ISSUES OF INTEREST
A Journal Devoted to Topical Policing and Legal Issues for Operational Police Officers in British Columbia
Vol48No.4

I

Justice Institute ofBritish Colwnbia - Police Academy

Introduction

Abuse of Process

In recent years, Canadian police
have adopted some novel
investigational techniques. The courts
have traditionally supported creative
law enforcement activities, but supervise illegal and unconstitutional police
conduct by application of the doctrines of abuse of process and entrapment. The courts recognize that
criminal activity is ubiquitous in our
society, and that the ingenuity of
criminals must be matched by that of
the police. 1 The police are not to be
governed by the Marquess of
Queensbury Rules, 2 nor are they expected to be chivalrous. 3 It is also
recognized that consensual crimes
(e.g. prostitution, gambling, drug offences and the like) are particularly
difficult to investigate by traditional
methods. The use of trickery, deceit,
undercover officers and agents is accepted by the courts as necessary in
many circumstances.
This article will review the doctrines of abuse of process and entrapment and two police techniques which
have been approved by the courts in
the past year, namely "reverse stings"
and "target plants." It is hoped that
this article will also assist officers in
determining what is acceptable by the
courts when considering novel police
techniques.

The courts have a residual discretion to stay proceedings where police
conduct is such that it violated the community's sense of fair play and decency.4 Where an accused is unfairly
treated by oppressive state action, the
court will not allow its processes to be
tainted or tarnished by permitting a
prosecution to continue. 5 A stay of proceedings, however, will only be granted
in the clearest of cases. Crime must
be repressed in a manner which is consistent with the fundamental values of
our society.6 Thus, a police officer
cannot pose as a chaplain or duty counsel or inject pentothal into suspects in
an effort to obtain incriminating statements. However, it is now clearly legitimate, in certain circumstances, to
pose as a drug trafficker, prostitute or
contract killer in an effort to lure unwary
criminals.
Entrapment is a form of abuse of
process. It occurs when:
a) the authorities provide a person with
an opportunity to commit a crime
without acting on reasonable suspcion that the person is already engaged in criminal activity or pursuant to a bone fide inquiry, or
b) although having such a reasonable
suspicion, or acting in the course of
a bona fide inquiry, they go beyond
providing an opportunity and induce
the commission of an offence. 7

Tll/S ISSl E
Investigation Techniques ................ l
Articulable Cause ............................. 4
Criminal Behaviour ........................... 6
Operational Notes ............................ 7
Leadership Conference .................... 8

Factors that the courts will consider
in an entrapment case include the following:
- The type of crime being investigated
and the availability of other tech-

October, 1997

niques for the police detection of its
commission;
- whether an average person, with
both strengths and weaknesses, in
the position of the accused would
be induced into the commission of
a crime;
- the persistence and number of attempts made by the police before
the accused agreed to committing
the offence;
- the timing of the police conduct, in
particular whether the police have
instigated the offence or became involved in on-going criminal activity;
- the proportionality between the police involvement, as compared to
the accused, including an assessment of the degree of harm caused
or risked by the police, as compared to the accused, and the comission of any illegal acts by the police themselves;
- theexistenceofanythreats, implied
or express, made to the accused
by the police or their agents;
- whether the police conduct is directed at undermining other constitutional values. 8
Entrapment arguments are rarely
successful. Undercover operations in
high drug trafficking areas, such as the
Granville Mall area in Vancouver, are
quite appropriate. The police can target anyone in the area providing there
is a bona fide investigation and a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring in the area. 9
It is also legitimate for an undercover police officer, posing as a new
patient, to offer sexual services to a
doctor in exchange for a narcotics pre-

1

EditJJr:

Craig MacMillan, B.A., M.A., LL.B. (B.C. Bar)
Associate Editors:

Steve Watt(Director,PoliceAcademy)
Paul N. Tinsley, 9.A., M.A. (Police Academy)
Editorial Board:

Jack L. Gibson, LL.B. (Crown Counsel)
JudgeJamesW.Jardine, (B.C.Provincia!Court)
Robert Kroeker, B.A.,LL.B. (SaanicbP.D.)
Darryl Plecas, &ill. (U.C.F.V.)
Judge K.J. Scherling (B.C. Provincial Court)
Harry Stevens, Ph.D. (Police Psychologist)
Sheila Sullivan, B.A., LL.B. (Police Academy)
A. Jeffrey Wright, B.A., M.A., LL.B. (RCMP)

Robyn Towle, Police Academy (528-5779)

scription, where there is suspicion that
the doctor is already engaged in similar conduct. 10 Similarly, undercover
officers can pose as police officers
·seeking payment from a lawyer in return for referral of clients where the
police believe the lawyer is paying referral fees. 11
The entrapment defence has been
allowed when an undercover officer pretended to seduce a lonely Lebanese
immigrant, 12 where the police conducted investigations in bars where
there was no suspicion that criminal
activity was going on, 13 and where they
targeted an individual for an extensive
undercover operation without reasonable suspicion that the individual was
engaged in criminal activity. 14

Circllllltion:

Dianne Joyal, Police Academy (528-5778)
PublicaJJon:
This Joumal is published four times a year (January,
April, July, October). The annual subscription rate is
$15. Rates and specifications for advertisiiigareavailable from the Technical Assistant. Articles appearing
herein do 11ot necessarily express the views of the Justice Institute. Editor, Associate Editor, Editorial Board
or the author's agency or employer.

(JSSN:Oll40-82S4)
Contributors:

·Submissions(750 - 1500 words) on topical operational issues are invited ftom police officers and individuals in associated professions or disciplines. Articles must be typewritten, double-spaced on letter
siz.e paper, quotations must be indicated, and references fully cited in endnotes. Diskette submissions
in ASCII format (i.e. "Text Only") are preferred.
The Editor reserves the right to alter articles to conform with publication requirements. Contributions
not accepted for publication will not be returned to
the author unless accompanied by a stamped, selfaddressedenvelope.

Allrightsreserved. Nopartofthispublicationmay
bereproducedinanyfonn withoutpriorwrittenpermission ofthe Editor or Associate Editor. A limited
licence to reproduce this publication for training or
education pwposes is granted to police departments
and police officers!> 1997.

All correspondence, subscriptions, payments,
changes of address, contributions, or inquiries may
be sent to: The Editor, Issues of Interest, JIBC

Police Academy, 715 McBride Blvd., New Westminster, B.C., V3L-5T4. Telephone (604) 5285779, Fax: (604) 528-5754 or E-mail
ptinsley@jibc.bc.ca

2

Reverse Stings
A reverse sting is an operation in
which law enforcement officers offer or
attempt to deliver or sell, or actually
deliver or sell, alleged contraband. In
the United States, the reverse sting
technique is used frequently to target
purchasers of drugs and pornography,
and public officials suspected of receiving br_
ibes.
In Canada objections have been
made that the police are committing
the crime of trafficking, as defined in
the then Narcotic Control Act, if they
engaged in such conduct, and that
police illegality would inherently constitute an abuse of process. In R. v.
Shirose and Campbell, 15 a police agent
introduced RCMP officers to hashish
traffickers. The operation was approved
by very senior RCMP officers and
Crown prosecutors. The police offered
to sell a ton of the drug to the targets,
and collected a $270,000.00 down payment. earthy J.A. found that the police had offered to sell a narcotic, and
that their conduct constituted the crime
of trafficking. earthy J.A. was critical
of the police tactics in the circumstances. Fortunately, however, he refused to stay the proceedings in this
case, noting that:
a) the police had taken guidance from
a Quebec case which had described
the reverse sting as a ·brillianr
technique; and

b) the police had targeted high level
criminals in scenarios which would
not have attracted innocent citizens.16
Similar1y, in R. v. Mathiesson, 17 the
Court found that the police had com·
mitted the offence of money laundering during a storefront undercover operation. Mathiesson had attempted
to launder $92,500.00 through a
RCMP incorporated company. The
Court went on to find, however, that
the police illegality did not constitute
an abuse of process, as the police
were motivated by good faith and had
properly targeted the accused drug
traffickers.
In the face of these cases, however, Parliament has recently taken
steps to provide for the specific approval of reverse stings. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Police Enforcement) Regulations now
provide exemptions for officers engaged in legitimate investigations. On
the basis of the case law, it is probable that any future reverse sting operations not specifically covered by
this legislation will be found to be both
unlawful and an abuse of process.

Target Plants
In recent years, police agencies
have redirected undercover resources
to the investigation of serious crimes,
such as murder. A typical •target
planr investigation involves police officers posing as criminals, befriending the targets, and involving them in
pseudo criminal activity.
· Once the relationship is established, the officers disclose details of
the crimes they have committed, and
then require the targets to disclose
their involvement in serious crimes in
order to prove their legitimacy as a
criminal. It is astounding how often
murderers will disclose their crimes
to undercover officers. If the disclosure accurately describes the killing,
and provides details of the crime
known only to the killer and the police, then a conviction is almost inevitable. This is particularly so where
D.N.A. testing is also used to obtain

samples on the basis of admissions
to undercover officers.
The target plant technique is attractive to police as there is no obligation
to comply with the rights guaranteed
by s.1 O of the Charter (i.e. right to
counsel), or with the common law requirement that a statement must be
voluntary to be admissible. Section
1O does not apply as the targets are
not detained. Thus, a target who asks
to speak to counsel cannot be actively
questioned by an undercover in cells, 18
but can .be approached as soon as he
or she is released. The voluntariness
requirements do not apply because,
at law, undercover officers are not "persons in authority."19
Several unsuccessful challenges
have been made in cases involving this
technique. In R. v. Unger and
Houlihan, 20 the police posed as gang
members and extracted a confession
from the accused. In R. v. Mclntyre, 21
the accused was the suspect in the
murder of a nun. He was arrested, and
refused to give a statement. The police set up an undercover operation in
which undercover officers were to approach the appellant for the purposes
of obtaining information from him. An
officer was placed in cells. He told
the accused that he was a Montreal
criminal involved in the illegal cigarette
trade, prostitution, and other criminal
activities. He arranged to meet the
accused outside of jail. The officers
pretended to be involved in prostitution,
the sale of black market cigarettes, and
the sale of firearms. After creating a
friendship with the accused, the undercover officers offered him a job on
the condition that he be able to kill if
necessary. They asked the accused
to give them proof from his past to
show that the accused was capable
of killing. The accused refused to answer at first. The police officers
pushed for answers. Finally, when the
accused realized that this was his only
way of getting the job, he described in
detail how he had killed the nun. The
accused argued that the statement
given to the police violated his ss.7 and
10(b) rights.
Ayles J.A., in the New Brunswick
Court of Appeal said:

In this case, police officers passed
themselves off as criminals to win
the trust of the appellant so that he
would make a statement. Here,
there was no reason to protect the
appellant from the power of the
state. He was free in his comings
and goings and he was in no way
restricted by the police. There was
no coercion in this case. The appellant could have left the police
officers and had nothing further to
do with them at any time. The
statement therefore should be received in evidence. It will then be
the responsibility of the jury to determine the weight to be given to
the statement. 22
In the Supreme Court of Canada,
Gonthier J. simply said:
The appellant argues that his statements made to undercover officers
after he had been released but while
he was still the subject of a murder
charge were inadmissible under
sections 7 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. We share the view of the
majority that the accused was not
detained in the meaning of Hebert
and Broyles. Furthermore, the
tricks used by the police were not
likely to shock the community or
cause the accused's statements
not to be free and voluntary. The appeal is dismissed. 23
Similar rulings have recently been
made by the British Columbia Court
of Appeal in R. v. Roberts,2A and USA
v. Raffay and Bums. 25

Conclusion
The courts will give the police wide
latitude in order that the community's
interest in crime detection and prevention is met. Police officers who engage in activities within the boundaries defined by case law will be applauded by the courts. Those who step
outside the boundaries, and commit
crimes or Chatter breaches will be condemned, as the R.C.M.P. were, in the
following extract from R. v. Evans:
Before concluding these reasons

for judgment I should say that I
found it difficult to believe that
these events took place in
Canada. We pride ourselves on
an even-handed system of justice. That system of justice
should preclude actions such as
those taken by the undercover
officers. Undercover operations
are not subjected to Charter scrutiny in the same manner as actions taken by police operating in
their normal capacity. It would be
unfortunate if the increasing use
of police undercover officers led
to behaviour of the sort exhibited
in this case. Undercover operations are very useful in police
work. However, they do not allow
the police to employ techniques
that are antithetical to the principles of fairness embodied in the

Charter.211
Endnotes
1
R. v. Mack (1988), 44 C.C.C .(3d) 513 (S.C.C.)
per Lamer J . at 522.
2
Rothman v. The Queen (1981 ), 59 C.C.C .(3d) 30
(S.C.C.) per Lamer J. at 75-76.
• R. v. Klrzner (1977), 38 C.C.C. (2d) 131 (S.C.C.)
per Laskin C.J.C. at 135-137.
• R. v. Jewltt(1985), 12 C.C.C. (3d) 7 (S.C.C.) per
Dick.son C.J.C. at 10-14.
• R. v. Conway (1989), 49 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (S.C.C.)
per L'Heureux Dube J. at 302-304.
1
Ibid.
1
Mack, supra, note 1 at 599.
8
Ibid., at 560.
• R. v. Barnes (1991 ), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.) per
Lamer J. at 11.
1
• R. v. Voutsls (1989), 47 C.C.C. (3d) 45.1 (Sask
C.A.).
11 R.v. Wijesinha (1994), 88 C.C.C. (3d) 116 (Ont.
C.A.).
12 R. v. El Sheik Ali (18 August 1993), Brampton Reg.
No. 3431193 (Ont. G.D.).
13 R. v. Kenyon (1990), 61 C.C.C. (3d) 538 (B.C.C.A).
1
• R. v. Evans (30 September, 1996), Chllliwack
Registry X31722 (B.C.S.C.).
,. (1997), 115 C.C.C. (3d) 310 (Ont. C.A.).
"Ibid. ; see also R. v. Lore (1997), 116 C.C.C. (3d)
255 (Que C.A.). For some of the legal advice Implications this has for police, see Craig S. MacMillan and
Stephen Thatcher, "Bridging the Gap - Who Provides
Legal Advice to the Police" (1997) 48:2 Issues of

lnlflrest 5.
17 (30 June, 1995), Edmonton Reg. 9203-3966-C4
(Alta. Q.B.).
18 R. v. Hebert (1990), 57 C.C.C. (3d) (S.C.C.).
1
• R. v. Rothman (1981 ), 59 C.C.C. (2d) 30 (S.C.C.).
20 (1994), 83 C.C.C. (3d) 228 (Man CA) (application for leave to appeal dismissed).
21 R. v. Mcintyre (1993), 344 A.P.R 266 (N.B.C.A.),
affirmed (1994] 2 S.C.R. 480.

22 Ibid.
23

Ibid.

.. (2 April, 1997), Vancouver Reg. No.CA021174
(B.C.C.A .).
""(2 April, 1997), Vancouver Reg. No. CA021174
(B.C.C.A.).

'" Supra, note 14.

3

Articulable Cause: Police Common Law
Authority to Detain a Suspect Absent
Reasonable Grounds for Arrest
Introduction
At a time in the history of law enforcement when it appears that an
ever-increasing number of court decisions do nothing but erode police powers and hamper an officer's ability to
investigate and prevent crime, it would
seem appropriate that any decisi.ons
setting out factors that actually assist
operational policing should be noted.
To that end, this article will discuss
the police officer's authority at common law to temporarily detain or
search a suspect in circumstances
where reasonable grounds to make an
arrest do not exist. This type of detention has been referred to by the
courts by a number of different terms,
the most common and descriptive
being "investigative detention."
It is well-settled law that police
powers are limited to those provided
by statute or common law. The courts
have also consistently recognized that
a police officer's duty at common law
includes the duties to prevent and investigate crime. Most officers will be
familiar with the cases dealing with the
random detention of motorists during
"road blocks" or "checks stops" designed to detect impaired drivers. 1
These cases have held that detention
of a motorist in those situations, although arbitrary, is justified as an ancillary police power (at common law)
and is a reasonable limit on the right
not to be arbitrarily detained under s.
9 of the Charter. However, these cases
were decided within the context of police roadblocks, which are clearly intended to protect those who use the
public roadways from the danger of impaired drivers.
Another type of detention (where
an arrest is not made) arising out of
the impaired driving cases is detention pursuant to a breath demand.

4

However, this type of "detention" only
arises out of a situation where there
are reasonable grounds to believe an
impaired driving offence has been committed, as a peace officer must have
reasonable grounds to make the breath
demand in accordance with section
254(3) of the Criminal Code.
What is not clear from the "roadblock" cases is when any type of detention outside of an impaired driving
scenario will be seen as authorized
within a police officer's common law duties, and specifically, in a situation
where reasonable grounds do not exist. Although it is clear that there is no
statutory power at this time authorizing the detention of a suspect absent
reasonable grounds to believe an offence has occurred, the decision of the
Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v.
Simpson2 is particularly interesting with
regard to the "investigative detention"
issue.

The Simpson Case
The accused was a passenger in a
motor vehicle which was stopped by a
police officer because he had observed
it at a suspected "crack house." The
officer knew nothing about the source
of the information about the "crack
house," and had no reason to believe
that the information was reliable. The
officer candidly acknowledged that his
decision to stop the vehicle had nothing to do with the enforcement of laws
relating to motor vehicles, nor did he
rely on any specific statutory authority
(such as then ss. 10 or 11 of the Narcotic Control Act3). In fact, the officer
testified that he intended to pull the
vehicle over and ask the occupants
where they had been to see what story
they were going to give and whether
they would trip themselves up and give
the officer more grounds for arrest. After

stopping the vehicle, the officer asked
the occupants to get out. The officer
noticed a bulge in the accused's
pocket and asked the accused what
was in the pocket. The accused replied, "Nothing." The officer then asked
the accused to remove the object from
his pocket and a baggie containing cocaine was discovered. The accused
was convicted at trial of possession of
cocaine for the purposes of trafficking
and appealed that conviction.

The Legitimacy of "Investigative Detention"
The Ontario Court of Appeal found
in Simpson that the officer had "no
articulable cause" to justify the detention of the accused that occurred in
this case, and the accused was acquitted. However, the Court clearly recognized that common law police powers can, in appropriate circumstances,
authorize some forms of detention for
investigative purposes. In fact, Doherty
J. stated quite unequivocally:
I have no doubt that the police detain individuals for investigative purposes when they have no basis to
arrest them. In some situations the
police would be regarded as derelict
in their duties if they did not do so. 4
By way of definition, the Court went
on to say:
The wide duties placed on police
officers in relation to the prevention of crime and the enforcement
of criminal laws encompass investigations to determine
whether criminal activities are
occurring at a particular location
as well as efforts to substantiate
police intelligence. 5

For operational purposes then, the
question becomes one of when will an
investigative detention be justified at
common law? The Simpson case sets
out the clear proposition that "where
an individual is detained by police in
the course of efforts to determine
whether that individual is involved in
criminal activity being investigated by
police, that detention can only be justified if the detaining officer has some
articulable cause for the detention." It
stands to reason then, that articulable
cause falls short of reasonable
grounds. The Court in Simpson went
on to consider a number of definitions
of the notion of articulable cause, which
originated .in American jurisprudence
related to police "stop and frisk" practices.
In Terryv. Ohio, Chief Justice Warren said:
... the police officer must be able
to point to specific and articulable
facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts,
reasonably warrant [the investigative detention].6
The case of U.S. v. Cortez, provided
a further articulation of the concept of
articulable cause:
... the totality of the circumstances
- the whole picture - must be taken
into account. Based upon that picture the detaining officers must
have a particularized and objective
basis for suspecting the particular
person stopped of criminal activity.... From [this], a trained officer
draws inferences and makes deductions - inferences and deductions that might well elude an untrained person .... Finally, the evidence thus collected must be seen
and weighed not in terms of library
analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the
field of law enforcement.7 ( emphasis added)

The La/Case
In R. v. Lal, 8 the British Columbia
Supreme Court also upheld a deten-

tion and search without a warrant
based on "articulable cause." In this
case, officers were assigned to guard
a residence in Vancouver after two
brothers and an innocent citizen were
killed during a conflict between two
rival gangs. The officers were advised
that the owner of a canary yellow
Acura NSX (the only one in Vancouver) should be considered armed and
dangerous. While conducting surveillance a few days later the officers
saw the car a few blocks from the
protected residence. The officers had
no warrant or suspicion that the driver
had done anything wrong, nevertheless they stopped the vehicle and
searched the occupant. The officers
waited 18 minutes for back-up and
the search was conducted under
cover. Charges for carrying a concealed weapon and possession of a
restricted weapon were laid against
the driver.
The Crown asserted the police
had common law authority to protect
the public which justified the warrantless search. Mr. Justice Mackenzie
found that the police had articulable
cause for the search. Based on the
concern that the accused presented
a threat of violence to the protected
family and the need to protect the
public from a violent encounter the
Court found the detention and search
lawful.

Practical Applications
For operational police purposes
then, it should be sufficient to think
of articulable cause as suspicion
based upon the totality of the circumstances (as opposed to inarticulate
hunches). As a practical example,
a reasonable suspicion that a person had just committed a violent
crime and is in flight from the scene
of that crime could justify detention
(absent reasonable grounds to make
an arrest) in order to quickly confirm
or refute the suspicion. Such an example arose in R. v. Elshaw, 9 where
a man who had been seen going into
bushes with two young boys was
placed in the back of a patrol wagon
after a witness pointed him out to po-

lice. The suspect was held there until
the officers could speak to all of the
witnesses, which took about five minutes. The suspect was in fact detained
where no reasonable grounds for an
arrest yet existed, but the detention
was justified as necessary for the investigation of the offence, and the detention was for a purpose related to their
investigation of possible criminal activity.
As always, it will be crucial for an
investigator to be able to clearly articulate all of the circumstances whenever
an investigative detention has occurred.
The officer must satisfy the court that
any "detention short of arrest" was not
prolonged or highly intrusive. Justifying that detention will depend on the
ability of the individual officer to explain
exactly what constituted his or her
"articulable cause" in each case. Although the concept can be difficult to
explain, the common-law authority to
detain for investigative purposes is one
that may provide police officers with a
valuable tool, keeping in mind the everpresent right to counsel issues. 10
It is recommended that police officers and departments explore the
articulable cause doctrine based on
advice from their respective legal counsel. At present, it appears that the following propositions are valid:
- it is possible to temporarily detain
a suspect, for the purpose of immediately advancing the investigation, absent reasonable grounds to
make an arrest; however, if you have
detained a person pursuant to a specific statutory authority you must rely ·
on that authority to justify the stop;
- such detention is referred to as "investigative detention," and can only
occur in situations where an officer
has "articulable cause";
- "articulable cause',. is basically suspicion, based upon the totality of the
circumstances (as opposed to inarticulate hunches or other information the officer cannot verify);
- police officers explaining their
"articulable cause" must be prepared
to fully articulate the circumstances
which gave rise to their suspicions.

5

Endnotes
R. v. Ladouceur (1990), 56 C.C.C.
(3d) 22 (S.C.C.); R. v. Hufsky(1988), 40 C.C.C.
(3d) 398 (S.C.C.); R. v. Therens (1985), 18

see the obvious. Reality, however, is
nothing like the fantasy.

1 See,

C.C.C. (3d)481 (S.C.C.).
2 (1993), 79 C.C.C. (3d) 482 (0.C.A.).
3 R.S.C.1985, c. N-1.
4 Supra, note 2 at 498.
5 Ibid., at499.
8 392 U.S. 1, 88 5. Ct. 1868 (1968).
7 449 U.S. 411, 101 5. Ct. 690 (1981).
8 (Dec., 1996) Van Reg. (B.C.5.C.).
9 (1989), 70 C.R. (3d) 197 (S.C.C.).
10 Supra, note 1. Officers must also be cognizant of the fact that failure to form reasonable grounds or articulable common law
cause could result in the officer being investigated criminally and/or pursued civilly.

Criminal
Behaviour
Analysis
Sgt. Keith Davidson, RCMP, Criminal
Behaviour Analysis Unit

Introduction
Silence of the Lambs. Millennium.
Profiler. Cracker. Over the past few
years, the entertainment industry discovered the effort of law enforcement
to apply the academic world's understanding of human behaviour to crime
investigation. Think like the killer, get
into his head, is the advice often given
by the fictional characters. In Silence
of the Lambs a Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") recruit analyses a
killer's every move, anticipates the next
one, then is there to catch him. In a
popular television series, a profiler
walks through a crime scene, receives
paranormal visions from a victim or
better yet, the killer himself, then reveals details of the crime. Even when
the profiler isn't communicating with
the dead, the profiler's superior intuition constantly exposes investigators,
supervisors, prosecutors and defence
lawyers as incompetent and unable to

6

Overview
Criminal BehaviourAnalysis uses
inductive reasoning or logic to develop
reliable conclusions from incomplete
infdrmation. Inductive reasoning is the
process we all use to develop the rules
we use to make sense of our everyday world. Criminal investigators and
lawyers use it to make sense of crime
scenes, to develop lines of enquiry and
in part to assess the validity of information provided by witnesses. Inductive logic is a method of discovery, of
finding a pattern in chaos, of going
beyond the observable facts. When
conclusions are presented without their
supporting arguments, the accuracy
of those conclusions often appear mysterious, magical or even super-natural.
The difference between our everyday use of inductive reasoning and its
analytical application is simply a matter of process. Analysts typically formalize and structure the process to
ensure the conclusions drawn from the
facts are sound. Each theory developed to explain or account for the facts
is tested. The method of testing depends on the focus of analysis, the
available tools and the education, experience and skill of the analyst.
Criminal behaviour analysis strives,
first to understand what happened, then
why it happened and finally to understand the type of person who committed the crime. Investigative lines of
enquiry, resource and case management strategies, trial and witness examination strategies can then flow from
that understanding. There is, at least,
potential for the courts to consider the
results of criminal behaviour analysis
when determining the admissibility,
validity and weight of similar-fact evidence.
In Canada, behavioural analysis is
performed by police officers who have
received extensive training in a field
called Criminal Investigative Analysis.
This training was originally offered to
police agencies by the FBI who developed the techniques in the early

1980's. Presently, the International

Criminal Investigative Analysis Fellowship manages a two-year full-time understudy program, which is the only
vehicle for training police officers who
are not FBI Agents. Analysts receive
training in crime scene reconstruction;
forensic pathology; psychology and
psychiatry of aggression; behaviour
analysis techniques for sexual homicide, sexual assault, child sexual
abuse, arson and bombing. Analysts
are also taught interview and interrogation techniques, statement analysis,
and case linkage analysis. During the
program, understudies review an extensive collection of books and articles
discussing much of the available research on serial killers, rapists, child
molesters, arsonists and bombers. In
addition to the academic training, understudies are exposed to hundreds
of violent crime cases from Canada
and the U.S. in an effort to develop the
analyst's personal knowledge and experience surrounding the types of
cases he or she will be analysing.
Towards the end of the program, understudies analyse dozens of cases
under the supervision of experienced
profilers. Consequently, Criminal Investigative Analysts bring a different
perspective to the table when viewing
the same information considered by
investigators, lawyers or the court.
As with any analytical product derived through inductive reasoning, criminal behaviour analysis does not create results with mathematical certainty.
It is a subjective process, influenced
by the available data and the education, experience and skill of the analyst. Recipients are encouraged to
critically examine the results and supporting arguments when deciding to
accept or reject the opinions offered.
In British Columbia, Criminal Behaviour Analysis is offered to all police
agencies within the province and Crown
Counsel through the RCMP "E" Division Major Crime Section's Criminal
Behaviour Analysis Unit ("CBAU").
Cases of sexual homicide and sexual
assault (single or serial) benefit the
mostfrom this type of analysis. Cases
of non-sexual homicide, home-invasion
robbery, serial arson, bombing, stalk-

ing, and threats can also benefit, but
the results tend to be more limited.

CBAU Services
Four principle analytical services
are available through the CBAU:

1. Personality Characteristics and
Traits of the Unknown Offender

Additionally, investigative suggestions are sometimes available.
Sergeant Keith Davidson of the
Criminal Behaviour Analysis Unit
can be contacted by telephone at
(604) 264-2949, by fax (604) 2642936 or through Internet e-mail:
keith_davidson@bc.sympatico.ca.

If you have any questions contact Craig
MacMillan (pager 631-7415) or Paul
Tinsley (528-5764 ). We look forward
to reading your submission.

Endnotes

Operational Notes

1

Based on the offender's crime, a description of his or her most probable personality characteristics and
traits, social behaviours, education,
employment, criminal and relationship histories are provided. When
appropriate, his (or her) expected
pre- and/or post-offence behaviours
are included. Investigative suggestions flowing from the analysis are

offered.
2. Indirect Personality Assessment
Based on an assessment of a specific individual's personality, from indirect sources of information (family, friends, coworkers, previous
criminal behaviours, probation reports, etc.), opinions are offered regarding the probability that he or
she committed the crime under investigation. Interview and interrogation strategies, examination or
cross-examination strategies and/
or investigative strategies can also
be developed.

3. Equivocal Death Analysis
When the manner of death (accident, suicide or homicide) is at issue, a detailed examination of the
circumstances surrounding the
death and the individual's behaviour
prior to the death is conducted leading to an opinion regarding the most
probable manner of death.

4. Threat Assessment
Based on the material available,
opinions may be offered regarding
the dangerousness of the threat and
some personality characteristics.

Over time, Criminal Behaviour Analysis
has also been known as "Criminal Investigative Analysis", "Criminal Profiling", "Psychological Profiling", "Behavioural Profiling" and
simply "Profiling".
2 · Richard R. Betec and Laurent Duguay,
Criminal Investigations: Critical Thinking &
Effective Decision Making (ITOU Structures, Methods and Systems Inc., 1993).
·

1
4

Ibid.

To date, in Canada, Criminal Behaviour
Analysis has never been used in a criminal
or civil court process, other than to form
part of an Information to Obtain a Search
Warranl In the United States, however,
some courts have accepted expert
testimony from police officers trained as
"Criminal Investigative Analysts" on crime
scene reconstruction, and on case linkage
(explaining the similarities and differences
between two or more crimes).
·

Congratulations
The Editorial Board and Police
Academy wish to Congratulate Mr.
James W. Jardine, Q.C. on his appointment to the Provincial Court
bench. Many of our readers will know
Jim, excuse me, his Honour, from his
days as a highly respected Crown and
defence counsel. We are certain that
Judge Jardine will be as valued in judicial circles as he was in the lawyer
and police communities.

R. v. D.B.G. (7March1997), Victoria
Reg. No. 8312 (B.C. Prov. Ct.)
Two youths were arrested late at
night for causing a fire. They were held
in custody to prevent evidence from
being destroyed pending further investigation during daylight. A police officer engaged in a passive cellblock
undercover operation and overheard
incriminating statements. The Court
held that the youths could have been
released and they were held primarily
to conduct the cellblock operation.
Although the youths had been cautixied urrlers. 56 of the YOA, the
Court found that special protection
must be given to the rights of youths.
While an adult who is overheard during a cellblock operation is taken to
accept that risk, a youth is not in the
same position. The freedom of choice
by youth in whether to speak to the
police requires that the youth know he
or she is speaking to or in the presence of a police officer, especially
where an intentional police tactic is
being utilized. Compliance withs. 56
is not possible in a cellblock operation, and the statements were inadmissible.

Call for Contributions
Classified Advertisements
The Editorial Board invites submissions (750-1500 words) on topical legal and operational policing issues from
police officers and individuals in associated professions or disciplines. Articles must be typewritten, doublespaced on letter size paper. Quotations must be indicated and references
fully cited in endnotes. Diskette submissions in ASCII format are preferred.

CNesln&Scouten
8antstera & Sollcltms
980 - 717 Homby Straet

Yancouver, a.c. V6Z 1S4

7

LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE
98
r-""""" ..
Challenge The Future
With
Best Practices in Police Leadership

Define Leadership. Over my career I have heard many varied definitions. It is hard to define in precise
limited terms something that is so broad and varied.
I do remember many years ago, a statement by a wise old soldier talking about leadership. "You can't
push a piece of string, you have to get out front and pull it."
That's what we are looking for in Vancouver, April 15 - 18, 1998. We are looking for people who have
taken the initiative on a project, problem or idea. It doesn't matter what size or how critical it was. It
matters that it was successful or you now know how to make it successful. We need you to come and
share your experiences with other police professionals from across Canada.
The Leadership 96 conference in Toronto last year was very successful. We want to continue to provide the forum for sharing good ideas to advance policing and to further develop our police agencies
to make our own organizations even better than they are today.
Plan to attend a registration and introduction evening on April 15, 1998 followed by two days of speakers and workshops and ending with social activities on Saturday, April 18. Not only will you have the
opportunity to benefit from experiences from across the country but you can also enjoy beautiful British
Columbia. At this time of year you can enjoy golfing, sailing and spring skiing.
Plan to join us for Leadership 98 - Vancouver in 1998. More details will be forthcoming.
WANT A MORE DETAILED BROCHURE?

Name: ___________________________________________________

Fax:
e-mail:
Fax to: Chief Constable Peter Young, New Westminster Police Service (604) 517-2401

8