I used to get angry about "doc checks" but then I realized that literally every time that I was stopped, in a group, at least one person didn't have insurance or a valid license.
|
|
|
Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.....
- Thread starter Paul
- Start date
If they did charge someone for an HTA offence on private property.. I think the focus would be on charter violations, property rights, etc.. not impound cost recovery.
I doubt that you or anyone can state specifically what will bring a charge or conviction. The HTA's are too vague. Out accelerating is a HTA charge and running parallel on the 401 is impeding traffic. If you end up parallel to another vehicle on the 401 someone has to accelerate or brake (Negative acceleration). Which law do you break? Impeding doesn't include suspensions etc FWIW.
Dangerous operation covered almost all of the HTA stuff anyway. To me dangerous driving is the same as doing anything that endangers the general public, whether the implement of injury is a car or an ax.
If you want to have an ax throwing competition the facility has to be set up to avoid injuries to the general public. Appropriate back stops, security, rules, containment etc. Cars are no different except the nature of the projectile mandates different barriers.
Private or public property is irrelevant. Dangerous is defined by the risk to the public.
The interstates in the USA have a lot more rest stops. Here on the 401, they are hours apart if you need to check in. Parking on the shoulder is banned so the safe and legal alternate is to take an exit, find a safe and legal spot, send your message and do some hinkey maneuver to get back on the highway.
I82l8
Well-known member
There was a case ~15 years ago from Barrie. A kid had his dad's Corvette? Or maybe a Cadliac out for a joy ride on Highway 26 at like 3am . A westbound cop got him with moving radar as he was driving east doing 120km/h + somewhere near Minesing.
Cop spun around and Finally caught up to the kid pretty much in Barrie. Kid was charged and when it made it to court the charges were thrown out because the cop lost sight of the car when he turned around and in a few of the dips and turns along 26. Judge said because the cop lost sight of the car, they couldn't be certain it was the same car. Completely ignoring the fact that at 3am they were the only two cars on the road.
Oh, I forgot to mention that the kid turned out to be the son of the local OPP detachment, but I'm sure that had nothing to do with it.
I am sure he got treated with kid gloves and got an arm's length blue line privilege BUT, AFAIK if they lose sight of the vehicle there is no chain of evidence. How do they know for 100% surety that it is the same car AND driver. It is likely different if he got the plate (or said he did...) or the vehicle was a one of one. For maximum advantage drive a beige-ish Corolla.
If I remember correctly the vehicle was a bright yellow Corvette convertible and the officer lost sight for less than 15 seconds at a time.
Being 3am there was also no other cars on the road at the time, nevermind yellow Corvettes.
The Blue Line is the only thing that saved the kid. I'm fairly certain that you or I would be unable to use the same reasoning to get a ticket tossed. We could be driving a beige Corolla in rush hour and the cop could lose sight for 20mins and we'd still be convicted.
I stop on the off ramps well onto the shoulder and well after the bullnose. Much lower speed traffic and normally you can drive straight through the intersection to get back on the highway. I have no idea on the legality. I have never talked to a cop while doing it.
It would be up to us or our representation to raise the lost sight and chain. If we don't that is the defendants mistake in court. It has been commonly used to win in traffic court. Of course the cop could always lie or they saw the plate or other distinguishing item (damage, custom paint, speed enhancing stickers, etc.").
Kid gloves here is the possibility of the JP raising it, if that is what happened.
I was more musing about how more laws would be obeyed if they were more convenient.
If the judge made that comment.. it would been with their reasons.. which means the case went all the way through..
That doesn't sound like blue privilege did anything for the kid.
Blue privilege would have seen the ticket not written.. or not filed.. or dropped before court... or cop not showing up.
Traffic tickets are "absolute liability"
Charges that are absolute liability basically mean if you did it, you're guilty... so you cannot dispute the charge on service (they gave the ticket to the wrong guy) the accuser must keep sight of the accused.
If the ticket is served at a later date, the officer has to testify that the person they saw do the offense is the person they served the ticket to (that's why they ask you to sign the ticket, that eliminates the defense of service). An absolute liability charge does not NEED mens rea (mens rea is a legal concept, that roughly means "guilty mind". You had to know you were doing wrong to be guilty).
... I am explaining this badly... traffic tickets are absolute liability, so the cop can't lose sight of the accused as per Canada Evidence Act, and you can dispute a charge on service.
No so with criminal charges (dangerous, impaired, crim neg, murder) where service means nothing to the charge. Mens rea MUST be proven on a criminal charge.
It's kinda a nebulous concept... that gets LOTS of attention in court
... so the cops can use your Youtube vids of you hooning it up for criminal charges, but not traffic charges... but that doesn't stop them from charging, and it's up to you to know the law and PLEAD NOT GUILTY
Charges that are absolute liability basically mean if you did it, you're guilty... so you cannot dispute the charge on service (they gave the ticket to the wrong guy) the accuser must keep sight of the accused.
If the ticket is served at a later date, the officer has to testify that the person they saw do the offense is the person they served the ticket to (that's why they ask you to sign the ticket, that eliminates the defense of service). An absolute liability charge does not NEED mens rea (mens rea is a legal concept, that roughly means "guilty mind". You had to know you were doing wrong to be guilty).
... I am explaining this badly... traffic tickets are absolute liability, so the cop can't lose sight of the accused as per Canada Evidence Act, and you can dispute a charge on service.
No so with criminal charges (dangerous, impaired, crim neg, murder) where service means nothing to the charge. Mens rea MUST be proven on a criminal charge.
It's kinda a nebulous concept... that gets LOTS of attention in court
... so the cops can use your Youtube vids of you hooning it up for criminal charges, but not traffic charges... but that doesn't stop them from charging, and it's up to you to know the law and PLEAD NOT GUILTY
And that would fail, unless they could somehow prove that the cop knew, without a doubt, that the charge was unlawful. They're covered for that sort of thing, in the statutes. It's a truly tough thing to prove. Not impossible, but nearly so.
Do police have the equivalent of qualified immunity here?
Essentially, yes. They are immune from prosecution for acts undertaken in the course of their duties, when acting in good faith.
And good luck proving bad faith when all of their coworkers will happily perjure themselves so protect their buddy.
It's definitely difficult, but not as patently impossible as it once was. The prevalence of public recording devices has made it at least possible as it's difficult to refute actual video of a misdeed if, for example, someone were to get some of you Tazing a corpse.
Last edited:
justride
Well-known member
On the bright side, could the case being thrown "professional courtesy" out be used as a precedent for future defendants?
I would think the individual cop would be at the bottom of the list. I wouldn't expect them to get in trouble..
|
|
|
|
|