Article content continued

In 70 per cent of all responses, officers displayed what Brown calls “limited to moderate to intensive de-policing.” Brown expects to title his dissertation To Swerve and Neglect.”

Brown defines de-policing as “an officer choosing not to engage in discretionary or proactive aspects of police duties.”

Simply, officers are weighing the costs of engaging with the public and for many, the cons outweigh the pros. Any interaction carries with it the possibility of a racial profiling allegation, winding up in front of a disciplinary tribunal or human rights body, media scrutiny, a viral YouTube video or a judge finding they breached Charter rights. These are the kinds of things that officers perceive can, not only, ruin their careers, but their lives. And the further along police officers get in their careers, the more likely they are to de-police.

“There’s a massive downside to (proactive policing), and I think they can clearly realize that,” Brown said.

The crux of front-line policing has always been officers responding to 911 calls for service.

Editorial: If police aren’t policing – this is a problem

“That is the core function of their job,” Brown said. “When the computer (inside the cruiser) beeps, you respond to the call, go and address the call. You do what has to be done.”

That core job continues to be done by officers across the city and country, but “everything else is discretionary,” Brown says.

Choosing to pull over a driver for a Highway Traffic Act infraction, approaching a suspicious person in an area of high residential break-and-enters or even seeking out wanted offenders on warrants are all proactive measures. Officers can’t be forced to do them.