An answer to tailgaiters?

[OpenGambit]

Forum Sponsor

When you are arrested. the police have automatic powers to search incidental to arrest, that means that they can pretty much search anything on you or in your possession (or like the locker you are opening... stuff liek that, all situations can not be listed) for evidence provided they have probable cause that evidence woudl be found there..

What that means is that they can't strip search you roadside when you are under arrest., but if you have a mounted camera.. I am pretty sure thats fair game.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

When you are arrested. the police have automatic powers to search incidental to arrest, that means that they can pretty much search anything on you or in your possession (or like the locker you are opening... stuff liek that, all situations can not be listed) for evidence provided they have probable cause that evidence woudl be found there..

What that means is that they can't strip search you for speeding, but if you have a mounted camera.. I am pretty sure thats fair game.

Plain view doctrine, as applies to Section 8 of The Charter. Yup, fair game.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/charter_digest/s-8.html#_Toc68428976

Or is it, based on the comments regarding the "tax documents"? Hmmmm......

 

[turbodish]

What that means is that they can't strip search you for speeding, but if you have a mounted camera.. I am pretty sure thats fair game.

Simple speeding under HTA128 is not an arrestable offence, so the camera would not be fair game. Speeding under HTA172 is another matter.

 

[OpenGambit]

Sorry, i started with arrest but ended with speeding for some reason, it shoudl be arrest all the way through. - Edited

To add further clarification, the search incidental to arrest power is quite broad... so if you get arrested in your house. They can pretty much search your house. without a warrant.
and if you have a bunch of scales, baggies, lists of names, and cash lying around.. bend over.

 

[turbodish]

Plain view doctrine, as applies to Section 8 of The Charter. Yup, fair game.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/charter_digest/s-8.html#_Toc68428976

Does your "in plain view" GPS suddenly become searchable on being pulled over for speeding? Of course not. Why would a mounted camera be any different?

A mounted camera by itself is not an illegal substance or illegal act, and as such is not subject to arbitrary viewing of contents simply because it is in plain view. That can change if the thing it is mounted to is involved in an arrestable offence, whether CC or HTA or any of a number of provincial offences in nature, but simple speeding doesn't qualify as any of those.

 

[Flywheel]

"i dont get what you do with the nuts, spark plugs etc etc..
do you throw them on the ground? I can't imagine turning your back around to throw these things at the car behind you... how long has this been a "thing" to do?"

Old biker's tale, I think. I've never personally seen it, nor heard about it happening from any source (other than the ITG brigade). If the tailgater is clueless, a quick double tap on the brakes wakes them up--trying to throw junk from a motorcycle is probably 100x more dangerous than being tailgated.

 

[OpenGambit]

Plain view doctrine, as applies to Section 8 of The Charter. Yup, fair game.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/charter_digest/s-8.html#_Toc68428976

Or is it, based on the comments regarding the "tax documents"? Hmmmm......

I wouldn't consider a camera to be plain view, as it is not an item that is inherantly evidence of wrong doing.

The plain view doctrine covers things where you unearth evidence of a NEW crime as you are doing something legitimate..

For example. you get pulled over for speedning and they see a dead body in the back seat. thats plain view.

When I say search incidental to arrest I am thinking about when TAFB got into his accident and the cops picked up his camera and watched the vid.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Does your "in plain view" GPS suddenly become searchable on being pulled over for speeding? Of course not. Why would a mounted camera be any different?

A mounted camera by itself is not an illegal substance or illegal act, and as such is not subject to arbitrary viewing of contents simply because it is in plain view. That can change if the thing it is mounted to is involved in an arrestable offence, whether CC or HTA or any of a number of provincial offences in nature, but simple speeding doesn't qualify as any of those.

Because a mounted and running camera, at the time of the stop, would obviously have recorded the incident?

 

[turbodish]

Because a mounted and running camera, at the time of the stop, would obviously have recorded the incident?

There's nothing in the HTA that permits a warrantless search of a camera, mounted or otherwise, simply for being there at the time of a speeding offence, any more than a cop would have the right to seize and view your GPS log to see your speeds prior to being stopped. Give the cops cause to arrest you though, and the game changes.

 

[fastar1]

What's the point of debating the law? If the cops want to see the video to find evidence thy wil take it. If they want to delete the video to protect themselves they will take it.

The legality/illegality of their act bears no relevance to the need for individuals to always hide any camera from the cops.

 

[OpenGambit]

What's the point of debating the law? If the cops want to see the video to find evidence thy wil take it. If they want to delete the video to protect themselves they will take it.

The legality/illegality of their act bears no relevance to the need for individuals to always hide any camera from the cops.

I guess your point is that there is no point knowing any law since other people will break them if they want to.

And how is "hiding" a camera going to help you in any way when you can be searched on arrest?

 

[fastar1]

I guess your point is that there is no point knowing any law since other people will break them if they want to.

And how is "hiding" a camera going to help you in any way when you can be searched on arrest?

Other than when under arrest, it can be beneficial to the outcome of any interaction with the police to hide from them any recording of the exchange.

I'm just saying that when it comes to cops and recording devices, I suspect an extreme likelyhood that they will confiscate any recording device they want regardless of their authority to do so.

 

[OpenGambit]

Other than when under arrest, it can be beneficial to the outcome of any interaction with the police to hide from them any recording of the exchange.

I'm just saying that when it comes to cops and recording devices, I suspect an extreme likelyhood that they will confiscate any recording device they want regardless of their authority to do so.

That seems like a completely different topic... but I agree that letting cops know they are being filmed usually isn't a great idea.. and is on par with the guys that keep copies of the HTA in their car.

 

[fastar1]

That seems like a completely different topic... but I agree that letting cops know they are being filmed usually isn't a great idea.. and is on par with the guys that keep copies of the HTA in their car.

Maybe I'm missing the point then. It just seems that the debate "yes they can take your camera" / "no they can't take your camera" doesn't matter because they WILL take your camera regardless.

 

[Dresden]

If someone were to throw ball bearings at a car they can, of course, be charged with a variety of offenses.

Got a tailgater? Why not simply pull to the side or slow down and motion them by? Or does everyone here have a 500 pound ego?

+1. Just move the hell out of the way. Why bother being creative?

 

[OpenGambit]

Maybe I'm missing the point then. It just seems that the debate "yes they can take your camera" / "no they can't take your camera" doesn't matter because they WILL take your camera regardless.

It does matter because if they can't take your camera but take it anyway, that can get excluded as evidence against you, or may result in your charges being stayed.
If they can take your camera and do, then its fair game.

that is a world of difference if you are the guy getting arrested.

lastly, subtlely telling a cop that you know the law changes the dynamics a lot. Everyone should be aware of the limits of their rights even if they do not plan to insist on those limits on every occasion.

 

[ABadjusterrider_5]

So, let's say I have my contour running when I get pulled over. Do I have to inform the cop he's being recorded?
My next question is, if he asks me to turn it off (politely or not) do I have to?
I'm seriously asking only because now some of the police crusiers have recording devices in their vehicles.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

So, let's say I have my contour running when I get pulled over. Do I have to inform the cop he's being recorded?
My next question is, if he asks me to turn it off (politely or not) do I have to?
I'm seriously asking only because now some of the police crusiers have recording devices in their vehicles.

Canada is a "one party consent" jurisdiction. That means you are permitted to record your own conversations with people, without informing the other person. You cannot "intercept" private conversations. In other words if you are not a party to a conversation, you cannot record it.

 

[fastar1]

It does matter because if they can't take your camera but take it anyway, that can get excluded as evidence against you, or may result in your charges being stayed.

If they can't take your camera but do anyways, then it boils down to his word vs yours. The cop isn't going to admit to taking the camera illegaly so the end result is the same; if the cops sees your camera you are screwed regardless of his authority to take it.

 

[OpenGambit]

If they can't take your camera but do anyways, then it boils down to his word vs yours. The cop isn't going to admit to taking the camera illegaly so the end result is the same; if the cops sees your camera you are screwed regardless of his authority to take it.

I don't see why the cop has to admit to taking your camera illegally, thats not something thats at all based on his testimony.
I don't see why it boils down to his word vs mine.

Forum Sponsor