We like most of the police officers we deal with in the course of our work. Despite a few notable exceptions, most police officers are thoughtful intelligent and balanced, and they contribute through their work to our community.
To assume that the police don’t lie is mechanism to teach them to lie. If we accept what they say without question, there is no check on their honesty and nothing to encourage truthfulness.
We’re not suggesting that any great reverence should be paid to the police. They get paid for their job and they do their job just like anyone else. And like most people, they try to do a good job and they try to be honest. When it comes to the honesty issue we in the justice system think that the police must be held to a higher standard. Indeed, among some police officers the idea of the police lying is an anathema that can’t even be discussed. That’s too bad because there is an important issue here. Can we really expect the police to be any different than anyone else? Are the police lying from time to time just like most normal goodhearted people?
Police lying
We’ve caught many police officers in lies over the years but it’s not always malicious. Sometimes it is, but usually it’s an issue of unwillingness to admit a mistake and then colouring something with a lie. Sometimes it’s an outright lie for the purpose of self protection. Sometimes it’s a lie to avoid embarrassment.
To assume that the police don’t lie is mechanism to teach them to lie. If we accept what they say without question, there is no check on their honesty and nothing to encourage truthfulness.
Now, the nice thing about police officers coming to court to testify is that their evidence is tested through cross examination. It serves the purpose of rooting out the truth at the trial. It also serves to teach officers about the importance of recording the truth and telling the truth. Sometimes it can be a brutal lesson. Many officers I’ve cross examined have told me afterward that they learned through my cross examination that they better be accurate and not loose with the facts. I expect that some probably came away cynical.
Regardless, officers who are conducting a criminal investigation usually try to keep in mind the fact that their actions will be scrutinized in open court. It keeps them honest.
What about the IRP scheme?
An entire generation of younger police officers are working general duty, which means a lot of traffic enforcement. This is how young officers learn the skills of investigation. The old guys who do traffic usually picked that career for lifestyle reasons (or they figured it all out), but that’s a different issue.
Traffic enforcement is really where the rubber hits the road. Now, before the introduction of Immediate Roadside Prohibitions, traffic officers would conduct investigation after investigation of the Criminal Code offence of impaired driving. With these investigations, as an officer you know that there’s a pretty good chance that the file will land in the hands of one of the few lawyers with particular expertise in criminal impaired driving cases. In that case, you may be subject to a bruising cross examination. Which means that you better do a good job and tell the truth. But what if you’re issuing an Immediate Roadside Prohibition?
There is no real test of the officer’s evidence because it’s a paper only scheme. There is no cross examination. There is no defence lawyer to speak with them after the trial about what they did well and what they screwed up. In most cases, there is no way lies will be found out. So one unpleasant and inadvertent consequence of the IRP law is that it trains police officers to lie.
In the long run this damages the cause of justice and our society. Are the police to blame for this? Not the officers at the roadblock. They’re standing in the rain and coming away with fewer skills and a lower grade of professional understanding than the generation before them. But it’s not their fault. Those who conceived of the IRP scheme didn’t think this through. That’s where the fault lies.
Are the police lying?
Yes, police lie. To conclude that they don’t merely assures that they do. They may lie less than the general population for all we know – this we can’t say with any certainty. Our particular concern is that the current generation of general duty officers have no check on their evidence because most of their investigations will never end in court. When the police don’t have to go to court, that encourages sloppiness, inaccuracies and lying.
In the short term and the long term, this is bad for our society. It’s also bad for these officers because they’re missing the particular professional training that comes with testifying in impaired driving trials. When they move on to a sex assault investigation, they may find that the case falls apart because a sharp defence lawyer finds holes in their evidence. It’s bound to happen because they lack the skills to conduct a proper investigation. Then, to hide embarrassment or for self preservation they’ll lie, get caught in the lie and watch a really bad guy walk out of the court only to commit more crimes another day.
Our Acumen Law contest:
A few people closely read our blog posts from last week and in particular a handful read the ‘Report on British Columbia’s 2010 Impaired Driving Initiative (IDI)’ which is pretty dense. When you get to page 18 you may have noted a mention of what is in actuality systemic police lying.
The first person who sends me an email to correctly explain what I’m referring to gets a shout out.
Once again, thanks for reading our blog.