THE BLOG

Toronto Cops Still Hate Being Recorded

11/16/2015 05:21 EST | Updated 11/16/2016 05:12 EST
Roberto Machado Noa via Getty Images
TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA - 2015/05/13: Toronto Police Car: Toronto Police Service is the largest municipal police service in Canada and third largest police force in Canada. (Photo by Roberto Machado Noa/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Which do you think is worse: police officers who don't know the law, or officers who know the law but deliberately ignore it or even mock it?

That question has been on my mind since I saw the video made by Mike Miller, who observed two police officers making an arrest in broad daylight in a Toronto parking lot on September 14, 2015. Miller is a professional videographer, so he got out his camera to record the event. The video was first posted online by the Toronto Star on October 27.

It shows a police cruiser with two officers standing beside it, apparently arresting two men whose faces have been deliberately blurred by the video editor. Another cruiser pulls up and two officers emerge. One of the officers from the first cruiser says to the new arrivals, "Could you turn the camera on that guy over there?" pointing over his shoulder at Miller.

I expected the new arrivals to return to their cruiser, pull out another video camera, and train it on Mr. Miller. But they didn't. Apparently I don't understand the code words used by the first officer, but the two new guys do. They know he's not asking them to video the videographer; he's asking them to prevent the videographer from recording.

The two officers (identified by The Star as constables Brian Smith and Shawn Gill) crowd in on Mr. Miller, asking why he is videoing. "'Cause I have the right to," Miller correctly responds. He's obviously aware of the recurring incidents throughout North America where police have wrongfully attempted to intimidate citizens into turning off their cameras.

But Smith and Gill continue to advance, questioning Miller, and forcing him to walk backwards or else be shoved. They get so close that their bodies fill the camera lens, preventing Miller from capturing the events continuing in the background. He asks them to "get out of my personal space" but they don't back off an inch. In fact, they acknowledge verbally that he has the right to record in a public place, while Smith waves his hand directly in front of the lens for several seconds. His intentions are clear: he'll pay lip service to Miller's right to record, while actively preventing him from exercising it.

Miller found the experience daunting. Who wouldn't? Yet at the same time, the officers' behaviour was downright childish. Did it never occur to them that they shouldn't be caught on camera flagrantly violating a citizen's rights?

A police spokesperson later told The Star that the individuals being arrested were 15 and 16 years old, and "their identities are protected by law." But this is a pathetically lame excuse for Smith's and Gill's conduct. The Youth Criminal Justice Act prevents people from publishing identifying information about youths involved with the law, but not from recording it. Smith and Gill had no reason to believe that Miller would break the law by publishing identifying information; when he and The Star did eventually put the video online, they protected the youths by blurring their faces.

But even more egregious, in my mind, is that Smith and Gill seem completely oblivious to the notion that they themselves were probably performing a criminal act. Accosting and intimidating someone, even if you don't lay hands on them, can constitute an assault. Section 265 of the Criminal Code say you're committing assault if you attempt or threaten, by an act or gesture, to apply force to someone, if the victim has reasonable grounds to believe that you have the present ability to apply that force. Furthermore, if you're openly wearing a weapon -- and both officers were wearing sidearms -- then it's an assault merely to accost or impede someone. It will be interesting to see whether they are charged.

But someone also needs to investigate the first officer, the one who asked Smith and Gill to prevent the videoing. Why did he expect the other cops in his unit to understand his murky request?

The Toronto Police Service says its officers know they can be filmed by the public. But it appears they need a refresher course, one that tells them, "We really mean this."

Epilogue:

Following the original publication of this op-ed by the National Post, I received an e-mail from Toronto Police Services spokesperson Meaghan Gray, stating that my article "left the reader with the impression that the Service was/is defending the actions of these officers." She pointed out that she had been quoted in the media saying that the officers' failure to communicate had been unacceptable and their overall response to the situation had been inappropriate.

I responded by e-mail on November 13 as follows:

"Unfortunately, columnists are limited to a fairly strict word count when writing for op-ed pages. In order to get in everything I wanted to say, I had to use my entire word allotment. Therefore, there was no room for including anything else you might have said. Sorry.

"However, now that I've got your attention, perhaps you could update me on what measures the Toronto Police Service is taking to address the issues I raised in my article.

"Specifically:

"1. Are constables Gill and Smith facing any disciplinary action or even criminal charges as a result of their conduct?

"2. Is the other officer who asked them to "Turn the camera on that guy" facing any disciplinary action?

"3. Is the officer training program being changed to make it clear to officers that 'Citizens may record' really means that citizens may record?

"Thanks for your anticipated cooperation."

So far, I have received no answer from Toronto Police Service.

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:

Black Lives Matter Toronto