August 28, 1998

TO:Toronto Emergency & Protective Services Committee

FROM:Norman Gardner, Chairman

Toronto Police Services Board

SUBJECT:PROPOSED UNARMED CONSTABULARY IN THECITY OF TORONTO

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the following report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background History:

At its meeting on August 27, 1998, the Toronto Police Services Board was in receipt of the following report JULY 23, 1998 from David J. Boothby, Chief of Police:

"SUBJECT:PROPOSED UNARMED CONSTABULARY

RECOMMENDATION:THAT the Board receive this report for information, and that a copy be forwarded to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee.

BACKGROUND:

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee at a meeting on March 24th, 1998 requested that the Chairman of the Toronto Police Services Board submit a report on the feasibility of creating a city-run, unarmed constabulary to issue citations for traffic violations, including traffic signals, stop signs, no turn restrictions, parking and speeding infractions.

There are a number of legal concerns, safety concerns and integrity concerns associated with a city-run unarmed constabulary.

Feasibility of enforcement through direct contact with driver

Legal Concerns

Highway Traffic Act

The Highway Traffic Act is the Provincial Statute one normally refers to when researching the rules of the road. This Act refers only to police officers when giving the power to direct traffic (other than traffic control device or sign), to arrest without warrant those who fail to identify themselves, to stop bicyclists and demand identification, to seize licences, and a number of other actions.

Examples of these laws are quoted below:

The Highway Traffic Act, Part X Rules of the Road, states as follows:

"Section 216 (1) A police officer, in the lawful execution of his or her duties and responsibilities, may require the driver of a motor vehicle to stop and the driver of the motor vehicle, when signalled or requested to stop by a police officer who is readily identifiable as such, shall immediately come to a safe stop.

Section 134 Direction of traffic by police officer - (1) Where a police officer considers it reasonably necessary,

(a) to ensure the orderly movement of traffic;

(b) to prevent injury or damage to person or property, or

(c) to permit proper action in an emergency,

he or she may direct traffic according to his or her discretion, despite the provisions of this Part, and every person shall obey his or her directions."

There are no powers given to any other citizen to stop a motorist or bicyclist or to direct traffic within the Highway Traffic Act.

The question arises as to what a city-run traffic officer would do when confronted with a person who is committing a criminal offence. An example is Section 254 of the Criminal Code. Drive while disqualified. A person convicted of an offence such as impaired driving is placed under suspension for a mandatory period of time. Should they drive, it is a criminal offence. Any citizen may arrest a person whom they find committing this offence. A city-run traffic officer will eventually stop someone committing an offence such as this. What training will this officer have in: the powers of arrest; the use of force; the Charter of Rights; and in procedures on how to safely arrest a person? What equipment will the officer possess - handcuffs, batons, and/or portable radios?

These questions lead into the next concern, which is safety.

Safety Concerns

In the United States of America (USA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) compiles police-related statistics to assist law enforcement agencies to serve their communities better and for the purpose of assisting in the training of the nation's officers. According to FBI statistics, one of the most dangerous functions that law enforcement officers perform is the enforcement of traffic-related offences. Between 1987-1996, ninety police officers were murdered while performing traffic stops. The following tables represent the 1996 statistics:

Deaths

Assaults by:

Canada

The USA has a different culture than Canada; however, we do share similar problems. In Toronto, the Toronto Police Service Parking Enforcement Unit is a unit comprised of men and women who are responsible for the enforcement of municipal parking by-laws. These officers wear uniforms similar to police officers, are equipped with bullet-proof vests and portable radios (which allows for direct calls for assistance) and deal for the most part with unoccupied vehicles. However, the table below displays the high ratio of assaults and other crimes committed against these officers in 1997 alone:

Note: Statistics are not kept in Canada as they are in the USA regarding incidents at traffic stops. Statistics are not available within the Service regarding this matter.

The stopping of vehicles is a dangerous task. Officers performing traffic-related stops do not know who the vehicle occupants are or what their state of mind is. Officers who, due to their assignments, make a large number of traffic stops are prone to lose their concentration in relation to safety. After making tens of thousands of stops without incident, an officer may suddenly be confronted with a dangerous situation.

Many drivers who would not normally be involved in any criminal activity find this type of interaction with law enforcement officers (traffic-related stops) an extremely emotional event and often react in many unpredictable and different manners which range from disgust to extreme violence.

Persons who are wanted for criminal offences or have recently committed a criminal offence may not know the difference between a city-run unarmed traffic officer and a sworn police officer who is trained and armed.

A city-run unarmed constabulary would not have the training, the equipment, the access to criminal information nor the quick police-related assistance that it would take to perform their function safely.

Integrity Issues

Members of all police services in Ontario are governed by the Police Services Act (PSA). This is a Provincial Statute that states the requirements to which police services boards, police services and police officers are expected to adhere. This Act includes a discipline section that has held up in numerous General Court challenges.

Uniformed officers of a city-run constabulary would be very visible representatives of the City of Toronto. These officers would be seen by members of our community, tourists, media, etc. The perception of integrity, discipline and professionalism is paramount. However, these officers would not be governed by the Police Services Act. As city employees, they may become members of CUPE. Discipline of union members is a much different affair from discipline under the Police Services Act. This should be explored by City Legal for further advice.

The PSA also restricts the activities of police officers during labour disputes. Police officers are prohibited from striking in the Province of Ontario. A city-run unarmed constabulary, as members of CUPE or another union, would not be prohibited from striking and may become involved in picketing. They may choose to picket while in uniform for maximum exposure. This would be an intimidating sight for most civilians, and would not portray a positive image of the City.

Feasibility of enforcement without direct contact with driver

Legal Concerns

There are two main areas of legal concerns: changing the Highway Traffic Act to allow this type of enforcement and the practicality of the 'hands-on' operations.

Changes/Additions to the Highway Traffic Act

A number of sections would require changes within the Highway Traffic Act. This subject was touched upon earlier in this report. Additional legislation would also be required to be made similar to the photo radar section in order for the concept of enforcement without stopping the vehicle to be feasible. Estimated timelines for these additions and changes are approximately 3-5 years, under normal circumstances.

Hands-on Operations

Presently, in order to convict a person of an offence contrary to the Highway Traffic Act, evidence is given, in a court room setting, under oath, before a Justice of the Peace (JP). Most of these courts have adopted the stricter guidelines set down by criminal courts.

A police officer who observes a motorist who fails to stop for a red light would normally perform the following actions:

1stop the vehicle

2check the driver's licence, registration, and insurance

3check for other offences i.e. Seatbelts or criminal offences

Take notes recording:

1the make, colour & year of the vehicle

2the licence plate,

3the driver's information

4the number of occupants

5the date & time

6the road and weather conditions

7location of offence

8exact location where the vehicle was when the light turned red (how many meters back)

9vehicle direction and lane(s) occupied

10the cycle of the traffic lights

11that the lights were working properly

12any other pertinent information

Attend court:

1provide disclosure prior to court date

2attend court and give evidence

3be able to state that the traffic light that the defendant was facing had turned red

4any other information as required by the court including all the items listed above in the notes.

A city-run traffic officer would not be required to give the driver's information under this scenario; however, most of the other information would be required in order to register a conviction. The question is whether a JP will believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a city-run traffic officer, without the benefit of stopping the vehicle, was able to give the following information:

1the make, colour & year of the vehicle

2the licence plate,

3the date & time

4the road and weather conditions

5location of offence

6exact location where the vehicle was when the light turned red (how many meters back)

7vehicle direction and lane(s) occupied

8be able to state that the traffic light that the defendant was facing had turned red

One would need to be an extremely good observer to be able to record all this information about a vehicle and offence while the vehicle travels at approximately 60 km/h through an intersection.

Convictions under this scenario are unlikely.

Conclusion

The legal, safety and integrity concerns associated with a city-run unarmed constabulary are substantial enough to strongly state that the idea of a formation of such an entity would not have the support of the Toronto Police Service.

Staff Sergeant Richard Murdoch (4401), of Traffic Services (Local 8-1900), will be in attendance to answer any questions regarding this report."

Conclusions:

David Hutcheon made a deputation which was received by the Board.

The Board approved the establishment of a committee to review the issue of an unarmed traffic constabulary. The committee will consist of representatives from the Toronto Police Services Board, the Toronto Police Service, the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the Ministry of the Attorney General and City Legal.

The Board referred the Chief's report (dated July 23, 1998) to the proposed committee as well as deferred consideration of the following motions to the above-noted committee:

"1.That the Board advise the Minister of Transportation that we do not support the proposed unarmed constabulary program.

2.That the Chief prepare a report for the next meeting of the Board on the following issues:

i.With an aggressive zero-tolerance

"Community Road Safety" enforcement campaign (red light runners, rolling stops at stop signs, speeding in residential neighbourhoods and school zones) what would be the estimated revenues that could be achieved?

ii.With the estimated revenues how many officers could be hired?

iii.The possibility of establishing a "Community Road Safety" enforcement unit?"

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Staff Sergeant Rick Murdoch. Traffic Services Unit, telephone no. 808-1900.

Respectfully submitted,

Norman Gardner

Chairman

A:\unarmede.doc