How Residents Can Stay Informed Without Compromising Cases

THUNDER BAY – EXPLAINER — When a major incident happens in Thunder Bay, the public appetite for information is immediate and intense. People want to know what occurred, who was involved, whether there’s a risk to the community, and what police are doing about it. In that gap—between public concern and limited official details—frustration often lands on the Thunder Bay Police Service (TBPS) and, especially, the Communications Team.

During the recent shooting on Memorial Avenue, police held their cards very close to their vest, to use a poker analogy. Only after an arrest was made did the Thunder Bay Police issue an information release.

While that led to some commentary from the “peanut gallery”, and demonstrated a key point that frequently gets missed: TBPS communications staff can only release information that the lead investigator authorize. That’s not bureaucratic foot-dragging; it’s a standard safeguard used by police services across Canada.

Some of the information that doesn’t make it into a media release is often the most sensitive information in the case.

Police will sometimes withhold details for practical, legal, and safety reasons. It’s not usually secrecy for secrecy’s sake—it’s about protecting the investigation, the integrity of evidence, and the people affected.

The Communications Team Doesn’t Freelance

A police media release is not simply a “public relations” product. It’s an investigative tool and a legal document in miniature — written to inform the public without undermining the work happening behind the scenes.

In most cases, the lead investigator (and often supervisors, legal advisors, or partner agencies) also may have a say what can safely be shared. Communications staff translate those approved details into plain language, ensure consistency, and provide the tip line or public safety messaging.

If a release seems minimal, it may reflect the reality that investigators are still:

• sorting credible information from rumour,

• verifying timelines,

• protecting witnesses,

• seeking warrants,

• coordinating with prosecutors, or

• managing safety risks for victims and families.

Why Details Get Held Back

1) Protecting the integrity of an ongoing investigation

One of the most immediate risks of releasing too much is that it can tip off suspects. Even small details can signal what police know and what they don’t. That can lead to:

• destruction of evidence (phones wiped, clothing discarded, vehicles moved),

• suspects coordinating stories (“we all say we were here at this time”), or

• flight risk (people leaving town or going to ground).

Investigations also rely on tactics that lose value once publicly exposed—surveillance methods, digital forensics processes, how police verify alibis, and the timing of investigative steps. In a city and region where police resources can be stretched, protecting investigative advantage matters.

2) Preventing “contamination” of witness evidence

Public information changes human memory. If key facts become widely known, witnesses can unintentionally blend what they personally observed with what they read online.

That’s why police often keep certain details private—because those details can later be used to test credibility. If only a true witness (or someone directly involved) would know a specific fact, it becomes a powerful way to sort reliable information from noise.

This is especially important in high-profile cases where social media speculation spreads fast, and where well-meaning community members may unintentionally repeat inaccurate details as if they’re confirmed.

3) Ensuring a fair trial and avoiding prejudice

Police have to walk a tight line: informing the public while avoiding statements that could undermine the accused’s right to a fair trial.

If too much is released too early—especially allegations, untested evidence, or inflammatory details—it can contribute to:

• a tainted jury pool,

• claims of prejudicial pre-trial publicity, or

• arguments that police “tried the case in public.”

That risk isn’t theoretical. Defence teams can and do challenge proceedings based on fairness concerns. Police services know that a strong case can be weakened by unnecessary public disclosures.

4) Protecting victims, families, and vulnerable people

Thunder Bay is not a faceless metropolis. Even limited details—an age, a neighbourhood, a relationship description—can allow people to identify victims or families indirectly.

In cases involving sexual violence, intimate partner violence, minors, or sensitive health circumstances, releasing certain specifics can:

• retraumatize victims,

• expose survivors to harassment or stigma,

• endanger people trying to leave abusive situations, or

• put families through renewed public scrutiny.

Police releases are often deliberately broad to avoid “accidental identification,” especially when the community can connect dots quickly.

5) Privacy laws and policy limits

Police in Ontario operate within privacy and information-sharing rules. That means there are limits around sharing personal information such as:

• medical status or injury details beyond what is necessary,

• addresses or identifying location information,

• names of victims/witnesses (in most situations),

• identifying details about minors, and

• investigative information not yet tested in court.

Even suspect information can be restricted if charges have not been laid or if identification would be legally problematic. The public may feel a name should be released “for accountability,” but there are legal thresholds and operational risks that influence that decision.

6) Safety risks and retaliation concerns

In some cases, public disclosure can create real-world danger. Naming witnesses, describing a precise location, or sharing specific circumstances can increase the risk of:

• intimidation,

• reprisals,

• harassment,

• doxxing, or

• vigilantism.

Police may also avoid details that could inspire copycat behaviour or escalate tensions—particularly when incidents involve weapons, threats, or targeted violence.

7) Court-imposed restrictions

There are also times when police cannot legally share details because the court has restricted publication. This can include:

• publication bans,

• sealed documents,

• restrictions involving young persons, or

• conditions tied to bail and ongoing proceedings.

When those restrictions exist, police releases may become even more cautious, and media outlets must comply as well.

8) Cross-jurisdictional coordination

Not every investigation is “local only.” Cases can involve other police services, regional units, or federal partners. When multiple agencies are coordinating, information is often held back until everyone agrees on what can be released without compromising parallel investigations or overlapping evidence collection.

What This Looks Like Publicly

What police releases usually include

A typical TBPS release will often contain:

• a general time window (not a minute-by-minute timeline),

• a general area (not an exact address),

• the nature of the incident in broad terms,

• arrest/charges (if laid and appropriate to release), and

• a tip line or instructions for the public.

What they often omit

Frequently omitted details include:

• the exact sequence of events,

• specifics about evidence,

• detailed weapon information beyond what’s necessary,

• witness identities,

• precise locations tied to private residences or vulnerable individuals,

• investigative steps (who police spoke to, what they seized, what they’re testing).

To readers, that can feel like a wall. To investigators, it can be the difference between a case that holds up in court and one that doesn’t.

Why Information May Come Out Later

More detail often emerges as the risks drop—after:

• arrests are made,

• key interviews are completed,

• search warrants are executed,

• charges are laid,

• court filings advance the process.

That is when media can often provide fuller coverage without jeopardizing the investigative work that happens in the earliest—and most fragile—stages of a case.

At that point, court documents and court proceedings can become a primary public source of information. It is also the point where police services are not fully engaged as court reporters.

In growing numbers of cases, there are also publication bans in effect that remain until the case is over. A process that can take years.

The Bottom Line for Thunder Bay

Public frustration is understandable. People want transparency—especially when community safety is at stake. But “limited details” does not automatically mean “lack of action,” and it rarely means the Communications Team is choosing secrecy.

In many cases, restraint is part of responsible policing: protecting evidence, safeguarding victims, preserving witness reliability, and ensuring that when a case goes before a judge, it stands on solid ground.

In some cases, providing instant information to the public – in a standoff with the Emergency Response Team for example, and having it on social media, it can put both public and police officers at risk.

Crime reporting is a challenging task for media. Here reputable journalists walk a fine line.