Radar traps operating in private property - what's the deal? | GTAMotorcycle.com

Radar traps operating in private property - what's the deal?

W

www.MotoMondo.ca

Member
To simply put it - under which circumstances can police officers set up a radar post in private property to catch speeding vehicles?

Are they always allowed? Or only when the officer has the landowner's permission? Are there any precedent cases anyone could direct me to?

thanks!!
 
They are usually there at the REQUEST of the landowner. People with speeding complaints can call the police and offer up their laneway for use but if they don't want police there, they can ask them to leave.
 
Thank you for your comment... I will give more info...

What I am looking for is information to challenge the ticket in court, based on the fact that the cruiser was parked on a driveway that has signage indicating "Private property".

This property is a condo building (not one single owner).

So, can the officer set a trap there? It is a driveway, after all... yet it is marked as private and there is a gate...
 
I doubt the judge will even care, doesnt matter if he should be there or not...He got you speeding, so unless your going to challenge his equipment and procedures your not going to beat that ticket...I can see the judge aggreeing with you that he shouldnt have been doing radar there, and still convicting you for the speeding...
 
Yes, I agree with you... I am working on something else to beat the ticket.

But I need as many options as possible. The private property may be a technicality... but that is how you win some.

Overall, this is not a question of :should: (if he should be there or not)
Is it a matter of :must: (he must get permission to do so, or not)
 
Last edited:
Which side of the sidewalk was he on; the building side or the road side? If it's on the road side, then it's considered city property anyway.

If the land owner didn't object to him being there, then there's no issue. It's not a fact that is germane to the charge. You would be better off pursuing other avenues like obscured signage, accuracy of the RADAR, the possibility that he read another vehicle's speed, etc..
 
I've tried this argument.

You're basically going for the: "can the Officer violate the Municipal parking by-laws so he can enforce a Provincial Highway Traffic Act?"

The answer, is yes.

Hire redline (www.charged.ca) and stop worrying about your ticket. They will do the job better than you ever could.

Nites
 
NiteshadeTA said:
I've tried this argument.

You're basically going for the: "can the Officer violate the Municipal parking by-laws so he can enforce a Provincial Highway Traffic Act?"
Click to expand...

No, I am not going for that (parking by-laws)- but it is an interesting argument. It would be closer to this (below) than to parking by-laws:



HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN vs WILLIAM LOTOZKY
Heard: May 9, 2006

"The issue in this case is whether police officers who have reasonable grounds to suspect a motorist is impaired are entitled to walk a short distance up a driveway to further their investigation. The trial judge, Budzinski J., and the Summary Appeal Court judge, McCombs J., concluded that the officers were not entitled to walk up the driveway attached to a dwelling house to make that investigation. As a result, they found that the respondent had been subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure and that the fruits of the investigation were inadmissible on the respondent’s trial for impaired driving and “over 80”. In my view, they erred. Accordingly, I would allow this Crown appeal."
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Which side of the sidewalk was he on; the building side or the road side? If it's on the road side, then it's considered city property anyway.

If the land owner didn't object to him being there, then there's no issue. It's not a fact that is germane to the charge. You would be better off pursuing other avenues like obscured signage, accuracy of the RADAR, the possibility that he read another vehicle's speed, etc..
Click to expand...

The officer was parked on the building side, well into the private property.
 
www.MotoMondo.ca said:
The officer was parked on the building side, well into the private property.
Click to expand...

From the sounds of it, you're going the wrong way with your argument. An officer isn't permitted to enter private property in order to confirm his suspicion, based on that finding, but there is nothing barring him from LEAVING private property for that purpose. There is nothing in that finding that precludes him observing from a private location.

I'm afraid that you'll need to pursue another avenue.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
From the sounds of it, you're going the wrong way with your argument. An officer isn't permitted to enter private property in order to confirm his suspicion, based on that finding, but there is nothing barring him from LEAVING private property for that purpose. There is nothing in that finding that precludes him observing from a private location.

I'm afraid that you'll need to pursue another avenue.
Click to expand...

I believe it is the right way. To keep it short - contrary to your interpretation, an officer is in fact permitted to enter private property in order to investigate a particular complain, or to complete an investigation that started beforehand. The quote that I posted above is from the appeal, posted in canlil.org, and the Crown presented this appeal, and won, and the conclusion was that the fruits of the investigation were in fact admissible, even when the investigation was completed in the defendant's driveway, because there was an ongoing investigation that started previously with a complain (via telephone).

However, a speeding trap is not an ongoing investigation. From the .magma.ca/~fyst website:

Q: The officer was operating his radar on a private property. Is this considered trespassing and will the tickets he wrote stand?

A: There are two different views to this situation. In general, officers are exempt from certain laws in the legal performance of his duties. For example, if he is chasing a criminal, he is allowed to drive faster than the speed limits and run red lights. On the other hand, when he setup the radar site on this private property, no actual comission of crime was in progress. In other words, he was just there fishing for suspects. The property owner's consent (or lack thereof) will be vital to this case. If the officer asked the owner and was allowed to setup the radar there, the radar site is considered legal. Otherwise, I would tend to believe that is trespassing. Contact the property owner and find out if the officer had obtained permission.
Click to expand...

I need the case law that goes with the above. The canlil.org website is difficult to search... I will continue trying, I know eventually I will find an answer to this, one way or another...

Thanks for your comments...
 
Interesting, as my speeding ticket (upcoming in court December 2008) had simliar circumstances. Mine however I'm SURE the officer didn't have permission as the house is a boarded up farm property ;p.

I've never heard of a ticket being tossed out due to non-permission however. If anyone finds the case law, please post a link.
 
mat2312 said:
Interesting, as my speeding ticket (upcoming in court December 2008) had simliar circumstances. Mine however I'm SURE the officer didn't have permission as the house is a boarded up farm property ;p.

I've never heard of a ticket being tossed out due to non-permission however. If anyone finds the case law, please post a link.
Click to expand...

Well, I am pretty sure that it already happened
But maybe we are not looking at this long enough, hard enough when we do research :)

For example, I was not even aware of some of my legal rights until recently... we just don't pay enough attention to that. We all are too busy working long hours to pay the bills






And just another comment, on something in Rob MacLennan post above.

From the sounds of it, you're going the wrong way with your argument. An officer isn't permitted to enter private property in order to confirm his suspicion, based on that finding, but there is nothing barring him from LEAVING private property for that purpose. There is nothing in that finding that precludes him observing from a private location.
Click to expand...

The fact is... officers are not entering private property to "observe". They are entering to collect evidence to prosecutor alleged offenders, and that process has to be done properly.

I found this of interest - The officer's observations cannot be used much in traffic court when dealing with a speed ticket.


From a different case:
This court does not accept the proposition both enunciated by the learned Justice of the Peace and argued by the prosecutor today that a person can be convicted of this offense because -to use the prosecutor's words today- "Anyone can tell when a vehicle is speeding".

This is a particularized offense that requires the Crown to prove to the necessary evidentiary standard a particular quantum, and to do that, it is necessary to rely on the read-out from the radar device.
Click to expand...
 
Your offense was committed on the road, right? So you are SOL.

-being outside a building, assuming there are no fences/hedges/walls to create privacy, it can be considered a "public space" and therefore he is allowed to be there. Unless he was hiding in the bushes against the building, you aren't likely to have fault here.

If nothing else, isn't the first 20ft from the road automatically considered city property, sidewalk or not?

The officer is forbidden from looking inside the building to gather evidence unwarranted, as this is a "private space" where residents have the right to be unseen, and protected from all eyes. you are on the road, and therefore allowed to be watched. From what you are trying to argue, if a cop is inside a Tim Horton's on a break, but keeping vigil on his surroundings, and sees a crime taking place outside, he would not be allowed to respond because he is in a private area. Likewise, plaza parking lots (private property, and usually signed as such) would also be off limits to the police, which just isnt the case.

-have you gotten disclosure? Perhaps there was an active complaint from the residents of that building about traffic in the area. The same people might have allowed the police to be there.

Why not go ask the building owner/operator/super if the police have permission to set up speed traps on their property? if you can confirm the cop was nowhere near the road, and did not have permission to be there (and also that he wouldn't have gotten permission had he asked) then you may have a case. Otherwise, better start saving up for the insurance hike.
 
I realize that this isn't necessarily a definitive source, but I found this at http://www.ontariotraffictickets.com/tickets/speeding-FAQs.htm

Q. The officer wasn’t on the street but was on private property. Is he allowed to do this? Is this considered trespassing and does it affect the ticket?
  1. The officer can write speeding tickets or set up radar on any location he wants. If the property owner came out and asked the officer to move off his property the officer would have to do so. It does not affect the validity of any speeding ticket or traffic ticket.
  2. The property owners consent or lack thereof is NOT vital to the case.
  3. A speeding ticket can not be written on private property, the motor vehicle must have been on the roadway while speeding.
 
Rob you seem to be in "the know" on this stuff

Burlington police now use crappy vans to hide behind...they park them at the ends of driveways and cross streets.
One cop stands on the far side..then as you approach they POP out and shoot you with the radar (looks comical) ...they have a real cop car there also..to give chase..the question is....this real cop car cannot be seen when approaching (its parked beside and further back) is this LEGAL?
I thought they had to be partially seen on approach...not totally hidden like they do in the USA.
I have this on tape btw.
Whats your take on this? thanks
 
There is no requirement in Ontario for the police to be visible when doing radar. He's holding the radar gun (at a distance / angle etc that satisfies the radar gun manufacturer's requirements) + you're doing the speed they measure you at => you get hit with the ticket. That's pretty much all there is to it.

I realize that in some places in the USA they have some interesting things that the police have to do when running radar, but none of that applies here.

Now here's something that this brings up which I don't know the answer to; if the radar operator "pops" out while taking the reading, is said radar operator himself moving while holding the radar gun, and is that going to have an influence on the speed the radar gun displays if it is not in "moving" mode?
 
www.MotoMondo.ca said:
Are they always allowed? Or only when the officer has the landowner's permission?
Click to expand...

Canada is a fascist police state so they can do pretty much as they please. If you don't like, you are allowed to move elsewhere, but only for a limited time.
 
GSXMAER said:
Rob you seem to be in "the know" on this stuff

Burlington police now use crappy vans to hide behind...they park them at the ends of driveways and cross streets.
One cop stands on the far side..then as you approach they POP out and shoot you with the radar (looks comical) ...they have a real cop car there also..to give chase..the question is....this real cop car cannot be seen when approaching (its parked beside and further back) is this LEGAL?
I thought they had to be partially seen on approach...not totally hidden like they do in the USA.
I have this on tape btw.
Whats your take on this? thanks
Click to expand...

What Brian P said.

I've seen a police RADAR team dressed in safety vests and acting like a road repair crew.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom