An interesting thing happened this week. Police announced that a crime had not been committed in a case where the public had reason to think one might have been, and they explained the situation, and it all made sense. And for once, we were all able to sigh with relief, and put the matter out of our minds after a good laugh.

The situation came to the public’s attention Tuesday when Niagara Falls police announced that they were looking for a New York family who, a hotel had reported to them, had locked their baby in a safe. The hotel manager, the police, and the general public were alarmed at the news, and wanted to find out what had happened.

On Thursday, following their investigation, the police offered an explanation: “Police say the family told them that the baby, who is in good health, was apparently accidentally locked in the safe during a hide-and-seek game between siblings. The investigation is now closed,” the Star reported.

Such a simple explanation, and in hindsight, a situation most of us with children — and most of us who have been children — could easily imagine happening.

It’s amazing what a simple explanation can do to set our suspicious minds at ease.

The question is why police don’t offer such explanations in other cases where their investigation suggests no charges are justified. A couple recent examples spring to mind.

On Monday, the TTC and Toronto Police Service cleared two transit officers of any wrongdoing in a January incident in which they were videotaped repeatedly and sometimes wildly punching two customers — one of whom was restrained and kneeling facedown on the floor — who did not appear in the video to be fighting back at the time.

The video caused a sensation when it was released, with TTC CEO immediately saying how disturbing the incident appeared to be, and many people sharing my then-opinion that while there may well be context and evidence to justify the brawl that was not visible in the video, on its face it appeared to depict an abuse of power and misuse of force by men empowered to protect transit riders.

So what did the investigation find? “The police concluded the actions of the TTC officers on the 29th of January this year were lawful and justified,” TTC spokesman Brad Ross said.

On what basis, you might ask, did they conclude this? Well, on the basis of their investigation. About which no new details are offered.

This is reminiscent of a far sadder situation I wrote about in July, in which police announced that no charges would be laid against an off-duty armed security guard who had shot and killed two people in a McDonald’s. In that case, the public was told simply that the investigation showed there was “no reasonable prospect of conviction,” and therefore no charges would be laid.

In both cases, men employed as authority figures performed acts of violence that shocked the public. In both cases, the police cleared those authority figures of any wrongdoing. In neither case did they provide any explanation of why the public’s shock and concern was misplaced, why the acts of violence were justified, why we should rest easy that justice was served in the absence of charges.

These cases are more serious, with more serious consequences, than any childish game of hide and seek. But it seems like the authorities we trust to investigate are playing such a game, or rather, a game of seek and hide, in which they seek out the allegedly non-criminal explanation for why something happened and then hide it from the public.

One reason I’ve heard offered most often for this common tight-lipped approach is privacy: that someone who an investigation shows committed no crime should not have the details of their story spilled into the newspapers. But the problem with this is that the broad strokes of their story — and sometimes video of it — have already appeared in the newspapers, raising legitimate public concern that something criminal has happened. There is an equally legitimate public interest in understanding why that concern is misplaced, if it is.

The other argument I hear is that, in a case like the one of the TTC officers, the pending court cases against the men they were fighting with might somehow be prejudiced by police releasing statements. But it seems to me that the police often issue statements that outline how crimes are understood to have taken place before and after they arrest suspects, and juries in those cases somehow manage to maintain an open mind. For instance, many press releases announcing arrests lay out specific bullet-point theories of the crime under the heading, “it is alleged that ... ”

Is it too much to ask that we get similar theories of the non-crime in high profile cases of public interest in which no charges are laid? Especially when they involve authority figures and the use or abuse of authority?

Alleviating the concerns of the public that something is being covered up or papered over is not difficult. You just need to offer an explanation of what your investigation showed.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Just like Niagara Police did in the case of the baby in the safe — it was not complicated. It was, literally, child’s play.