This is a June 18, 2002, interview given by Toronto police Sgt. Dave Eagleson to Det. James Lowry, a member of the anti-corruption Special Task Force.

Eagleson worked in the police Public Complaints Bureau in 1997 and began a probe into 16 complaints filed against Det. John Schertzer and his drug squad colleagues. Eagleson says he brought his concerns to the attention of supervisors in the office of Deputy Chief Robert Molyneaux, but never spoke to Molyneaux directly. Robert Molyneaux

Molyneaux, now retired from the force, told CBC News he received plenty of praise about the drug squad officers in question but can't recall any complaints from other officers about their conduct.

Please note that the audio and the partial transcript below are edited.

Edited transcript of interview:

Eagleson:When I started into that work, where I believed I had some serious problems internally, it was interesting because [in] both situations I was told to back off. One of them specifically was in regards to drug planting allegations and that was involving officers, four officers. The second matter that caught my interest was the Central Field Command Drugs, and that takes us to around the 1997 area. I had had so many files come across my desk, just minor files, issues of minor assaults, minor allegations of mishandling of property, officers possibly taking things during warrants, issues of not handling property correctly, or getting warrants prior to exercising their authority in searches. I think there was something like 15.

Lowry: 16 …

Eagleson: Sixteen public complaints that I had seen over a period of five years, and so I had an opportunity at that point to take a look at on my own because I was seeing so many of these issues coming up over and over and over again across my desk. So I pulled the files, took a look at it. It was my position that the service had an obligation to have a serious look at the conduct of these officers. That if there were — and I'm not saying there was any problems at that time — but there seemed to be. There was an appearance that there was a problem that their supervisor should be made aware of that. My concern was raised.

That again we are seeing the same pattern again and the history of the files in regards to this one specific officer … was excessive, in regards to other officers, or another squad. (Laughs.)

Lowry: Yes.

Eagleson: And hence, through I believe it was Gary Billington, my DS [detective sergeant], I was directed to make contact with Deputy Chief Molyneaux 's office and bring it to his attention. And that was done, I was directed to speak with his two DS's at the time.

Lowry: How did you bring it to Deputy Chief Molyneaux 's attention?

Eagleson: I believe I made a telephone call to his secretary and, I'm not sure if it was a telephone call, or if we spoke? Or was it email? I don't think I ever spoke to Deputy Chief Molyneaux directly.

Lowry:All right.

Eagleson: But a meeting was arranged and I went down to 53 Division to the Central Field Command Drug Office, and we sat in and then we spoke about all of these issues quite frankly.

Lowry: And how did the conversation transpire, what happened?

Eagleson: Well, I was in no uncertain terms told that these were probably the hardest-working drug investigating officers in the city. They were very high on their arrests, that their credibility was not in question with them whatsoever. I brought forward my concern that there was no other drug squads that were eliciting this type of criticism from the public, in their conduct. And it was said to me, by and supported by both of them that you know, you get public complaints if you're out there, hard-working officers. And in response to that kind of comment, my position was, well, 'Are you telling me the other drug squads in the city, and the other major crime units, are not hard-working officers?' And if they are hard-working officers, which they agreed that they probably are, why aren't they bringing forward the type of criticism that we're seeing — the assaultive behaviour, the misplacing of property, the misplacing of monies, improper searches in collecting warrants?

I was concerned, quite frankly, that they weren't taking the issue seriously. That they didn't see the same problems developing. (Cough.) But I made the comment to them, and this was going back five years now, that I didn't want to be where we are here today. We have an obligation, or we had an obligation five years ago, to intervene with this drug squad. There were apparent problems, that is my professional opinion.

Lowry: You mentioned there were two issues while you were at the Public Complaints Bureau that concerned you and on both issues you were told to back off. Am I correct?

Eagleson: Yes. I was told to be very careful. You're dealing with very experienced officers. You're dealing with very high-producing officers. You have to be very careful when you criticize the conduct of a police officer and very rightly so. The irony on both of the issues is that after they blow up in our face, and we realize we have drug planting, we have thefts, we have assaultive behaviours.

People look at us and say, "What took you so long to come to this point?" I coined a phrase years ago in regards to Central Field Command Drugs: "wilful blindness." And I still say today that people wilfully knew what was going on — I can't prove it — but allowed and condoned the conduct of these officers. They knew, or they should have known, because of the information they had placed before them. They had a responsibility to take at least one step further and either qualify or disqualify the concerns that were being brought forward at that point in time.