The Accountability of Current Events – The Police and the Media Both Have Responsibilities
Danny Smyth
Chief of Police
It is the IIU—and not the CBC—that will establish whether the conduct of the officers was lawful, and within accepted police standards.
Earlier this week my office contacted the Independent Investigation Unit (IIU) to report a death that occurred subsequent to a police encounter. These types of encounters must and should be investigated by an independent investigative unit. These policies and procedures are well established in Manitoba. What is not well established is how to inform the public about these types of events. The practice has been to notify the IIU that a death has occurred, notify the public that a death has occurred, and defer all inquiries to the IIU. The IIU’s practice has been to acknowledge the notification by police, take jurisdiction of the investigation, and notify the public that they will investigate. Very little additional information is given to the public.
Therein lies the rub. No one is providing enough information to the public. Instead, we are telling the public that the death will be investigated by an independent unit and we’ll get back to you. Public trust and confidence rely on accountability, and timeliness—especially when police are involved. No one would dispute the importance of a thorough investigation as an essential part of the administration of justice. However, no one would dispute the public’s right to have a basic understanding of the event that the police were involved in. These principles are not mutually exclusive. The public can be informed about the context of an event without compromising the integrity of an investigation.
This past Sunday just before 11 p.m., WPS officers were dispatched to Sherbrook and Broadway after a woman called 911 for assistance. The officers were informed that a male had jumped in front of her vehicle and started punching her window and attempted to enter her vehicle. She indicated there was blood on her vehicle. Police were also called by a second caller who was concerned about the male in traffic. This was the beginning of a call that was classified as a wellbeing check, which could involve anything from a person in mental health crisis to a person in a drug-induced psychosis to a person acting hysterical for unknown reasons.
Officers would quickly locate the male, who was combative and acting erratically. They attempted to take him into custody but were met with resistance. There was a struggle as officers used force to restrain and control the male. During the encounter the male went into medical distress. The WFPS was called to assist, and the male would later die in hospital.
These are the basic facts. The IIU was notified of these basic facts shortly afterwards. This was a tragic and traumatic event for all involved. The WPS will cooperate fully with the IIU investigation. I am confident that the WPS members involved in this event were well trained, and will account for the actions they took, including the level of force used to control the situation. The public was informed of the death, but they were not informed of these basic facts by either the WPS or the IIU. In the ordinary course, once an investigation is assumed by the IIU, we don’t provide any additional comments to the media. And that was the case here. In my view, this was a mistake because it allowed others to take control of the narrative.
I was disappointed, but not surprised, that CBC Manitoba chose to report this incident by using the perspective of two people who witnessed and recorded just part of the encounter. The event, as reported by CBC Manitoba, was interpreted through the narrow focus of these two people who had no first-hand experience with police use of force encounters. There was no context provided that explained what led up to the encounter, but descriptors of “police violence” and “police beating” were readily used in the report. To be clear, I am not critical of the two witnesses who came forward. I have no doubt the information that they provide to the investigators, once they are interviewed, will assist the investigation, but they are just two of many, many witnesses that will help the IIU determine what occurred.
Perhaps this is where the interests of an organization like CBC Manitoba diverges from the independent investigation and public interests of a police-involved death. If chasing the clicks and likes of a progressive audience is the goal, then providing content that defaults to police criticism and the negative portrayal of police should surprise no one. This can be seen by the way this story was framed: “Group of friends stunned, say they saw police officers punch man lying on ground” was the CBC headline. “IIU investigating death in custody” was the Winnipeg Sun headline.
I am confident that the IIU will conduct a thorough investigation. They will interview many witnesses, and collect all available video recordings. They will collect and examine all available forensic and medical information. I expect that they will ask for all pertinent WPS training and policy records. I have no doubt that they will seek the opinion of experts to analyze the information and evidence they collect. It is the IIU—and not the CBC—that will establish whether the conduct of the officers was lawful, and within accepted police standards. This will take some time. When the investigation is complete, the report will be made public.
A competent, well trained, and professional police service that is accountable to the community it serves, is in the public’s interest. The media has a role by ensuring accountability through balanced and objective inquiry. That too is in everyone’s interest. It appears in this instance, some media publications have chosen very different approaches about the interests they serve. And for that reason, you will find us taking a different approach when it comes to the media and IIU matters. We owe it to the public to ensure the basic facts are available at the outset.