Research Feature
Mental Health and Well-being of Forgotten First Responders in Canada
Mental Health and Well-being of Forgotten First Responders in Canada
Principal Investigator |
Victimology Research Centre
Causes and Prevention of Criminal Investigative Failures: Looking Back to Face Forward
Causes and Prevention of Criminal Investigative Failures: Looking Back to Face Forward
Professor & Director of the Center for Geospatial Intelligence and Investigation | Texas State University
Dr. Kim Rossmo’s presentation provided a critical and thought-provoking examination of criminal investigative failures, with a strong grounding in the context of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG) cases. He emphasized that investigative failures are not isolated incidents, but often systemic, stemming from flawed thinking, missed learning opportunities, and organizational pressures. These failures manifest in ignored crimes, unsolved cases, and wrongful convictions – each carrying profound consequences for individuals and public trust in policing.
Drawing on research and data, Dr. Rossmo highlighted the prevalence and causes of wrongful convictions. In the United States, an estimated 1–5% of homicide and sexual assault cases involve wrongful convictions. The Innocence Project, for example, has documented over 205 DNA-based exonerations, with individuals spending an average of 14 years in prison, with approximately 70% of whom are minorities. He outlined the primary contributing factors: false confessions, unreliable informants, flawed forensic practices, eyewitness errors, and broader investigative mistakes. While these tools; witness testimony, confessions, and physical evidence, are essential to solving crimes, they each carry inherent risks that must be carefully managed.
A central theme of the presentation was the danger of cognitive biases and flawed reasoning in investigations. Dr. Rossmo explained how confirmation bias, tunnel vision, and reliance on cognitive shortcuts (heuristics) can lead investigators to prematurely fixate on a suspect or interpretation of evidence. He stressed the importance of moving away from black-and-white thinking and recognizing that assumptions can quickly become treated as fact. Probability language such as “likely,” “reasonable,” or “cannot be excluded”, can further compound errors, especially when misunderstood or misapplied. He also discussed how individuals are prone to seeing patterns in randomness (pareidolia), reinforcing false conclusions.
Beyond individual decision-making, Dr. Rossmo examined organizational factors that contribute to investigative failures. Policing structures – often hierarchical and semi-military, can foster groupthink, discourage dissent, and amplify the influence of dominant personalities. Combined with operational pressures, fatigue, and the urgency of high-stakes cases, these conditions can impair critical thinking and lead to rushed or flawed decisions. Policies, supervision, and structured review processes were presented as essential safeguards to mitigate these risks.
Finally, Dr. Rossmo underscored the importance of context when interpreting evidence, particularly DNA, and referenced research from the National Institute of Justice and case studies such as the David Camm investigation to illustrate real-world consequences. His presentation ultimately called for a more reflective, evidence-informed approach to investigations; one that prioritizes critical thinking, acknowledges human fallibility, and actively works to prevent error. By learning from past failures, policing can better position itself to deliver fair, accurate, and just outcomes in the future.
The Control Crisis: Are Gadgets Replacing Real-World Use of Force Training
The Control Crisis: Are Gadgets Replacing Real-World Use of Force Training
Vancouver Police Department
Inspector Romolo Ranallo delivered a dynamic and candid presentation examining the evolving landscape of police use-of-force training, questioning whether modern policing has become overly reliant on technology at the expense of foundational physical skills. His central message was clear: while both “gadgets and guts” are necessary, an imbalance has developed, with increasing dependence on tools leading to potential gaps in officer readiness and decision-making in high-risk situations.
Tracing the historical evolution of use-of-force tools from the 1960s to today, Inspector Ranallo demonstrated how policing has steadily incorporated new technologies from batons and lateral neck restraints to OC spray, tasers, carbines, and now advanced tools such as wrap devices, drones, and virtual reality training systems. While each innovation was introduced to enhance officer and public safety, he argued that this steady influx of equipment has sometimes overshadowed the need for strong physical literacy – the ability to effectively control situations through movement, positioning, and hands-on skills.
Using key incidents such as the Rodney King case and the Vancouver Airport investigation, Inspector Ranallo highlighted how gaps in physical control at initial contact can escalate encounters unnecessarily. He noted that despite advances in de-escalation and crisis intervention training, these approaches are not universally applicable – particularly in rapidly evolving, life-threatening events such as active shooter scenarios, where immediate action is required. He cautioned against a one-size-fits-all approach and emphasized the importance of situational adaptability.
A significant portion of the discussion focused on the unintended consequences of gadget reliance. Inspector Ranallo argued that tools require proper integration, continuous training, and clear policy frameworks, yet officers may default to devices rather than foundational skills under stress. He introduced concepts such as SPRITE scenarios (structured training for threat recognition and response) and Vehicle Intervention Tactics (VIT) as examples of practical, skills-based approaches that complement technology. He also stressed the importance of evidence-based practices over anecdotal or untested methods and what he referred to as avoiding “MSU” (making stuff up).
Looking ahead, Inspector Ranallo explored emerging technologies, including drones and robotics, acknowledging their potential benefits but stressing the need for robust governance, training, and clarity in their deployment. He raised important questions about the future of policing, including the idea of two-tiered roles: officers specializing in physical interventions versus those focused on other policing functions and whether current education systems adequately prepare recruits with the physical competencies required for frontline work.
Ultimately, his presentation served as a call to rebalance police training by reinvesting in physical literacy alongside technological advancement. He challenged agencies to critically evaluate their approaches, ensure that officers are equipped not just with tools, but with the skills and judgment to use them effectively, and to maintain a policing model that prioritizes capability, adaptability, and officer confidence in real-world interactions.
Best Practices for Adopting AI Tools in Policing
Best Practices for Adopting AI Tools in Policing
University of British Columbia
Professor Benjamin Perrin’s presentation explored the rapidly evolving role of artificial intelligence (AI) in policing, emphasizing both it’s potential and significant risks. He began by acknowledging that no single group currently holds all the expertise needed to guide AI adoption effectively. Instead, he advocated for interdisciplinary collaboration among legal experts, technologists, police practitioners, oversight bodies, and privacy commissioners to ensure responsible implementation in high-stakes public safety contexts.
A key concern raised throughout the presentation was the lack of independent, scientific validation of many AI tools currently being used or considered by police agencies. While some technologies have demonstrated improvements in efficiency or investigative capacity under controlled conditions, evidence of their real-world accuracy, reliability, and effectiveness remains limited. At the same time, Perrin highlighted widely documented risks including bias, errors, and privacy intrusions – many of which are not yet fully mitigated. The absence of clear, policing-specific legal frameworks and the lack of Charter-based judicial scrutiny further compound these concerns.
Professor Perrin provided practical examples to illustrate these challenges, including facial recognition technologies, automated license plate readers, and AI-assisted report-writing tools such as AXON’s Draft One, which is currently being piloted in Canada. He discussed the “verification-value paradox,” where AI-generated outputs may save time but require extensive review to ensure accuracy. Issues such as automation bias, where users assume AI outputs are correct, along with documented errors (including fabricated details or “hallucinations”), raise serious reliability and disclosure concerns. He also referenced real-world cases, such as State v. Carr (2024) and R v. J.L. (2000 SCC 51), underscoring the legal scrutiny applied to novel forms of evidence.
The presentation also examined significant privacy and ethical implications. Perrin pointed to the Clearview AI case in Canada, where billions of images were scraped without consent to create a facial recognition database – an action found to violate privacy laws. He stressed the importance of understanding how AI systems are trained, including potential biases in datasets, and questioned the legal authority underpinning the use of various databases in investigative contexts. These concerns highlight the need for transparency, accountability, and clear policy guidance.
To address these challenges, Perrin outlined emerging governance frameworks and best practices. He emphasized the importance of internal oversight mechanisms such as those being developed by the RCMP, Vancouver Police Department, and others, as well as the need for meaningful third-party oversight. Tools like Privacy Impact Assessments, Human Rights AI Impact Assessments, and transparency frameworks such as the RCMP’s National Technology Onboarding Program were highlighted as key components of responsible adoption.
In closing, Perrin stressed the importance of a precautionary, self-governed approach to AI integration in policing, supported by strong accountability measures and cross-sector collaboration. He encouraged agencies to remain focused on maintaining public trust while navigating this complex and rapidly evolving technological landscape.
Professor Benjamin Perrin’s research and case materials can be found at: https://benjaminperrin.ca/ai,
Equity Forward: Advancing Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Training in Policing
Equity Forward: Advancing Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Training in Policing
Program Coordinator | Police Foundations
Georgian College
Visible minorities in Canada often distrust the criminal justice system due to continued overt, covert and systemic racism. In particular, police are felt to target them unjustifiably (Ungerleider & McGregor, 1993). Continued incidents of police brutality and discrimination against minority groups have raised concerns about the need for further training and questioned the adequacy of police training programs (Andersen et al., 2023; Idoko, 2024). Despite the recent focus on effectively policing diverse communities, there is a paucity of research on the types of diversity programs and their effectiveness in improving police-community relations in Canada.
This research project aims to expand on the limited research available on diversity training in Canadian police services by working closely with two police services in Ontario to address their needs. The goals are to identify the main issues in their communities concerning policecommunity relationships, develop inclusion and anti-oppression training, and assess its effectiveness over time. This three-year project will utilize a sequential mixed methods design. This study seeks to work closely with two police services, which are both forward-thinking and innovative organizations, to identify critical concerns in their
communities as they relate to police-community relations, to develop an IATP customized to their communities' specific needs and to assess its effectiveness over time. Our research project has the potential to significantly impact, and drive innovation related to diversity training programs for police officers in Canada.
Read the Georgian College article here.