​How a Lack of Media Attention Helps Misbehaving Cops Receive Less Punishment

This post originally appeared on VICE Canada.

In 2011, a Toronto police superintendent ordered that Constable Desmond Bovell resign or be fired after he admitted to having sexual relationships with vulnerable women who were drug users and involved in sex work.

The police force had found that Bovell had also mishandled evidence, used a police database to query women he was seeing, and did not offer to help when a woman told him she had been assaulted and robbed.

The service prosecutor, a fellow cop, had sought Bovell's dismissal, but noted some mitigating factors, according to a police document released by the Toronto Police Service (TPS) to VICE: "The charges drew no media attention, nor did they involve criminal charges or convictions."

When officers are found guilty of misconduct at Ontario disciplinary tribunals, their penalties can be based on over a dozen factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct, damage to the police service's reputation, and the effect of any publicity. So while Bovell's misconduct was particularly serious, the usual questions applied: Had there been any publicity of Bovell's behavior? Had he shown remorse? What was his work history? (Gary Clewley, who represented Bovell, declined to comment.)

These considerations evolved from the case law surrounding police discipline, according to Ian Johnstone, a lawyer who prosecutes police at professional tribunals. As hearing officers make rulings, they cite previous disciplinary decisions to support their arguments; decisions from the Ontario Civilian Police Commission also shape the discipline process. Over time, certain factors become common considerations as lawyers, police prosecutors, and hearing officers cite certain precedents.

Lawyer and author Paul Ceyssens outlines 15 disposition considerations in his book Legal Aspects of Policing. Ceyssens' writing is considered a valuable resource at tribunals, according to a provincial spokesperson.

The effect of publicity and damage to the reputation of a police service are considerations that arise at tribunals, and they can seem out-of-place when police services are handling questions of serious misconduct: Yes, this officer showed poor judgment and shirked his responsibilities—but did it make the papers? This also means that reporters aren't entirely neutral observers in the discipline process.

And while many serious cases involving possible officer misconduct are handled by the province's Special Investigations Unit, which leads to at least some reporting, much police wrongdoing never sees media attention.

The case of Ontario Provincial Police Constable Kyle Kneeshaw is one example where media attention contributed to a harsher penalty. Kneeshaw was on general patrol in November 2014 when a call went out about a seemingly impaired driver on Highway 9 in New Tecumseth.

The officer took the call and raced toward the scene, where the driver was said to be stumbling outside his vehicle. Kneeshaw's police SUV hit 153 kilometers an hour [95 mph] in a 60 kilometer an hour [35 mph] zone, according to a police disciplinary document. Kneeshaw drove over a hill and spotted a Honda Accord as its driver waited to turn into a driveway. He braked and moved left, hitting the Accord, as well as a westbound Dodge Caravan. When Kneeshaw's vehicle finally came to a stop, he had to cut his airbag to leave the SUV. The two civilians in the other vehicles were taken to hospital with minor injuries, but the driver of the Accord would later say she was dealing with the impact of the collision "on a daily basis," according to the decision.

"[Kneeshaw] demonstrated a lack of respect for any other vehicles and any pedestrians who may have been in his path," OPP Superintendent Greg Walton said.

As Walton considered a penalty for Kneeshaw, who pled guilty to a charge of discreditable conduct, he worked through the usual considerations. Walton noted that police discipline decisions are"requested on a regular basis by the media."

"Public awareness of the officer's conduct of this nature is embarrassing to the OPP and damages the reputation of the OPP," Walton wrote. Kneeshaw's accident had been in the local press, and a collection of news clippings was entered as an exhibit during his hearing.

In the case of Kneeshaw, his strong work history was a mitigating factor to his ultimate penalty; the attention his case received was deemed an aggravating factor. Kneeshaw was docked 100 hours pay.

In another disciplinary case, Toronto police Superintendent Debra Preston ordered that Constable Gary Gould be dismissed for beating a handcuffed man in the back of a cruiser, and she focused sharply on video of the incident.

"The video was placed on a mainstream newspapers(sic) website and picked up by other media outlets," Preston wrote. A headline in the Toronto Star announced that Gould had avoided prison time, and Preston deemed the damage to the TPS's reputation to be an aggravating factor for Gould's penalty. Preston also noted that Gould's behavior had affected the public's trust in the TPS. Gould, who had a long history of misconduct, has appealed the decision to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

Preston declined to comment for this story, but she also noted in the case of Enis Egeli that recent reporting on officers who drive drunk was noteworthy.

"Although these articles have not influenced my decision about penalty, they do highlight the concern and general intolerance of the community around impaired driving in general, and more so about this offense being committed by the officers who serve their community," Preston wrote. (Preston also wrote that "there was no publicity specific to this misconduct," though Egeli's accident was in the local media.)

David Butt, a lawyer who defends police officers, said media attention can have "a dramatic impact" on some discipline cases. Butt believes reporting on officer misconduct is a "legitimate consideration," as public mistrust makes effective policing more difficult.

"The effectiveness of policing depends on effective relationships with the community," Butttold VICE.

Not everyone agrees.

"Media attention is going to happen by happenstance, right? It's going to happen mostly because a case is sexy or not sexy," said Lawrence Gridin, another lawyer who defends police officers accused of misconduct. "And the question is: Why should that really matter when it comes to informing a penalty?"

Hearing officers, lawyers, and the prosecution don't always consider media attention in their arguments, and lawyer and legal author Ceyssens notes that some question its place as a consideration.

A hearing officer may also choose not to assign weight to the issue. When Toronto police Constable Fievel Kan admitted to writing several bogus tickets to vulnerable people, a hearing officer deemed a lack of negative publicity a "neutral" factor, writing, "One cannot speculate in regard to future publicity."

With a long list of considerations, no single factor can tip the scales against an officer, and some may not apply in particular cases. But when reporters write about police, the police notice. Reporters are more than just observers when an officer makes a mistake—whether the reporters know about it or not.

Follow Stephen Spencer Davis on Twitter.