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

[Brian P]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

It's all well and good that the ticket is likely to be dismissed.

But to the regular average person who is not a lawyer and works 40 hours a week at a normal job that pays barely enough to stay ahead of the game, at minimum this means taking time off work to deal with this aggravation and possibly paying someone to deal with the ticket. Even if it gets dismissed, that person is now behind by half a mortgage payment, or a few weeks worth of groceries, or whatever, because of that frivolous ticket.

It is from this point of view that the normal average citizen who is not a lawyer and does not make a six-figure salary but certainly has a six-figure mortgage, that we ought to expect police officers to do better ... by not writing frivolous tickets, by doing the most minor amount of research that it would take to find this out beforehand (Call in to the station "Can you check whether a cell phone while driving ticket applies in a drive through" ... "No? Okay.").

I think this is the point being made by the original poster in this thread.

Having said that, we don't know whether that officer saw that driver already on the phone when they pulled into the parking lot. We don't have all the facts. If that's the actual situation, then it's a different story altogether.

 

[Baggsy]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

I wish that cop had been with me earlier today. I parked at the bank ran in to the machine, did my transactions and came out to someone stopped right across my parking spot while texting. I hop into the car, a proceed to wait. After a while I turn on the lights and she then notices me. In the mean time there are 100 spots that she could have parked in, most of them drive through. So, she pulls forward...3 feet.

What is wrong with people?!?

I'm thinking that I might have to start a business, teaching people to perpendicular park, there are millions who don't know how, or don't give a rat's.

 

[OpenGambit]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

It's all well and good that the ticket is likely to be dismissed.

But to the regular average person who is not a lawyer and works 40 hours a week at a normal job that pays barely enough to stay ahead of the game, at minimum this means taking time off work to deal with this aggravation and possibly paying someone to deal with the ticket. Even if it gets dismissed, that person is now behind by half a mortgage payment, or a few weeks worth of groceries, or whatever, because of that frivolous ticket.

It is from this point of view that the normal average citizen who is not a lawyer and does not make a six-figure salary but certainly has a six-figure mortgage, that we ought to expect police officers to do better ... by not writing frivolous tickets, by doing the most minor amount of research that it would take to find this out beforehand (Call in to the station "Can you check whether a cell phone while driving ticket applies in a drive through" ... "No? Okay.").

I think this is the point being made by the original poster in this thread.

Having said that, we don't know whether that officer saw that driver already on the phone when they pulled into the parking lot. We don't have all the facts. If that's the actual situation, then it's a different story altogether.

It is completely false to suggest that I somehow hold police to a lower standard because of my profession. You also seem to imply that my moral compass is different because of my profession, I reject that entirely.
I think its clear from my body of posts that I hold crown agents to a high standard of moral behaviour.

But I also accept that realities of human enforcement make it a certainty that errors would be made. Its simply impossible to expect that all tickets result in convictions.
How many people come on this forum with mistakes by law enforcement and expect the benefit from that mistake. A mistake on a ticket that is in the accused's favour is ok but if its not in the accused's favour its malice? thats not a defensible position.

I don't look at a situation where a cop makes a mistake on a ticket in the accused's favour as a indication of negligence on behalf of cops everywhere.
I don't see how a situation where a cop makes a mistake and gives a wrong ticket to be indicative that cops should not be trusted.

 

[BusaBob]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

It's all well and good that the ticket is likely to be dismissed.

But to the regular average person who is not a lawyer and works 40 hours a week at a normal job that pays barely enough to stay ahead of the game, at minimum this means taking time off work to deal with this aggravation and possibly paying someone to deal with the ticket. Even if it gets dismissed, that person is now behind by half a mortgage payment, or a few weeks worth of groceries, or whatever, because of that frivolous ticket.

^-- this

moral compass aside, a $100 ticket, or the time it takes to deal with one (rightly or wrongly) will obviously impact someone with a lower income more so than someone with a higher one.

Given this fact, I'd expect police officers to have a better understanding of what is a "highway" and what is not, particularly if it's their job to enforce HTA violations.

When there's an error on the ticket that causes it to get thrown out, there is absolutely no consequence to the officer. However, if an officer issues a ticket in error, the recipient still needs to waste time and money fighting it. Time and money they will not get back.

Eastcoast's indignation is likely not the result of this one isolated case, but the result of a pervasive sentiment that traffic officers as a whole tend to lay too many erroneous, frivolous charges, or do so maliciously, knowing full well that they'll get thrown out, but also knowing that there will be a financial cost and be a pain in the butt to do so

 

[OpenGambit]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

The last time I went to a prosecutor's office to explain a ticket. I was told that the ticket would be dropped, and then he offered "would you like to file a complaint against the officer?". I actually said there was no point because nothing would probably happen, and he told me that one complaint probably wouldn't mean a lot but a few would. So i filed the complaint.

So the system does police itself.

Secondly, i have constantly made the point before that the concept of "costs" is inappropiate in criminal and quasi criminal cases.
While I sympathize with the fact that someone has to take the time to fight a ticket, (note that it actually costs me more to fight a ticket than someone in a lower income bracket).
If they are found guilty, they are not penalized extra for wasting taxpayer's time and money.
So if they are found not guilty, they are also not compensated for their defense time.

one can not just pick one side and argue the whole thing is unfair. Almost every post here is about procedural, not substantive defenses.

That being said. I don't disagree that cops should know that parking lots aren't highways.

 

[Brian P]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

The last time I went to a prosecutor's office to explain a ticket. I was told that the ticket would be dropped, and then he offered "would you like to file a complaint against the officer?". I actually said there was no point because nothing would probably happen, and he told me that one complaint probably wouldn't mean a lot but a few would. So i filed the complaint.

So the system does police itself.

Hasn't happened to me, so I cannot really comment on this.

Secondly, i have constantly made the point before that the concept of "costs" is inappropiate in criminal and quasi criminal cases.
While I sympathize with the fact that someone has to take the time to fight a ticket, (note that it actually costs me more to fight a ticket than someone in a lower income bracket).

Probably costs you a smaller percentage relative to actual living expenses ... Plenty of folks out there have a paycheck which 99% disappears before they get the next one. To someone like that, the $500 that it would cost them to pay a paralegal to deal with this could take months to recover. I know you're not in that position (and to be fair, I'm not, either) but there are a lot of people who are.

To one person, $500 is a catastrophic expense. To another, $1000 is a rounding error. I would suggest that the cost of a trial etc is more likely to be on the side of a catastrophic expense to a normal person, but more likely to be on the side of being a rounding error for the judicial system as a whole ...

If they are found guilty, they are not penalized extra for wasting taxpayer's time and money.
So if they are found not guilty, they are also not compensated for their defense time.

one can not just pick one side and argue the whole thing is unfair.


That being said. I don't disagree that cops should know that parking lots aren't highways.

On this point, we certainly agree. And much of this discussion completely goes away, if cops DON'T WRITE TICKETS FOR QUESTIONABLE SITUATIONS.

And I know that many of them don't, either (otherwise I'd have a lot more tickets than I've actually received LOL) ... but the ones that do, don't help the image of the courts, police, judicial system etc as a whole.

And having said that, I'll re-iterate a point I already made: we don't know the facts of the original situation. If the cop saw the driver using the phone as they turned into the parking lot (while they were still on the road) ... then that cop is 100% right and the ticket is 100% justified. We don't have all the facts, and nor does the newspaper article. What people say they did for the newspaper article, isn't necessarily what they actually did.

 

[BusaBob]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

The last time I went to a prosecutor's office to explain a ticket. I was told that the ticket would be dropped, and then he offered "would you like to file a complaint against the officer?". I actually said there was no point because nothing would probably happen, and he told me that one complaint probably wouldn't mean a lot but a few would. So i filed the complaint.

So the system does police itself.

Secondly, i have constantly made the point before that the concept of "costs" is inappropiate in criminal and quasi criminal cases.
While I sympathize with the fact that someone has to take the time to fight a ticket, (note that it actually costs me more to fight a ticket than someone in a lower income bracket).

If they are found guilty, they are not penalized extra for wasting taxpayer's time and money.
So if they are found not guilty, they are also not compensated for their defense time.

one can not just pick one side and argue the whole thing is unfair. Almost every post here is about procedural, not substantive defenses.

That being said. I don't disagree that cops should know that parking lots aren't highways.

A few points in rebuttal, for argument's sake,

You are assuming your complaint would actually result in some disciplinary action that would stop the officer from laying charges/issuing tickets that will not stick.

I can see your point about criminal or quasi-criminal cases, but that's not what's being discussed here (HTA tickets). Also, how about HTA172 charges that are being laid maliciously or without due care? There is a rather large financial cost to that ticket, and there is no redress

Again, someone who has a greater income, is better positioned to absorb the costs of contesting a ticket. You may be making more, but you are also likely to have more in savings and to make up the loss faster than someone making substantially less.

We're not talking about someone who is guilty and is fighting the ticket to get off. We are talking about someone who is not guilty and have been charged falsely/maliciously/frivolously

 

[OpenGambit]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

I am no expert on the inner workings of police complaints, but i don't see why the prosecutor would go out of his way to spend his time to give me a remedy I didn't ask for if it was completely pointless. I wouldn't do it if it were me...

The HTA Is quasi-criminal..(you are getting fined) So I am not talking about something else.

I have addressed the HTA 172 issue at length in other posts, I don't really want to rehash it.
but there are tort addresses if the Crown charges you maliciously.
And my understanding was that the cop who was accused of getting kickbacks from tow truck companies. Some of the people got their impound fees back. Seems fair to me.

As far as the "means" arguement goes. I am far more likely to just pay a ticket now than before simply because it costs me so much to get my day in court... Taking a day off to fight a ticket is costing me twice as much as the ticket + insurance impact...

 

[eastcoast_gsx]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

I would have a hard time believing that this "story" would not be used as an "example" during the police training. Maybe a class in Federal vs Provincial Law application. I would be worried if a new constable didn't know the difference.

He may have approached the driver to ensure he didn't continue on the phone and the guy failed the basic "attitude test"... oh yeah numpty, here is your ticket see you in court.

PS: There have even been entire group efforts to write tickets that don't really apply.

Brad Diamond failed the attitude test as well it seems. ("'So? What's the problem?'")

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...lights_ticket_080130/20080130?hub=TorontoHome

http://www.wheels.ca/article/asset/167046

 

[Baggsy]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

Sorry, I don't see the correlation between flashing your highbeams to warn of a radar, and driving a circle around a fast food restaurant while multitasking.

Everyone needs to pay attention while they are driving - stuff happens.

C'mon people, smarten up, there shouldn't need to be laws for stuff like this.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

Sorry, I don't see the correlation between flashing your highbeams to warn of a radar, and driving a circle around a fast food restaurant while multitasking.

Everyone needs to pay attention while they are driving - stuff happens.

C'mon people, smarten up, there shouldn't need to be laws for stuff like this.

The correlation is that neither is illegal, regardless of how smart one or the other might be. Then again, how much danger does someone using his cell in a fast food drive-through represent?

 

[OpenGambit]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

The correlation is that neither is illegal, regardless of how smart one or the other might be. Then again, how much danger does someone using his cell in a fast food drive-through represent?

In terms of culpability by the police, the 2 things don't appear to be at all comparable.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

In terms of culpability by the police, the 2 things don't appear to be at all comparable.

I don't know about that. Both situations, the one outlined in the article and the fact that Toronto Police were charging people under (I believe) HTA 169, are both misapplications of law.

 

[OpenGambit]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

In the flashing lights example, I think the arguement that the police are knowingly charging people with something thats not illegal is a lot stronger, even the legislation doesn't say anything about flashing highbeams.
The resolution also supports that conclusion.

In the phone in drive through example, the probability of a mistake is much higher as a simple reading of the HTA (without judicial clarifcation) could be confusing (as the thread demonstrates). And it is much less clear whether the accused was in fact doing something wrong, ( he says he didn't pick up the phone till he got in the parking lot but thats not established )

One is a behaviour that is not illegal no matter how you spin it, where its done, how its done.
The other is possibily illegal based on location, a key element that is absent from our knowledge.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

In the flashing lights example, I think the arguement that the police are knowingly charging people with something thats not illegal is a lot stronger, even the legislation doesn't say anything about flashing highbeams.
The resolution also supports that conclusion.

In the phone in drive through example, the probability of a mistake is much higher as a simple reading of the HTA (without judicial clarifcation) could be confusing (as the thread demonstrates). And it is much less clear whether the accused was in fact doing something wrong, ( he says he didn't pick up the phone till he got in the parking lot but thats not established )

One is a behaviour that is not illegal no matter how you spin it, where its done, how its done.
The other is possibily illegal based on location, a key element that is absent from our knowledge.

It's largely a theoretical discussion so for that purpose, I'm considering the information provided in the story to be accurate, for purposes of this comparison.

Police are fairly well versed in what the term "highway" means. I could see that an officer might potentially be mistaken where a through path in a parking lot is concerned, but there is no conceivable way that a restaurant drive-through could be mistaken for such.

And actually it's for this reason that I think the situation, as stated, is more than a little unlikely.

 

[eastcoast_gsx]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

In the phone in drive through example, the probability of a mistake is much higher as a simple reading of the HTA (without judicial clarifcation)could be confusing(as the thread demonstrates). And it is much less clear whether the accused was in fact doing something wrong, ( he says he didn't pick up the phone till he got in the parking lot but thats not established )

To folks on an internet forum sure, but a trained law enforcement officer, one would hope not.

 

[OpenGambit]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

I just don't take it at face value for the simple reason that.

It doesn't matter if all the facts are in the Crown's favour in the flashing high beams case... they are stil wrong.

While in the phone case, that is not the case, if the guy is on the phone before he drove into the lot, which isn't far fetched by any means, the Crown is 100 % correct.

 

[OpenGambit]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

To folks on an internet forum sure, but a trained law enforcement officer, one would hope not.

Without the knowledge of applicable case law, I think its a reasonable interpretation.

And an interpretation is reasonable based on the logic of it, just because someone is posting on a internet forum doesn't make the point any less valid. Rob and Brian aren't lawyers, I still respect their positions.

While on the other hand, I see this thread as crying wolf.

 

[Baggsy]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

The correlation is that neither is illegal, regardless of how smart one or the other might be. Then again, how much danger does someone using his cell in a fast food drive-through represent?

The place I go to has a Wendy's window & a Tim's. For some strange reason you need to cut through the constant line of vehicles at the Tim's window to get to the doors. I've almost been hit by someone who was supposedly looking right at me. The car ahead of her pulled ahead, I stepped out between them and she pulled ahead and hit the brakes, I jumped back. I can guess what would have ensued, had either of us been engaged with an electronic device. Also the article said private property. Can you imagine the carnage when shoppers at the mall all begin to multi-task while trying to park and walk through the parking lots. At least on the highways, there aren't as many pedestrians freely walking around and through.

 

[eastcoast_gsx]

Re: Wonder why some folks distrust LEO's?

While on the other hand, I see this thread as crying wolf.

If your done debating the merits of the situation, then move along

We all know how you feel about the thread now (and I could care less).

If your argument is still that it is ok for a LEO to knowingly issue bogus citations due to the fact there there are bigger fish to fry then I say that it still a weak argument.

I say that it is highly likely given his training that he knew that this ticket would not stand and chose to write it anyway becasue he knows what a PITA it is (or someone has to fork over $$ for a paralegal) to get it dismissed. To think that this does not happen is naive, and there should be real repurcussions for those that do it.