Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.....

[OpenGambit]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

To me, (if this is a true story) it shows an utter disregard for the laws that are put in place to do some good.

http://www.wheels.ca/columns/article/802030

A HTA ticket for cell phones in a drive-thru. Absurd. Either he DOESN'T know the law (scary), or he willfully overlooked it to "teach someone a lesson" (even scarier).

Now about that law, seems that it may be having the opposite affect of what was intended.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion...ans+haven+made+roads+safer/5954979/story.html



One cannot escape the law of Unintended Consequences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences

You forgot the 3rd option. The guy could have been on the phone since before the drive thru. =D
facts are absent, and besides, no one was hurt, hardly anything to get mad about and certainly not something that would lower the reputation of police forces in reasonable minds.

 

[GreyGhost]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

The story states that the driver did not use the phone until he was on private property (although that is obviously the drivers side of the story, the cop may have a different story).

 

[OpenGambit]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

The story states that the driver did not use the phone until he was on private property (although that is obviously the drivers side of the story, the cop may have a different story).

Thats the point, thanks.

 

[rbjeepthing]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

You can interpret it this way as well. Personally I can see if the cop really wants to be a hard *** then ya he/she can give you a ticket. Personally I hate cell phones in general and really don't see why people have to talk on them while driving a vehicle.

Definition of Highway according to the HTA:

“highway” includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; (“voie publique”)

The actual law in question:

Hand-held devices prohibited/Wireless communication devices
78.1 1 No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device or other prescribed device that is capable of receiving or transmitting telephone communications, electronic data, mail or text messages. 2009, c. 4, s. 2.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#BK137

 

[OpenGambit]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

You can interpret it this way as well. Personally I can see if the cop really wants to be a hard *** then ya he/she can give you a ticket. Personally I hate cell phones in general and really don't see why people have to talk on them while driving a vehicle.

Definition of Highway according to the HTA:


The actual law in question:


http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#BK137

No, the ONCA has said that strip malls are not a "highway". Case name escapes me at the moment and thats not important.

While its incorrect to say that you are always safe on private property. It appears from the article that the location should not be considered a highway. It would take some serious legal gymastics to distinguish this from the ONCA decision ( read: no way)

 

[eastcoast_gsx]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

You can interpret it this way as well.

We (and they) don't need to interperet anything... it has been settled long ago.

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highli...on/oncj/doc/2009/2009oncj157/2009oncj157.html

Highway is defined in s. 1 of the Highway Traffic Act and it reads,

“highway” includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof.”

[8] The issue, therefore, is whether or not s.48 of the Highway Traffic Act applies where the vehicle is in a private parking lot. This issue has consistently been answered by the appellate Courts that it does not. For example, in Gill et al v. Elwood, [1970], O.R. (2d) 59, OCA, where a plaza parking lot was held not to be within the purview of the Highway Traffic Act. In 1979, the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with this same issue in Mansour, 47 C.C.C. (2d), 129, where it held at p. 132,

“I conclude that the term “highway” in its ordinary and popular sense and as illustrated by the words employed in s. 1(1), para. 11 of the Act does not embrace the concept of a parking-lot and, particularly, a parking-lot adjacent to an apartment building, and presumably one which was established primarily for the provision of parking to its inhabitants.”

More:
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highli...on/oncj/doc/2009/2009oncj162/2009oncj162.html

Long Time ago:
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highli.../onca/doc/1977/1977canlii51/1977canlii51.html

To Gambit's point
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highli...on/oncj/doc/2009/2009oncj310/2009oncj310.html

Still, bearing in mind the breadth of the H.T.A. and wide variety of matters regulated that do not pertain to highways, it would be wrong to assume that the H.T.A. can never regulate private land use, particularly when what is controlled is not a moving violation under the H.T.A. but land use in conjunction with a municipal by-law to control parking on private property (to which the public has access by invitation) pursuant to s. 102 of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O., C. 25.

 

[eastcoast_gsx]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

and besides, no one was hurt, hardly anything to get mad about

That is a terrible argument, and it certainly is a valid thing to get ****** about. (if we take the version of events at face value)

 

[OpenGambit]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

Surely you are not suggesting that the simple fact that a cop gave a ticket / or processed a charge that is unlikely to result in a conviction (again, if the facts are as presented) to be something to get up in arms about.

There are plenty of deserving cases without me wasting moral indignation on this one.

and btw, the magnitude of the effect is a very valid reason to determine reaction. a simple assault conviction wouldln't say a lot to me about a person, but a 2nd degree murder conviction would... and of course, those 2 offences result in very different punishments, another indicator that the effect of a wrong matters.

 

[eastcoast_gsx]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

Surely you are not suggesting that the simple fact that a cop gave a ticket / or processed a charge that is unlikely to result in a conviction (again, if the facts are as presented) to be something to get up in arms about.

So you think that a cop would not know that what he was doing could only hold up if said person did not know any better? Is that really your argument here?

This is seen as acceptable in your mind? Not in mine.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

So you think that a cop would not know that what he was doing could only hold up if said person did not know any better? Is that really your argument here?

This is seen as acceptable in your mind? Not in mine.

It's right up there with the bylaw officer who ticketed me for parking legally, in a private lot.

 

[OpenGambit]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

So you think that a cop would not know that what he was doing could only hold up if said person did not know any better? Is that really your argument here?

This is seen as acceptable in your mind? Not in mine.

easy to argue when you make up the other side's point. You assume that the cop knew exactly what he was doing, that inherent bias is not supported by the facts.

We have people as cops, not superintelligent infalliable robots writing tickets. Until we do, not all tickets are going to result in convictions and some mistakes will be made.
So you have a cop that wrote a minor 100 dollar ticket that is going to get tossed out by a prosecutor, something that happens every day many times a day.

On a list of things in the world that actually bother me enough for me to get angry about, this just isn't one of them.

 

[rbjeepthing]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

While I appreciate all the CL's quoted I still can't see where a Drive Thru is considered a parking lot.

“I conclude that the term “highway” in its ordinary and popular sense and as illustrated by the words employed in s. 1(1), para. 11 of the Act does not embrace the concept of a parking-lot and, particularly, a parking-lot adjacent to an apartment building, and presumably one which was established primarily for the provision of parking to its inhabitants.”

Case in point the fact that receiving a ticket in a place that is designed for stationary vehicles to get a moving violation. However a drive thru is not designed for vehicles to be stationary only moving.

Q: I received a ticket under the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) for talking on my cell phone in a fast food drive-thru. I admit I was talking and holding my phone while my vehicle was in motion but didn’t pick it up until I got onto the restaurant’s property.

Or maybe i just see it another way.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

While I appreciate all the CL's quoted I still can't see where a Drive Thru is considered a parking lot.

It's contained within a private parking lot. Trying to show a difference is quibbling over extremely minor issues.

 

[rbjeepthing]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

^

 

[OpenGambit]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

While I appreciate all the CL's quoted I still can't see where a Drive Thru is considered a parking lot.



Case in point the fact that receiving a ticket in a place that is designed for stationary vehicles to get a moving violation. However a drive thru is not designed for vehicles to be stationary only moving.



Or maybe i just see it another way.

I understand your point, but this is what I would say.
There is overwhelming case law at a Court of Appeal level that (the Appeal level wasn't quoted above ) state that parking lots and such are not a "highway"
in many of these cases, the Crown, argued the exact point that these are places that the public has an invitation to go into. But these points were rejected.

If it were me in front of the Court, I would argue that a drive thru and a mall parking lot are the same, they are places where the people have an invitation to go in order to frequent the establishment. Obviously parking lots have places that are not for parking (the driveways). A drive thru is almost always part of a parking lot. Because of these points, they should have the same treatment.

This kind of argument is something I see a lot on this board, and its strange to me. There is no need to get overly technical with interpretations. Courts take more higher level views than that.

That being said. The officer could be thinking of your exact point (meaning he knows the HTA definition). I don't expect officers to be case law experts so in any case I think its not a unreasonable ticket to lay, even if it doesn't result in a conviction.

 

[mxs]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

Surely you are not suggesting that the simple fact that a cop gave a ticket / or processed a charge that is unlikely to result in a conviction (again, if the facts are as presented) to be something to get up in arms about.

There are plenty of deserving cases without me wasting moral indignation on this one.

and btw, the magnitude of the effect is a very valid reason to determine reaction. a simple assault conviction wouldln't say a lot to me about a person, but a 2nd degree murder conviction would... and of course, those 2 offences result in very different punishments, another indicator that the effect of a wrong matters.

So if it is so insignificant, why are you posting about it here???

 

[OpenGambit]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

So if it is so insignificant, why are you posting about it here???

By your logic, you must be really mad that I responded or you wouldn't have replied.

 

[mxs]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

Mad??? Not at all, just wondering, considering the number of times you treated this insignificant post. Move right along if you have changed your mind.

 

[OpenGambit]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

I am bored at work and I like to talk about case law, which really has nothing to do with any alleged police wrongdoing.

 

[fastar1]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

Mad??? Not at all, just wondering, considering the number of times you treated this insignificant post. Move right along if you have changed your mind.

He's saying the story is an insignificant one, especially in terms of what it says about cops. But obviously the thread itself is of interest to him.