Letter to a chief of police about a bad cop

Dahn Batchelor's Opinions

This letter was mailed at the end of December 2006 to William Blair, the chief of police of the Toronto Police Service in which I expressed my concerns about a rogue cop under his command.

Dear Sir:

By way of introduction, I am a criminologist and an advisor to the United Nations on criminal justice. Over the years I have participated in various committees at the request of several ministries in Ontario and I have spoken on such topics as the complaint procedures with respect to police forces. In 2005 and 2006, I was a guest speaker at three forums on justice in Bangkok, Lima and Brussels. Because of my many speeches around the world at UN forums etc., I am mindful of how fortunate we as Canadians are in having checks and balances within our system of justice.

In one of your messages to the citizens of Toronto, you said in part;

The men and women of the Service, on a daily basis, exemplify our seven core values: honesty, integrity, fairness, respect, reliability, teamwork and positive attitude.

When you spoke those words, you spoke of the men and women collectively and for the most part, you were quite correct in expressing your sentiment and mine also with your choice of words.

Unfortunately those words don’t exemplify the words of all your police officers. It is one of those officers whose conduct is so egregious that it has compelled me to write you. I am speaking of Sergeant Elliott of 23 Division.

Until I heard the decision of Superintendent Tweedy with respect to the hearing he conducted on December 13, 2006, I didn’t know much about Elliott other than the fact that it was he who was the fool, along with other supervisors, who encouraged the traffic ticket quota system in 23 Division.

But as I listened to Supt. Tweedy’s decision further, it became apparent to me that Elliott did something far worse. He tried to frame two innocent police officers with an offence of trying to bring into fruition a cover-up of their alleged misconduct. Let me quote from my notes:

Elliott had a second conversation with the civilian station operator, which he claimed that she told him that the officers approached her and asked her to not to say anything to anyone about a report and further, to say that she never spoke to them about it. Sergeant Elliott claimed Ms. McGahey (the civilian) was upset about being put in such a difficult position.

Sergeant Elliott admitted at the hearing that it was a very serious allegation of misconduct he was adding to the other two charges he had filed against the two officers because it would be tantamount to the officers encouraging a civilian member to participate in a cover-up of the alleged misconduct of the two officers he had charged earlier.

When Sergeant Elliott was challenged that he never told anyone about this alleged cover-up, he responded by stating that he told Complaints Investigator, Sergeant Tretter of the cover-up and suggested to her that she take a statement from Ms. McGahey.

Ms. McGahey stated there was no suggestion of any attempt on the part of the officers to ask her to lie on their behalf.

Superintendent Tweedy said in his decision that in his opinion, no cover-up existed. He added that if Sergeant Tretter was informed of such a cover-up, she would have stated so to him.

What is interesting about this allegation on the part of Elliott is that he didn’t make any reference to it in his memo book or prepare a report to his unit commander about his new and very serious allegation. Further, he didn’t tell the Service prosecutor about this new allegation until a week before the hearing and that was seventeen months after the fact.

I think the Service prosecutor was too generous when he said that Elliott misunderstood and misstated what Ms. McGahey told him about the conversation that she had with the two officers. It must be kept in mind that his star witness’ (Elliott) testimony at this juncture of the hearing was going so far down the toilet, a plumber couldn’t have recovered it.

I believe that Supt. Tweedy was more correct in his conclusion about Elliott’s testimony when he said that his testimony caused him concern; was not sufficiently persuasive and was frequently contradictory.

I don’t believe that the conversation between Elliott and Ms. McGahey was unclear at all. I am sure that Elliott merely asked her if she passed on his message to the officers with respect to the report and she confirmed that she did. There would have been no need to press the matter further. As stated earlier, Ms. McGahey never told him about an attempt on the part of the two officers to get her to participate in a cover-up.

By Elliott testifying that Ms. McGahey told him that she was asked to participate in a cover-up by the two officers; he perjured himself.

Police officers who perjure themselves in hearings or trials are unquestionably a risk to everyone, be they police officers or citizens charged with crimes. Society relies on the honesty of police officers. The thought of innocent people being convicted on perjured testimony is very frightening.

Take the case of Zimmerman of New York City who many years ago was convicted on the perjured testimony of a police officer who didn’t like the man personally and was out to destroy him. Zimmerman was only twenty- five minutes from the electric chair when the governor stayed his execution. After he served twenty years in prison, the police officer on his deathbed confessed that he had falsely accused Zimmerman of a murder he knew he hadn’t committed. Zimmerman was subsequently released from prison and the city gave him $1 million dollars in compensation.

Further, Elliott tried to convince officers’ in 23 Division to not socialize with one of the officers he charged because that officer reported his bad conduct to his superiors. By doing this terrible deed, Elliott intended to seriously malign and subjected the officer to immense torment.

I am mindful of section 57(1) of the Police Services Act which says that “a complaint may be made by a member of the public only if the complainant was directly affected by the policy, service or conduct that is the subject of the complaint.”

This letter is not to be construed as a complaint filed against Sergeant Elliott by myself or on behalf of any other person but is instead a letter of concern by a citizen who lives in Mississauga but is in Toronto many times and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Toronto Police Service.

I know that I don’t have to remind you that once in a while, police services in various cities get rogue cops and they can cause a lot of misery to the citizens they are sworn to protect.

But when you get a police officer, especially a sergeant who tries to frame innocent cops to further his purpose, whatever it may be, the credibility of that sergeant diminishes to the point that his role as a police sergeant is damaged beyond any hope of repair. Younger police officers should be able to look up to their sergeants for advice and direction instead of looking down at their sergeants with contempt. What value is Sergeant Elliott’s service as a sergeant if those below his rank, those who serve with an equivelent rank and those who are above his rank are contemptuous of him as a fellow officer?

I am interested in knowing what action, preferably by way of a Police Act hearing, is going to be instituted against Sergeant Elliott.

I am sure that if your police force were to demote this individual back to the rank of Police Constable, the message will get across to others of his ilk that there are consequences to behaving in the manner that this sergeant did. Certainly his lack of Crime Stoppers procedures with respect to reporting is evidence that he is not paying attention to what he has been told. It would create a situation where younger officers would be looking to him for advice on a subject he knows nothing about.

I am curious to know if you are going to let this sergeant’s conduct slide or alternatively, begin the process of disciplining him. In my respectful opinion, the latter approach would appear to be in the best interests of his fellow officers and the public at large.

__________________________________________________________________________________

I will let you know if he replies to my letter and what he says in it.