How police balance surveillance with public safety in investigations like Project South

Some of the Toronto police officers charged in the Project South corruption probe were allegedly seen drinking and doing drugs in their vehicles while under surveillance. Determining when to intervene in these kinds of scenarios is a balancing act, say experts, but public safety is always the "paramount consideration" for investigators.

Officers charged in corruption probe seen drinking, doing drugs in vehicles: court document

Listen to this article

Estimated 5 minutes

The audio version of this article is generated by AI-based technology. Mispronunciations can occur. We are working with our partners to continually review and improve the results.

Cops charged in Project South allegedly seen drinking, doing drugs in vehicles

2 hours ago|

Duration

2:55

Last October, Toronto police Const. Timothy Barnhardt and Const. Saurabjit Bedi met up in a Walmart parking lot where Barnhardt allegedly sold Bedi a "ball" of cocaine. 

Project South investigators were watching. 

The two officers were also observed drinking alcohol and snorting lines of cocaine in Barnhardt's Jeep Wrangler while discussing selling drugs, and the effects and purity of the cocaine they'd just ingested, according to an information to obtain (ITO) application in the sweeping corruption probe.

That meeting in Brampton, Ont., is one of at least nine instances detailed in the ITO during which police officers charged in Project South were observed consuming drugs or alcohol inside a vehicle between early October and the end of December 2025.

The application doesn't say whether investigators believed the officers were impaired following these incidents or what — if any — steps they took to protect the public if investigators suspected the officers would drive away impaired.

However, there are at least three other occasions outlined in the ITO when investigators warned members of the public they might be targeted by criminals based on Project South surveillance and created safety plans with them.

So how do police decide when to intervene and potentially blow a surveillance operation in order to protect the public? It's a balancing act. Sometimes officers can step in and still maintain the integrity of the investigation but, experts say, public safety is the "paramount consideration."

"If public safety is potentially being compromised, you don't have a choice. You've got to jump in there," said Hank Idsinga, a retired Toronto homicide detective who recently published a memoir on his career.

"You've got to intercede and make sure something doesn't happen where somebody could be injured or killed."

Project South began in June 2025 when York Regional Police thwarted an alleged plot to kill a senior corrections officer at Toronto South Detention Centre. While investigating, York police discovered that Barnhardt had allegedly shared confidential information about that correctional officer with a civilian. 

From there, investigators expanded the scope of the probe to look into Barnhardt and others' ongoing alleged criminal activity, including drug trafficking, through wiretaps and surveillance. 

The charges against Barnhardt, Bedi and other officers and civilians accused in Project South have not yet been tested in court. Barnhardt's lawyer previously declined to comment on the ITO allegations, and Bedi's did not respond to a request for comment.

'Primary consideration'

In a statement, a York Regional Police spokesperson told CBC News "public safety remained a primary consideration throughout Project South" but would not comment on the steps and techniques investigators used while charges remain before the courts. 

Idsinga was involved in — and oversaw — many wiretap projects during his 35-year policing career, which included 18 years with Toronto's homicide squad. 

"The minute those wiretaps go up, you start intercepting calls, you're intercepting evidence of criminal behaviour on a daily basis, and it's up to you to decide what to do about it," he said.

For example, Idsinga says if he heard about gun trafficking, officers would have to step in to make sure the gun was never used on the street.

But as soon as police make an arrest the "disclosure clock starts ticking" and, he says, part of that disclosure would be that investigators intercepted a call on a wiretap — alerting the suspects that police are listening.

"If that compromises your wiretap investigation, so be it," said Idsinga.

• CBC Investigates

  'Cocaine eyes' to cash bribes: 5 revelations from Project South wiretaps

• CBC Investigates

  Toronto cop charged in Project South allegedly didn't care if selling information harmed people

Speaking generally, criminal lawyer David Butt says police liability is always front and centre in these decisions. Under the Community Safety and Policing Act in Ontario, officers have an "affirmative sworn duty to protect the public." 

"You can protect the public by large and complex investigations, you can protect the public by arresting impaired drivers," Butt, who has represented both police officers and victims of crime, told CBC News.

"The point being, that recklessly or unreasonably failing to do either one of those does put [police] in jeopardy of being found liable."

Sometimes, Butt says, it's possible for officers to preserve both interests, such as by having a front-line officer independently observe the alleged impaired driving, or by arresting the suspect to take the risk off the road, but then asking the Crown not to prosecute to avoid disclosure. 

"That's perhaps the best trade-off that preserves the bigger investigation," he said.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Nicole Brockbank is a reporter for CBC Toronto's Enterprise Unit. She digs up, researches and reports GTA-focused investigative and enterprise stories. nicole.brockbank@cbc.ca