{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024584237165582067, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0028922631959508315, 'mean_word_length': 5.262443438914027, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Undercover Investigation, Liquor Laws, and “Disreputable” Detectives in Late Nineteenth-Century Canada

Undercover police operations have long been recognized as legally and ethically problematic, leading to court appeals and discourse about the appropriate uses of deception and manipulation by the state. The issue was debated as early as 1886, when a jury acquitted a defendant because the evidence was gathered using deceptive methods. In Sarnia, Ontario, a tavern owner named Charles Hand was accused of orchestrating the bombing of temperance leaders’ homes. The Crown’s case was based on the testimony of an undercover detective who had befriended Hand and his family. With the support of the trial judge, the defense discredited the testimony on the basis that detectives were thought to be disreputable people, a fact confirmed by their surreptitious investigations under the Canada Temperance Act. At issue was the question of how anyone could accept the testimony of a detective who had used lies and deception against reputable people. While, ostensibly, the Hand case was a victory of the “wets” over the “drys,” it was also a conflict over police modernization. In this case study, I argue that the employment of this novel investigative tactic challenged traditional, anti-modern, views about the appropriate limits of police behaviour, deception, and state authority.