Running from police.

[jotapeh]

^^ I can't find it either, but there was a thread on GTAM and I recall a cop got busted by cops. Point is that the cops don't want the bad apples either, and it's like any other work environment - cops more or less know which cop might be a dick.

So if you just make it up they won't pay you any attention but if you're the 5th guy in the door complaining about the same cop, you can be sure they will be all over it.

You raise a good point, I hadn't really thought about that. As it turns out the officer is 'under investigation' and was suspended with pay, that's the latest I can find about it. Still, the reason the SIU exists is that the public does not, in general, trust the police to police themselves.

I still think it is a flaunting of the justice system though to have any instance of 'guilty until proven innocent', especially with such harsh impoundment fees, etc. Keeping in mind of course that this law can be applied not just to people metered at 50km/h, but people who simply violate the officer's subjective interpretation of the nature of what constitutes 'stunting'.

Even in the case of being metered at 50+km/h, there was also a valid point raised about equipment malfunction condemning you until you can later prove that the gun was defective. And also you would suffer the same consequence if the officer's training to use a speed detection device was incomplete or expired, both of which invalidate said officer's measurement and are grounds for complete exoneration.

 

[turbodish]

Alright, I realize this is nearing dead horse status, but I'm going to apply some of this 'common sense' you keep speaking of. In specific, I will use your example.

Even if false accusation of traffic violations were as uncommon as random police brutality (which is not even close to true, but we will assume that it is,) here's the big, huge, GIGANTIC difference:

When a police officer injures any civilian, the SIU will investigate. Assume you are walking down the street with a clean record, no prior criminal charges, etc.. you get dragged into an alleyway and beaten on some trumped up charge, the SIU investigates because the circumstances are extremely suspicious!

Not quite. The SIU comes in only for death and serious injury cases. They won't get involved if injuries are minor. For the small stuff, complaints get handled through a different complaint mechanism that's far less formal than SIU investigations.

As stated in its motto, the mandate of the Special Investigations Unit is to maintain confidence in Ontario's police services by assuring the public that police actions resulting in serious injury or death are subjected to rigorous, independent investigations.

http://www.siu.on.ca/what.html

 

[jotapeh]

Not quite. The SIU comes in only for death and serious injury cases. They won't get involved if injuries are minor. For the small stuff, complaints get handled through a different complaint mechanism that's far less formal than SIU investigations.

http://www.siu.on.ca/what.html

Pardon - I assumed that the beating the officer gave you would result in serious injury, I guess he would only lightly rough you up then... my apologies on imagining the wrong hypothetical scenario...

 

[jc100]

It's far, far less likely that an investigation would occur than an accusation of police brutality. There is no mandatory SIU involvement. Furthermore, it's far less likely that any investigation like that would be taken seriously.

Unfortunately I cannot find the article, perhaps someone else can, but there were accusations made against officers in Ontario last summer that they were laying trumped-up "Stunting" charges to seize vehicles and receive kickbacks from towing companies. I wonder how seriously that investigation was taken..?

So...in the last few posts we've already ascertained that there have been investigations of trumped up charges and that we're mostly pitting hypothetical cases against hypothetical cases. Can you also be sure to try the "innocent until proven guilty" defense when you're next passing through security in a club, going to a sporting venue or going through airport security control too. What about an innebriated driver who refuses to give a blood/urine/breath test...should we let him continue driving because he's innocent until such time as a test can be administered and his guilt proven? Confiscation is a preventative measure to protect the majority from the actions of the individual who in most cases has been caught banged to rights from first person observation.

Although the law is flawed and gives too much leeway for personal interpretation on the stunting side of things I think it mostly works well at taking dangerous toys from children who can't behave.

 

[jotapeh]

Difference is, at a club, or airport, there are multiple witnesses..

For a DUI, if you refuse the breathalyzer, you are charged criminally. However if you are innocent.. simply take the breathalyzer, and you are exonerated (unless you're in the 'OPP discretion zone' between 0.05 and 0.08, that is a different story)

For stunting, without witnesses or a machine reading, you can still be booked.

 

[johnp]

OK OK how bad is this? No witnesses. Cop takes out his gun and shoots you dead.

Now what?

Well he better not do that too often, is what.

 

[jotapeh]

I don't see the need for facetious examples. I think the point I made was completely valid.

A police officer could make a whole slew of un-or-partially substantiated stunting charges and never be investigated.

Anytime an officer draws a gun they must file a report...

 

[jc100]

Difference is, at a club, or airport, there are multiple witnesses..

For a DUI, if you refuse the breathalyzer, you are charged criminally. However if you are innocent.. simply take the breathalyzer, and you are exonerated (unless you're in the 'OPP discretion zone' between 0.05 and 0.08, that is a different story)

For stunting, without witnesses or a machine reading, you can still be booked.

1. You still have to submit to a search of your person regardless of your intent to do anything illegal.

2. Your car will still be taken from you if there is reasonable suspicion to believe you are innebriated and constitute a public safety risk.

3. I don't see too much difference between point 2. and someone driving/riding like an assclown.

 

[Waldo]

Now, obviously you are going to say, "Well most of these people ARE guilty." That may be true. That does not mean you get to skip a step in the justice process simply because MOST people are guilty..! That's what the law is there for! To protect the innocent!

Smartest thing I've read in this whole thread. There's just too much left up to interpretation for this to be a good law. And there's no scope for compensation either, which is the factor that crosses the line IMO

 

[johnp]

I don't think it's a great law. Point is that the cops know that too. Have you noticed how almost all speeding tickets are handed out for less than the actual speed? I'd bet two reasons: [1] cops adjust for road conditions and under ideal conditions e.g. the 400 series hwys are safe at over 100kph. [2] they want to make absolutely sure that the charged speed is fair beyond contest.

You can bet the cops are told that if they are going to charge someone with stunting it better not be marginal. Otherwise they know that the house of cards can come tumbling down.

So the law sucks, yes, but I bet it's very rarely abused.

 

[jc100]

Now, obviously you are going to say, "Well most of these people ARE guilty." That may be true. That does not mean you get to skip a step in the justice process simply because MOST people are guilty..! That's what the law is there for! To protect the innocent!

I actually missed that the first time around. It could be argued that laws of this type do protect the innocent....from having to share the road with idiots.

 

[jotapeh]

1. You still have to submit to a search of your person regardless of your intent to do anything illegal.

Only if you choose to fly with commercial airlines. In your own private aircraft, you are not subject to security checks. Same applies to your own private club or sports establishment.

2. Your car will still be taken from you if there is reasonable suspicion to believe you are innebriated and constitute a public safety risk.

I was unaware of this. Does this actually apply if you blow under 0.05? What if you blow 0.0?

3. I don't see too much difference between point 2. and someone driving/riding like an assclown.

Well it's basically the difference between someone appearing to drive dangerously and someone who is incapacitated and unable to drive properly.

*by the way, i'd like to thank everyone for the civil tone thus far, i actually find this quite interesting as though i have never and never intend to violate HTA 172, I do see it as an infringement on civil rights.

 

[moto22]

I see this happening this more and more. Do you think the aggressiveness of the police force is to blame for this. I see to many riders being persecuted for petty violations and bogus charges. I haven't outrun the police before and I don't think I would try. Any one here have an opinion on this.

It seems too me that running is jus a necessary evil of sport bike riding these days ..

 

[turbodish]

For a DUI, if you refuse the breathalyzer, you are charged criminally. However if you are innocent.. simply take the breathalyzer, and you are exonerated (unless you're in the 'OPP discretion zone' between 0.05 and 0.08, that is a different story)

OPP discretion zone? There is no such thing. The .05 to .08 BAC temporary license suspensions are province-wide regardless of police force because they are stipulated in the HTA. They also do not result in criminal or even HTA charges.

 

[mjavor]

Sorry if this was covered in the first 14 pages, but if you run once, won't they have your license plate and try to pull you over every time they run your plate?

So, if you run once, won't you have to keep running?

 

[jotapeh]

OPP discretion zone? There is no such thing. The .05 to .08 BAC temporary license suspensions are province-wide regardless of police force because they are stipulated in the HTA. They also do not result in criminal or even HTA charges.

Not sure why you continue to choose to nitpick details that are tertiary to the main point, but regardless:

As of May 1, 2009, if you’re caught driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) from 0.05 to 0.08 (known as the "warn range"), the police can immediately suspend your licence up to three days for a first occurrence, seven days for a second occurrence and 30 days for a third or subsequent occurrence.

Source: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/impaired/fact-sheet.shtml

Emphasis mine on the operative word "Can", now correct me if I am misinterpreting but this implies it is at the police officer's discretion.

If you are disputing that I meant only the OPP could lay this suspension, rather than other municipal, regional or federal officers, I did not. I thought it was well understood that 'OPP' implies 'Police within Ontario'.


mjavor, those who run usually have a flip-up plate, or never let the police get close enough to obtain a plate number.

 

[kamikaze]

I was unaware of this. Does this actually apply if you blow under 0.05? What if you blow 0.0?

i posted this earlier in the thread, so i'll keep it brief. i was pulled over about a week or so ago and was asked to do a breath test. i did it, blew zero, was polite with the officer, and ended up getting let of on a couple other tickets that I was damn sure I was getting. here's the post: http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=1247286&postcount=38

it`s actually the second time I`ve blown zero. first time I had my G2 almost 10 years ago, and my buddy was drunk in the passenger seat so the cop smelled booze in the car. made me blow even tho I`d told him I hadn`t been drinking (which i hadn`t). then he proceeded to lecture me about how my license could have been suspended, blah blah, i kinda made the ugh face and went on my way.

 

[turbodish]

Not sure why you continue to choose to nitpick details that are tertiary to the main point, but regardless:

Because details should be correct even if tertiary, otherwise someone is going to run with them as if they are fact.

Emphasis mine on the operative word "Can", now correct me if I am misinterpreting but this implies it is at the police officer's discretion.

EVERY charge, even for full-blown criminal impaired, is at the officer's discretion. You chose to write the phrase "OPP discretion zone". Most people here would read that as Ontario Provincial Police discretion zone, as if this was just some sort of Fantino-driven special program used exclusively by the OPP.

If you are disputing that I meant only the OPP could lay this suspension, rather than other municipal, regional or federal officers, I did not. I thought it was well understood that 'OPP' implies 'Police within Ontario'.

Not even close. OPP is not a generic term.

mjavor, those who run usually have a flip-up plate, or never let the police get close enough to obtain a plate number.

That assumes that they realize the police are near. With the number of plain-cover, ghost-marked, low-profile marked cruisers, and non-standard under-cover vehicles out there, you could easily miss a police vehicle that is right behind you.

 

[eng2007]

Nope...nor my friends...nor anyone I know actually. But then again, I tend not to do daft things on the street as I actually want to keep my licence and have low insurance.

You sound just like 172: guilty before proven innocent.

 

[Aslan]

Difference is, at a club, or airport, there are multiple witnesses..

..trimmed...

For stunting, without witnesses or a machine reading, you can still be booked.

Good point, be your own witness with a gps logging and/or a video camera?

"Hold on a second while I upload some data, Officer.... Now, what did you want to talk to me about? And please be aware this conversation is being recorded, my lawyer insists."

True, I don't know if I could do it that smooth but I would love to see some of the recordings.