Learning Activity As noted above, the type of force used by an officer is dependent on the officer’s perception of “demonstrated threat”. To assist with your note taking it might be helpful to construct an excel sheet containing key terms and phrases. Below you will find the five forms of threat discussed in your assigned readings of Chapter 7. Add these to your study notes; but first see if your definitions match mine: Cooperative Positive response to verbal requests/demands Non-Cooperative Little or no physical resistance, however the subject does not comply with requests/demands and may demonstrate verbal defiance Resistant The subject is resistant to control of the officer either by pulling, pushing or running away

Combative The subject attempts or threatens to apply force to anyone, e.g. kicking, punching, clenching fists Demonstrates Potential for Bodily Harm/Death The person acts in a manner the officer reasonably believes could result in bodily harm or death, e.g. knife, firearm, baseball bat, etc… INAPPROPRIATE FORCE The misuse of force can result in officers being criminally or civilly liable for assault, or even murder. For example, in 2015, an RCMP officer was sued civilly for unnecessary use of force after causing permanent brain damage to an inmate; Robert Wright. Mr. Wright alleged that the RCMP officer used excessive force, due to steroid use, when taking Wright down to the ground during an altercation in Wright’s cell. Mr. Wright claims he was thrown to the ground and his head hit a hard surface causing injury (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/rob-wright-alleges-takedown-by- officer-on-steroids-caused-brain-damage-1.2785623). The RCMP eventually reached an undisclosed settlement in 2016 which will provide for necessary, on-going care for Mr. Wright ( https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/robert-wright-terrace-first- nations-brain-injury-1.3485547 ). Likewise, the high profile Sammy Yatim case resulted in the conviction of Toronto Officer Forcillo (Box 7.7; Griffiths, 2014, p. 202). In 2013, Mr. Yatim was involved in an altercation with Toronto Police while riding a Toronto Street Car. During the incident Cst. Forcillo shot Mr. Yatim nine times, killing him. Cst. Forcillo was later found guilty of Attempted Murder and sentenced to six years in federal prison ( Globe and Mail, 2016 ). The case enraged the community and called into question police policy on use of force. It also accelerated the debate on equipping officers with body-worn cameras. (See Box 7.7 of Griffiths, 2016, p.202) Force, no matter its level, when used outside the bounds of “proportional” and “reasonable” breeds distrust in the community. Police are perceived as authoritative and abusive, the power they are entrusted with is viewed as coercive and illegitimate. This often leads to a break down in relationships between the community and the police service. The negative impacts can be devastating; loss of community involvement can impede investigations, prevent officers from apprehending offenders, and can lead to vigilante justice as the community insulates itself from police. Two video’s, highlighted in Chapter 7, that provide an excellent, public, perspective of how distrust and apathy arise are “Protesting Police Brutality in Montreal” (Griffiths, 2014, p. 2013) and “Under Occupation: Toronto G20” (Box 7.8; Griffiths, 2014, p. 205). The power to apply force,

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

injure a citizen, or take their life is not one to be examined lightly. Trusting partnerships between police and the community are vital to the maintenance of law and order. To do this there must be a solid understanding of what force is used, how often, and under what circumstances. As mentioned above, Public Safety Canada has noted that force is used in less than 2% of all occurrences; however, an accurate accounting for use of force is unachievable as no formal, national statistics, are available. The lack of reliable data is further compounded by the fact that any civil lawsuits that arise from the improper use of force are settled out of court or in undisclosed court proceedings. Critics and researchers alike champion the idea of creating a national database of police use of force statistics. But, like any research project, there are significant concerns over issues such as; privacy, defining ‘force’, which force encounters would be recorded, which would be left unaccounted for, and the list goes on. Below are a few recent articles debating the collection of use of force encounters. These are optional readings but they lend valuable insight into the ongoing debate. Take a moment . . . to consider the following (Optional Readings).  Deadly Force: How CBC analysed details of hundreds of fatal encounters  Canada Needs A National Database To Track Deadly Force By Police  Collection and Analysis of Data on the Use of Force  Police Use of Force in Ontario CONCLUSION Chapter 7 has examined police powers and the use of force. Section 3.0 highlighted how these powers are governed and detailed how they have been challenged over the years from curtailing police search powers in R. v. S.A. B. case to warrant requirements in R. v. Feeney. The balancing act between protection of civil liberties and maintaining the effectiveness of police is a delicate one that consistently raises questions around police practices and the application of the law. Section 3.1 discussed the contentious issue of use of force, and in particular lethal force. The text and lesson notes outline the sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Criminal Code that sanction the use of physical force and the requirements to justify the application of it. This section also examines the various forms of force, from officer presences, to less than lethal and lethal options. The lesson presents the National Use of Force Framework and discusses how the framework assists officers in assessing situations and deciding on appropriate force options. Though deadly Canadian police encounters are far less (fewer than 10 per year) than our neighbors to the south in the US, the loss of life, at the hands of police, is still a serious issue that requires attention. National statistics are unavailable and there does not appear

to be a design for collecting and maintaining a reliable database. Without consensus on which agency will be responsible for gathering use of force data, broad agreement on definitions of “force”, and under what circumstances use of force encounters will be recorded, it is unlikely a national data base will be established in the near future. Finally, section 3.2 presents the issues surrounding inappropriate use of force by police. Whether it is force that results in bodily harm, like that of Robert Wright, or force that results in death, as in the case of Sammy Yatim, the misuse of these powers can have a delegitimizing effect on police authority and their place within the community. Key Terms  Inappropriate Force  Less than Lethal Force  Detention  Arrest  Warrant  Search and Seizure DISCUSSION I have added a direct link here to lesson three discussion board . Please note that lesson three discussion board will be closed at the end of the sixth week. Discussion Topic (Lesson 3) Choose One  How does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect citizens from unlawful search and seizure? What changes have, or are occurring, that impact how warrants are obtained?  What are the advantages, or disadvantages, to collecting and keeping a national database of Canadian police use of force encounters?  REFERENCES  CBC News (2014), Rob Wright alleges takedown by officer on steroids caused brain damage. Posted Oct 02, 2014 at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british- columbia/rob-wright-alleges-takedown-by-officer-on-steroids-caused-brain- damage-1.2785623  Criminal Code (Canada), 2018.  Government of Canada, Constitutional Act, 1982: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Retrieved from: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html

 Public Safety Canada, Research Summary: Collect and Analysis of Data on the Use of Force (2015).  R. v. S.A.B. (2003) Supreme Court Judgements, Report [2003] 2 SCR 678. Retrieved from: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2094/index.do  R. v. Nasogaluak (2010) Supreme Court Judgements, Report [2010] 1 SCR 206. Retrieved from https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7845/index.do Lesson 4: Professional/Community and Community-Based Strategic Policing LESSON 4: PROFESSIONAL/COMMUNITY AND COMMUNITY – BASED STRATEGIC POLICING TASKS  Listen to CBC Digital Archive on Winnipeggers Call 999  Complete Unit 2 Quiz see end of lesson for further instructions  Post to Lesson 4 discussion forum  Note: there are sections with additional readings discussed to enhance the Lesson material, these are not required readings. Required readings are listed in the 'Readings' section LEARNING OUTCOMES By the end of this lesson you should be able to:  Describe the professional model of police work  Identify the three R’s of professional policing  List and describe traditional measures of police performance

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

 Compare and contrast the core elements of community policing and community-based strategic policing  Distinguish between police force and police service  Discuss how community policing has affected the way police services are organized  List the characteristics of community policing model and the roles of the various stakeholders READINGS  Griffiths Ch. 3 pages 69-71  Griffiths Ch. 8  The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment  The Basics of Community Policing INTRODUCTION Toronto Police Car: Wikimedia Commons To Serve and Protect – a common motto most of us are familiar with; there has even been a Canadian television show with the same name. The motto is meant to impart a message regarding what can be expected of police. What are some other catchy or common terms for policing that impart a message about police roles and what we (as citizens) can expect from them?  Law Enforcement  Police Force  Citizen on Patrol (Cop)  On Watch/Duty/Patrol  Platoon  Front line officer  Patrol officer  First Responder Each conveys a duty to keep an active lookout, maintain the laws and keep the members of the community safe…watcher, enforcer, etc… Are there more that you can think of? Modern policing has had three major forms of implementation: traditional, professional, and community policing . The primary characteristics of traditional policing are marked by efforts to centralize policing efforts in order to keep the peace. These were discussed in lesson one and 2; as well as Chapter 2 of Griffiths (2018, 4E). Examples of

centralization include the Bow street Runners (Lesson 1; Griffiths, 2018, p.27) and the development and expansion of the RCMP (Lesson 2). The professional model of policing emerged in the 20s and 30s with the emergence of mobile patrols and radio communications (Griffiths, 2018, p. 215). The professional model is reactive, incident-driven, and centered on random patrol (Griffiths, 2018, p. 215). Generally police are very effective in responding to crimes that are local, urban, and disruptive of local order – the type that prevailed when police services were first established (Lesson 1). This, reactive response; however, is less effective in responding to more complex crimes of the 21st century: multijurisdictional crimes , cybercrime , cyber-terrorism , and border security risks. Take a moment... And return to the assigned readings from, lesson 1, of Bayley, D. H., & Shearing, C. D. (1996). " The Future of Policing " and Sheptycki, J (2005) “ Transactional Policing. D. What connections can be drawn between these writings and the current discussion regarding the effectiveness of police response when dealing with 21st century issues like that of cybercrime or international criminal activity? Lesson 4 will lay out the professional format of policing such as reactionary measures e.g. the three R’s (Random patrol, rapid Response, Reactive investigation) as well as discuss how “police effectiveness” has been measured historically e.g. clearance rates as well as discuss the development of these metrics. We will also spend some time reviewing examples of social changes which have led to the development of community policing such as the three P’s (Prevention, Problem solving, Partnership). This section will conclude with some critical analysis of the policy and pitfalls of this model. Before Moving On . . . Remember: there are several opportunities throughout the lesson to reflect on what you are learning, from the “take a moment” sections to the “self-inventories.” Make sure to take advantage of each of these to deepen your knowledge of the material and assist with upcoming quizzes. You may also contribute something that you have read and/or experienced as a part of the weekly discussion. As always I will make suggestions closer to the end of the lesson. Let’s now move on and take a look at some key features of the traditional model of police work. TRADITIONALLY SPEAKING Historically, within the traditional framework police were seen as an extension of the government, which was outlined in the early days of the RCMP (Lesson1 ). It is marked by its emphasis on crime control, centralized service, and hierarchical nature. As such

their main responsibility was “ Crime Fighter ” and foot patrols kept officers embedded in the community to facilitate arresting criminals and maintaining order. However, with the introduction of mobile patrols the foot patrol, and by extension deterrence, could be broadened and officer response times made quicker. The traditional police model is described as a closed system that is bureaucratic, mechanistic, and stable Whitelaw & Parent, 2014). The most important emphasis being placed on the principles of hierarchy and division of labour that results in officer specialization (Ritzer, 2000). The key principles are briefly outlined in the table below. Being familiar with this structure and terminology will be helpful when discussing the development of community policing later in this lesson. ROFESSIONALISM Beginning in the 1930s the traditional model began to focus more on the education level and professionalism of officers (Griffiths, 2015; Ozeren, 2015). This move is referred to as the "Professional model of Policing ”, a model of police work centered on random patrols and emphasized promotion based on merit. “Effective” police work was measured by the number of charges laid and arrests made; the greater the number the greater the perceived "effectiveness". (Griffiths, 2014, p. 215).

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

The principals associated with professionalism and the broadening responsibilities of the ‘modern’ officer can easily be summarized the in the three R’s  Random patrol  Rapid response  Reactive investigation Random patrol The ‘ watch system ’ is the consideration that the presence of the officer (or patrol car) acts as a deterrence to crime and makes the public feel safe…or nervous if they are driving behind a police car on the highway. Random foot patrols are one of the oldest forms of policing; beat policing (walking the beat) or “watch” patrols, which made officers highly visible and well informed about persons, the community and activities. Even today, police officers on duty may refer to being “on watch” which represents carry-over terminology from age old practices. As you can imagine, foot patrol did not yield good response times and as the need to account for police activity began to grow so did the demand for quick service and accountability. While the introduction of motorized patrol increased response times, it did little to change the randomness of those patrols. That would not be affected until closer to the end of the 20th century with the development of Intelligence Led Policing (lesson 6). Rapid Response: Motorized patrols and 911 National Emergency Service Patrol, or uniform officers spend a great deal of time in their vehicles randomly patrolling and often waiting for the next call. This was especially true in the traditional format, before computers, mapping systems, mobile terminals in vehicles and directed/preventative patrols based on crime analysis. Police Vehicle, 1899 courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. As you can see from the photo (above) ‘mobile transit’ was present prior to the automobile, but vehicles and motorcycles did not enter policing till the 1900s. Vehicles equipped with radios were first introduced in the 1930s. Dispatchers answering citizen complaints via the phone and intra-departmental communications soon became an integral part of policing during the same time period. “Prior to WWII, Vancouver Police had already assigned officers to vehicles rather than ‘regular beats’. The police chief’s 1938 report suggested that patrol cars and motorcycles, although taken officers off the street, were ‘perpetuating the service function of the beat, albeit in a reactive fashion” (Macleod & Schneiderman, 1991). During that year, it was reported that officers responded to over 41,000 calls for service.

By 1950 there was a motor vehicle for every six to seven officers in Canada’s 240 largest municipal departments. There is no hard evidence to prove that random motorized patrols have had an appreciable effect on crime , but as the 1938 Vancouver report suggests, they did allow police to respond quickly to citizen-initiated requests (Macleod & Schneiderman, 1991). This is a particularly important point, in that, actual crime was not appreciably affected, but the citizen perception of police being "quick" and "responsive" was positively influenced. In the mid-70s urban patrol cars were able to keep radio contact with headquarters through modernized communication upgrades both in radio communication and records keeping via the Telex and teletype printers. This allowed patrol officers to connect with computerized files of CPIC. The CPIC terminal of today’s police cruiser, despite its impressive capabilities, is merely an updated version of the late-nineteenth century version. To coincide with efforts to respond to citizen needs quickly and enhancements with radio communications, a national emergency number was created: 9-1-1. The first known experiment with a national emergency telephone number occurred in the United Kingdom in 1937, using the number 999. The first city in North America to use a central emergency number (in 1959) was the Canadian city of Winnipeg, Manitoba, which instituted the change at the urging of Stephen Juba, mayor of Winnipeg at the time. Winnipeg initially used 999 as the emergency number, but switched numbers when 9-1-1 was proposed by the United States. Conversion to 911 in Canada began in 1972 and concluded with Prince Edward Island being the last province to receive 911 service in 2000. It is estimated that Canadians make 12 million calls to 911 every year. There are many rural jurisdictions in Canada that do not have 911 and residents must dial local numbers for police, fire and ambulance (e.g., CRTC, 2015 ). This is particularly true in remote Indigenous communities in Northwestern provinces (e.g., Born, 2014 and Global News, March 2, 2015 ). As society and technology advance it is important to consider how evolving police services can address the inequities prevalent within Canadian Indigenous communities. Take a moment... What are the social and political implications for Indigenous and First Nations communities that do not have easy access to emergency services? What are the negative stereotypes of first responders that could and do emerge due to this poor connection? 911 was intended to provide rapid response to crime and it has been argued that 911 has changed the face of policing by putting a “premium on the three R’s: rapid response, random patrols and reactive investigation” (Siegel, 1999). Drawing examples from Lessons 1 and 2 (Unit 1) can you identify changes in poling that have and are occurring because of the emphasis placed on the three R’s?

Take a moment... Listen to the CBC Digital Archive on Winnipeggers Call 999 for Help. Compare and contrast this interview with the expectations and current challenges facing 911 services in Canada. How does providing a national emergency service number fit in with the traditional model of rapid response and policing? How does it hinder policing? Reactive Investigations Reactive investigation is used when investigators receive information of criminal activity and there is an urgent need to intervene. In such cases, too great a delay in response can result in serious consequences for victims. Typically these investigations would be initiated by the victim and perhaps supported by informants, eyewitness and/or evidence collected after the incident. The weakness here is that officers do not become involved until after an incident takes place, Little attention is given to, proactively, preventing the victimization. Reactive investigations focus only on the incident and do not include analysis of problems that precipitated the crime. Thee short comings of the professional model can be condensed as follows: Incident oriented Responding to specific calls Response oriented Respond as they arise; capacity/capability emphasized; little proactive attention Limited analysis Little analysis of causes of events Efficiency Emphasis on response efficiencies; little attn. to reduction or elimination of problem In the 1970s questions were being raised about the effectiveness of random mobile patrol and preventing and reducing crime. A landmark study known as the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment examined fifteen areas of the city for crime rates as they related to: 1) reactive beats; 2) control beats; and 3) proactive beats. Have a look at the summary here: Police Foundation : The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment. Learning Activity (optional) After consideration of The Kansas City summary see if you can answer these questions: 1. Did any of the approaches presented in the study affect citizen fear of crime? Why or why not? 2. Did any of the patrols show benefits of preventative patrol work?

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

3. Consider taking a look at some of the criticisms of this research. Are they valid concerns? Why/why not? In the next section, you will investigate how performance was measured in the professional model. LESSON 4: PROFESSIONAL/COMMUNITY AND COMMUNITY – BASED STRATEGIC POLICING PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY The philosophy of professional policing has a rich history of holding officers and departments accountable by employing performance measures (Griffiths, 2016, p.69). These measures are a way of assessing the “efficiency and effectiveness” of a police services “activities and interventions” (Griffiths, 2016, p.69). Typically, this is done by collecting data around response times, number of criminal arrests, and reduction of crime rates. Performance measures can assist with improving delivery of police services, justifying cost expenditures, and identifying challenges faced within departments, e.g staffing. Most police services in Canada are tied to two traditional measures of police performance: crime rates, a count of crimes complied to determine crime reduction (Griffiths, 2016, p.69), and clearance rates, number of crimes solved through suspect identification and/or arrest (pg. 70). Even where community policing approaches have been adopted these performance indicators are still heavily relied upon to report on enforcement activities and provide information for any developmental changes required. Crime rates are probably the most easily attainable and simultaneously problematic measure of police performance. They can be equated with the profit margin of a business and are often viewed as the “bottom line” of the policing industry. Every strategic plan begins with an assessment of the crime numbers for that area, and achievements by officers, platoons, or departments usually highlight a reduction in crime rates. The reduction of crime, or ‘lack of crime’ is a common measure used to evaluate police effectiveness. This can be a very vague standard and sometimes a misleading measure of effectiveness. A low crime rate can be credited with good police work, yet when the crime rate increases police are seen as having little utility, or not placing resources in much needed areas. However, consider this; an increase in crime rates can have far more variables than poor police management. For example, rates can increase due to police initiatives, e.g., “If you See Something Say Something” campaign initiated by Homeland security after 9/11. Increased rates may also be as a result of community or neighbourhood initiatives encouraging people to report crimes and/or suspicious activity. Finally, crime rates can be pushed upward through targeted policing and apprehension programs; simply, more arrests means higher crime numbers.

Official statistics are dependent upon accurate recording; however, issues such as under reporting by the public/victims, officer discretion at the time of the incident, and even lack of resources in order to respond to criminal victimization can negatively impact the reliability of official statistics. The readings outline a number of reasons clearance and crime rates are not good indicators of police effectiveness. (p. 69-71) Clearance rates . This is the percentage of cases where the suspect has been identified; regardless of whether the individual is apprehended and/or convicted. Typically clearance rates are considered to be the proportion of the actual incidents known to police that result in the identification of a suspect, regardless of the fact if they are arrested, charged and/or convicted. Stats Canada has a little more to say on the topic. Stats Canada defines clearance rates as: The clearance rate represents the proportion of criminal incidents solved by the police. Police can clear an incident by charge or by means other than the laying of a charge. For an incident to be cleared by charge, at least one accused must have been identified and either a charge has been laid, or recommended to be laid, against this individual in connection with the incident. For an incident to be cleared otherwise, an accused must be identified and there must be sufficient evidence to lay a charge in connection with the incident, but the accused is processed by other means for one of many reasons. ( http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2015001/definitions-eng.htm#c1 ). These measures can also present reliability issues. For example, high crime communities that have a high officer to population ratio and likewise a high officer caseload, officers may not have time or resources to investigate all incidents equally. This can lead to lower clearance rates and in turn undermine community trust and relationships. Tradition Persists As this chapter and lesson have pointed out, random patrol is limited in its ability to prevent, and in some cases, deter crime. Communities demand police presence and complain when visibility is low. There is growing public concern over the rising cost and sustainability of police services given that crime rates continue to decline, police salaries rise, and arbitrators often settle police contracts without taking a municipality’s ability to pay for the settlement into account (Leuprecht, 2014). To emphasize this consider the 2016 increase to the Toronto Police service budget. Police Chief Mark Saunders asked for and was granted a 1 Billion dollar budget. ( Toronto City Council approves $1-billion police budget ). Increasing budgets and community uncertainty around police policy, procedure, and the services provided creates a difficult position for police administrators. Balancing police operations and accountability with public need will require careful consideration on the

part of police boards, management, and commanders for some time to come. As such, performance measures and justifications of resources will persist for the foreseeable future. The readings for this week consider some alternatives for counting efficiencies. See New Measures of Police Performance (Griffiths, 2016, p.71). The indicators suggested, e.g. number of developing partnerships, levels of community satisfaction, and achievement rate of various initiatives are broader and include more than traditional “crime rates”. These broader considerations lay the foundation for the movement toward community policing which focuses on identifying, preventing and responding to crime and disorder in the context of a community-police partnership. Learning Activity Self-Test (optional) So far you have been presented with a significant amount of information on the traditional model of policing, as well as the expectations and duties of an officer under this model. You have been introduced to resources that have been implemented to enhance officer performance, and even though many of these techniques are dated we can easily see their influence on our current systems. Take a moment and review what you have read so far and see if you can answer the following questions . Remember, these questions may be seen again in the quiz at the end of Unit 2. 1. Which of the following is NOT a characteristic of the traditional model of police work? a. patrol officers working the same shift rotation b. an emphasis on centralized command and control c. partnerships with the community d. a highly centralized, hierarchical organization structure partnerships with the community 2. Which of the following best defines clearance rates? a. a measure of police effectiveness in a community policing model b. a measure of police effectiveness no longer used by police services c. the percentage of cases where an offence has been committed and a suspect identified d. the percentage of cases where an offence has been committed and a suspect convicted the percentage of cases where an offence has been committed and a suspect identified 3. What has been revealed by research studies on traditional patrol practice and crime? a. Increasing random patrols has a significant impact on the levels of crime b. The response time of the police is not related to levels of crime c. The number of arrests made by the police reduces the levels of crime

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

d. The number of female police officers in an agency reduces the levels of crime The response time of the police is not related to levels of crime 4. What are the organizational characteristics of the traditional police organization? a. flexible working conditions b. private-sector marginalization c. decentralized operations d. centralized command and control operations centralized command and control operations 5. Which performance measure is NOT a contemporary performance measure? a. Quality of victim experiences with police b. Quality of police work c. Number of arrests d. Number of community partnerships Quality of victim experiences with police MOVEMENT TOWARD COMMUNITY POLICING Policing generally means responding to problems; officers arrive at a call, the problem is presented, it is often multifaceted and/or ambiguous and a conclusion is reached (via a variety of options ranging from no action to arrest). The officer listens and attempts to determine whether an actual offence has taken place and what resources are needed to deal with the issue. All incidents require the officer to assess the best way to address the situation but in the traditional model of police work they would respond to the situation at hand with little thought to the underlying causes of the incident, or its long term solution. The next three sections break community policing into three distinct descriptions, first the definition, second the principles and third the practice and strategies of community policing. As you read it is worth asking the following…  How has community policing evolved over the years?  Can you compare and contrast the traditional and professional models of policing against what Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux (1997) put forth in their community policing approach?  How have disappearing boarders, through globalization, and the increasing power of the internet subculture interfered with the community policing approach An original article written by Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux (1997) is provided here: “ The Basics of Community Policing ,” Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux, 1992. Also, take notice of the shift in verbiage from police force (traditional model) to police service (community policing). This is an important part in changing the image of policing

and its commitment to being a part of a community with a role (service) to play (provide). COMMUNITY POLICING DEFINED “The “new” approach to policing that has recently begun to sweep through North America, Europe, and the major common law countries is community policing. Rather than being a new approach, however, it is more correctly defined as a renewal or re- emergence of the old approach developed in Metropolitan London.” – A. Normandeau and B. Leighton (1990) Beginning in the 1980s there was a noticeable re-emergence of an approach to policing that focused on the community, precipitated by the recognition that police cannot prevent and respond to crime on their own. In a sort of ‘Back to the Future” move, tenets of Peel’s Principles (Lesson 1) were being woven into police services such as; police being connected to the neighborhood, return to foot patrols, and accountability to the community. Over the decades the term community policing has come to refer to a philosophy and operational practice. So then, what exactly is it? Community policing: a philosophy of management style, and an organizational strategy centered on partnerships, problem solving, and implementing prevention strategies; known as the three Ps of community policing:  police-community partnerships  problem solving  prevention An example of this can be noted by Halton Regional Police Service. HRPS is widely known as one of the first community policing services in Canada (Whitelaw & Parent, 2014) with its strong emphasis on the community and organizational partnerships. Community policing in Halton region is a philosophy based on the concept that “police officers and private citizens work together, in partnership, resulting in creative ways to solve contemporary community problems related to crime, fear of crime, social and physical order, and neighborhood decay” (Whitelaw & Parent, 2014, p.59). Recently, Halton Regional Police have incorporated an intelligence-led policing strategy which is built around risk assessment and risk management, utilizing analysis in crime trends to affect an appropriate policing response and enhance community involvement. See additional media links below Additional Media Halton police fighting crime with analytics - InsideHalton.com-Jul 29, 2015 It must be noted that community policing incorporates many elements of the traditional

police model while also extending and expanding the role, activities and objectives of police services and patrol officers. The above being an example of this. In the article, The Basics of Community Policing, Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux, the front runners of community policing in the 90s, summarized the approach in three parts: 1. Organizational strategy and Philosophy – emphasis must be placed on promoting new partnerships between police and public. It is predicated on the assumption that police and community will work together as equal partners to: identify, prioritize and solve contemporary problems. 2. Department wide commitment – all personnel in the police service (civilians and sworn) must balance the need to maintain effective police response with the goal of exploring proactive initiatives aimed at solving problems before they arise or escalate. 3. Decentralization and personalization – decentralizing opens up opportunities for front line officers to focus on community building, problem solving, and engagement in the neighborhoods. In total, community policing involves much more than introducing new programs to community members; it requires substantial changes to police services and organizational structure. It also includes an expansion of roles and responsibilities of officers and community stakeholders along with development of new measures of performance address community issues and satisfaction. PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF COMMUNITY POLICING So we have established the three P’s of community policing in section 4.5 and the basic idea of partnering to bring resources and talents together in order to problem solve. Now it is important to lay out the principles the partnership must work within. See Chapter 8, p.218 (4th Edition) The Principles of Community Policing  Citizens are responsible for becoming actively involved in identifying and responding to community problems  The community is a resource for information gathering nd developing crime control knowledge (See Table 8.3, Griffiths, 2016, p.228)  Police are more directly accountable to the community  Police have a proactive and preventative role in the community beyond that of the traditional model  Police services should reflect the mix of gender and culture in the communities they serve

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

 Police must establish and maintain legitimacy through proactive initiatives and fair treatment of the public in order to gain confidence and trust The practice of community policing should focus on crime and social disorder through the delivery of police services that include aspects of traditional law enforcement as well as; prevention, problem solving, and partnerships. This model is intended to balance reactive responses to calls for service with proactive problem solving centered on the causes of crime and disorder. Interestingly enough, some researchers have suggested that community policing can increase job satisfaction of officers by allowing them to develop a more positive attitude toward residents and more knowledgeable about the community they are serving (Griffiths, 2016, p. 218). 21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY-BASED STRATEGIC POLICING Beginning in early 2001 a post community policing model began to emerge incorporating community policing with an additional focus on “security, crime response, crime attack, and crime prevention” (Griffiths, 2016, p.219). The model name, Community-Based Strategic Policing, attempts to capture the importance of community engagement and the development of proactive, strategic enforcement. The core elements of community-based strategic policing can be grouped into three areas:  Organizational elements  External elements  Tactical elements, The attributes of each of these elements include; decentralized decision making, use of technology to inform practices, community/government partnerships, and proactive crime prevention (Griffiths, 2016, p221). Similar to the professional model, the police are still reactive in responding to some calls; however, how officers approach calls is likely to take a broader view of the situation, access additional resources from within their department, and engage the community address problems. Enforcement Strategies In addition to detailing the development of community-based strategic policing, Griffiths outlines some specific approaches to enforcement practices and strategies (Griffiths, 2016, p.243-254. There are a range of response strategies including: Zero-Tolerance and Quality of Life strategies

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

are probably best recognized by the term ‘proactive policing’ . Many services used this within their mission statements. The concept refers to the practice of order-maintenance approach in specific area along with high police visibility and presences with the goal of preventing crime from occurring in the first place. The quality of life strategies, again targets social disruptions that are described as “annoying”, e.g. panhandling, loitering and public drug use and seeks to disrupt it with police presences and thereby increasing the “quality of life” for others. Zero tolerance and quality of life approaches focus on high police visibility, relentless enforcement and often coincide with police ‘crackdowns’. The purpose is to create the perception for would be criminals that they run a high risk of being apprehended. Consider . . . Do you find it interesting that this section describes these strategies as “gloves off community policing”? Does this remind you of the traditional model of policing described in Unit 1 where officers were described as “crime fighters” responsible for “watching” over the community and “arresting” criminals? Are we looking at the evolution of a model or a return to previous practices? Broken Window The strategy began in the 80s in New York. According to this approach leaving a broken window in a neighborhood would cause the quality of life to deteriorate and increase in criminal activity. Take a look at this write up in the New York Times – How Broken Windows Policing Saved New York – and does (Apr, 2015) . This strategy seeks to reduce uncontrolled minor “incivilities” in neighborhoods, e.g. panhandling, public intoxication, vandals and ‘squeege kids”. Have a look at similar approaches taken in Toronto: Still no place for squeegee kids on our streets Toronto Sun-Dec 15, 2014 Advocates say Ontario law banning panhandling should be repealed Globalnews.ca-Dec 15, 2014 Crime Attack Strategies These strategies are intended to be ‘proactive’ and they target and apprehend individuals that are considered to be “high risk to reoffend individuals”. Typically these strategies include increased patrol, visibility, proactive patrols and rapid response. They include: Tactical-Directed Patrol involves identifying hot spots and saturating the area with police Targeted High-Risk Offenders

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

These initiatives focus on intense monitoring of offenders; most often repeat offenders and include programs like HERO (High Enforcement Repeat Offenders) or ROPE (Repeat Offender Program Enforcement) etc… Targeted Types of Crimes this involves developing strategies to address specific types of crime and often includes the use of “bait cars”. I have even seen “bait bicycles”. Community Notification The last proactive strategy discussed by Griffith is community notification where many services use the media/social media to inform the public of a potential issue or danger e.g. offenders on the loose. However, it should be noted that research has indicated that community notification systems do not increase public safety.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

CONCLUSION Lesson 4 has focused extensively on the traditional, professional and community policing models. The lesson highlights the early concepts of policing and the traditional format which emphasized police presences as a form of deterrent. The lesson also examines the evolution toward professionalism and the inclusion of modern advancements such as the mobile patrols and enhanced communication techniques. It concludes with a discussion on the most modern iteration of policing, community-based strategic policing, including the principles and crime prevention attributes of this model. Section 4.1 introduced you to some valuable terminology associated with traditional models of policing. Knowledge of these terms, e.g. centralization, and bureaucracy will aide your understanding of why there has been a movement away from the traditional closed system and a move toward community policing. These terms also help us understand why some of these traditions persist; for example, hierarchical organizations maintain power in the higher ranks. Our current police system still tends to favor this rank and file model thus holding decision making and control to those at the top. In 4.2 the evolution into a professional police services was discussed. This section summarized the movement toward a professional police force starting in the 1930s with

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

the addition of mobile patrols and extended communication abilities. Emphasis was placed on the three R’s (random patrol, rapid response, reactive investigation) along with the implementation of resources to enhance this very reactive stance to crime and disorder. This led to the discussion of crime rates and clearance rates, in section 4.3, that are still relied upon to account for the allocation of police resources even within 21st century policing. Careful consideration should be given to the pitfalls of relying on these catch all types of performance indicators. Does a low crime rate really indicate efficiency by police and conversely, could there be other variables at play causing a crime rate to go down other than the mere presence of officers? This is discussed at length in the reading and the lesson. Section 4.4-4.6 outlined the principals, practices and strategies of community policing. Of particular interest, noted in the chapter under the header The Principles of Community Policing was the emphasis of focusing on crime and social disorder through the delivery of police services rather than traditional law enforcement . The sections also introduces the three Ps of community policing; partnership, problems-solving, and prevention. The last section, 4.7, presents the 21st century model of community-based strategic policing. This model blends some of the reactive measures of the traditional model with a community approach that emphasizes security, response, and prevention. Two tables are incorporated as optional learning activities to help consolidate the principles and attributes of community-based strategic policing with the strategies implemented to prevent crime. DISCUSSION I have added a direct link here to lesson four discussion board . Please note that lesson four discussion board will be closed at the end of week 8. Discussion Topics (Lesson 4) Choose One  In your view, what model does your local police service primarily operate under? Professional, Community, or Community-based. Explain your position using examples from local papers, and or reported police initiatives.  Can you give examples of portions of your community that are not being serviced by community style policing? How and why?  How do police avoid retreating from the community and returning to traditional models when there is push back by the community they are attempting to serve?  UNIT 2 QUIZ (WORTH 6.6%)

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

 Unit 2 Quiz will be available during the last three days of this unit. For exact dates and times check the course calendar. This quiz will cover material from unit 2 - lesson 3 and 4. Note that once you start the quiz you will not be able to stop and/or restart. The quiz will be out of 30 points with short answer and multiple choice questions and a time allotment of 40 minutes. REFERENCES 1. Braga, A. A. (2008) Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention. 2Ed., Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, New York, USA 2. Bellmio, P. (2010) Neighborhood Policing: Discussion Paper #1 – The Concept. Waterloo Regional Police Service, Waterloo Regional Police Service Executive Office 3. Goldstein, H. (1982) Toward Community-Oriented Policing: Potential, Basic Requirements, and Threshold Questions. Crime & Delinquency, 33(1), 6-30 4. Government of Canada, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission – Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2015-342. Online: http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2014/2014-342.htm 5. Kelling, G., Pate, T., Dieckman, D., Brown, C. (1974) The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: A Summary Report. (PDF provided) 6. Leuprecht, C. (2014). The blue line or the bottom line of police services in Canada? Arresting runaway growth in costs. Ottawa, ON: Macdonald-Laurier Institute 7. Ozeren, Suleyman. Problem-oriented approach to criminal investigation: implementation issues and challenges . Denton, Texas. UNT Digital Library. Online: http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc2876/ . Accessed October 20, 2015. 8. Police Foundation: The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment. Online http://www.policefoundation.org/projects/the-kansas-city-preventive- patrol-experiment/ 9. Police Powers in Canada: The Evolution and Practice of Authority. By R. C. Macleod, David Schneiderman, University of Alberta. Centre for Constitutional Studies. 10. Ratcliffe, J. H. (2016) Intelligence-Led Policing, London: Routledge 11. Trojaowicz, R., Bucqueroux, R. (1992). The Basics of Community Policing . Footprints: The Community Policing Newsletter, National Center for Community Policing, Michigan State University. 12. Whitelaw, B. & Parent, R. (2014). Community-Based Strategic Policing in Canada. 4th Edition. Nelson. Canada

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Lesson 3-4 UNITE 2 CC 291-PD 291

Related Documents