Skip to content

Disgraced Mountie shared sensitive data with wife tied to Hells Angels

Gary Dimmock Ottawa (Ottawa Citizen) – A disgraced Mountie has been docked eight days pay after an internal investigation revealed the constable had made numerous unauthorized checks on the force’s national crime data bank and shared some of the information with his wife, an associate and former business partner of a Hells Angel.

Const. Todd Glasman became a target of an internal probe last year after the U.S. border patrol agency alerted the RCMP that his wife had ties to the criminal organization.

The probe was launched after the constable’s wife was questioned while crossing into the U.S. at the Manitoba border.

In the interview with U.S. agents, Glasman’s wife disclosed former business dealings with an outlawed biker and said she continued to visit him in prison.

This information prompted the RCMP to check all databank queries initiated by Glasman.

The constable made numerous unauthorized checks and viewed some 185 documents on his wife and the Hells Angels.

Glasman started making the unauthorized checks days after he met his wife-to-be in August 2009. He continued making the unauthorized checks until March 2010.

In an interview with RCMP investigators, Glasman admitted that he made the checks but denied disclosing information to the Hells Angels.

The constable did, however, admit to sharing some of the gleaned information with his wife.

According to a disciplinary ruling, dated in Ottawa on March 28, 2011, Glasman admitted to the allegations of misconduct.

The disciplinary ruling does not detail if the constable’s wife shared the information with her Hells Angels associates.

The Manitoba Mountie was also subjected to a polygraph, which concluded he was telling the truth when he said he didn’t share the information with anyone but his wife, who is on the force’s crime data bank.

In his interview with investigators, Glasman also said he had a “general discussion” with his wife about her activities and that when he first met her, he’d park down the street from her place so his car wouldn’t be connected to her address.

He told investigators that he made the checks to “protect himself and the RCMP.” The disciplinary board file does not give any more detail about his motive.

“The board finds that a reasonable person, having the knowledge of the relevant circumstances, including the realities of policing in general and those of the RCMP in particular, would conclude that conducting numerous unauthorized national crime data bank checks for personal reasons without an operational requirement, is disgraceful,” the disciplinary board ruled on March 28.

“There is a clear relationship between the conduct and the interests of the force insofar as the disgraceful conduct brings discredit upon the force,” the board ruled.

The board noted that Glasman co-operated with the internal investigation and accepted responsibility at the earliest opportunity.

Glasman could not be reached for comment.

  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Broken Force, Internal Discipline, Mounties Breaking The Law, Mounties Investigating Mounties, Organized Crime, Shoddy Investigations, Your Tax Dollars In Action.

Comment Feed

2 Responses

  1. If the polygraph is to be considered relevant, it could be surmised that he was keeping tabs on relative activity surrounding his “squeeze” as you put it. Just as you cannot deny employment in the RCMP to one who has criminal relatives, you cannot deny marriage to someone with a conviction or nebulous connections to known criminals. At one time in the RCMP the mere fact your brothers were convicted criminals meant your prospect of employment with the RCMP was over before it began. Not so under present case law and labor practices.

    You are not allowed to query your associates or “squeezes” as per RCMP policy. However the intelligent ones will alert their supervisors to suspicions which allow them to carry out the necessary inquiries. Prepare for the internal.

    The fact that he was only disciplined for making unauthorized queries tells an important tale. To confront (presumably) the “squeeze” with possible incriminating information is part of that judgment. All technical in nature. As it states, “The disciplinary board file does not give any more detail about his motive.”

    Until there is some classification with respect to “ties” vis a vis the spouse and the Hells Angels, the actions of the officer are at best technical infractions.

    “So what happened here? Did the RCMP fail to perform a security check on the future Mrs. Glasman? ”
    Do not take the “wife to be” as gospel. It does not state that the necessary paperwork was in play to allow them to do the ’spousal’ inquiry.

    There have been instances where officers have moved to major centers and taken up accommodation only to find at a later date the landlords are convicted criminals in the midst of their activities under active investigation and they become subject of internal investigations when they appear as tenants. Not being able to check on the landlord and comings and goings at the rental accommodation has its drawbacks. So does not being able to check on the “squeeze” apparently.

    Well-liked. Do you Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2

    Deepthroat2011.05.31 @ 00:05
  2. RCMP employees have to provide information on their prospective spouses, and other family members, in order to maintain their own security clearance.

    According to this story Cst. Glasman knew early on that his new squeeze had criminal connections and he took steps to conceal his involvement with her. He’s since married her at which point you’d think that her history would be revealed to the RCMP as part of their usual security check procedure. But apparently not. Even though she is on CPIC it takes a U.S. border patrol agency to alert the RCMP that one of their members is married to someone with ties to a criminal organization.

    So what happened here? Did the RCMP fail to perform a security check on the future Mrs. Glasman? A single computer query would have given them the information the border agency turned up.

    I’d also like to know what was he repeatedly querying on CPIC? Her? Her ex? And why?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12

    sickntired2011.05.30 @ 19:46
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wordpress themes