OPP officer charged for falsifying traffic stops

[G-ForceJunkie]

The OPP have arrested and suspended one of their own, after an officer was accused of laying charges against three different drivers for speeding or violating the new street racing law based on false evidence.

One was accused of exceeding the posted limit, while the other two were alleged to have violated the province's street racing law and had their licences suspended and their cars temporarily seized. The OPP Professional Standards Bureau won't say how they came across the accusations but admits all charges against the trio have since been withdrawn.

Insp. Dave Ross won't say what the motive might have been.

The allegations make other stops Sgt. Dennis Mahoney-Bruer may have been involved with suspect as well and a review of all his past cases is underway. Ross tells CityNews.ca that could keep investigators busy for a while - as many as 200 provincial cases and 50 criminal cases are being given a second look.

The 49-year-old cop has been a member of the force for 12 years and is based in Port Credit. His primary patrol area is the QEW and Highway 403.

The accused has been suspended from duty with pay and will appear in a Brampton court on July 13th. He's charged with three counts of breach of trust and one of obstructing justice.

Commissioner Julian Fantino, often cited as a 'cop's cop,' is disappointed by the outcome but says it's vital the public knows he won't stand for anything untoward in the ranks.

"It was important for the OPP to initiate an immediate investigation and a comprehensive review, with the intent to bolster safeguards, to prevent similar situations in the future," he notes in a statement. "I believe that the public trust is a fundamental cornerstone of the OPP and policing."

If you think you were unfairly stopped by this officer and have a complaint to make, call (905) 278-6131.
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_34954.aspx

These are the cops who decide to yank your license and tow your car at the side of the road.

[George]

I can't say that I'm surprised at all by this.

[Dave Barker]

Wonder how they caught him. Under this law you seem to be treated as guilty until proven innocent. Those 3 guys charged must have had great evidence against the cop.

[spd-dmn]

I really wonder how the OPP are gonna backpedal their way out of this one. You damn well know this isn't the only case of this type of behaviour.

Yet the illegal and unconstitutional seizure of people's property will continue. Thinly disguised in the name of "safety". It makes me sick.

Frankly I'm amazed that this particular officer was caught at all.. I'd love to know how that even happened.

I can only hope this case will begin waking people up to the danger and illegality of pre-trial asset forfeiture.


Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms:

Section 8: Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Section 7: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.


Security of the person means the right not to be forced being left in the middle of nowhere with one's children, dogs and suitcases, at the side of the road, with no car, on a police officer's whim.

[Maddog]

Surprise, surprise. This is exactly why this law SHOULD NOT EXIST! Too much power to the wrong people.

I wonder if those wrongly accused will get all their money back from impound fees, etc. Maybe time lost at work? I'd be suing their asses.

[Steve Moore]

Here we go again

When this whole thing was argued over and over again through these forums, I told you that there are safe measures in place to protect the public who obey the law.

This story if anything proves that the police do not take this power lightly, we investigate any public complaints and where misconduct is believed the officer is charged.

All of the parties involved have had there charges withdrawn and compensated for their losses. No doubt they will receive some kind of settlement when this matter is finished in court as well.

There are 35,000 Police Officers in this Province, so if you want to put your spin on this over one alleged bad cop fill your boots but the highways are a safer place these days

[thgear]

.... but the highways are a safer place these days

yeah, okay.

[h-bomb]

"The accused has been suspended from duty with pay "

[Steve Moore]

Yes, all police officers facing criminal charges are suspended from duty with pay. He will also face Police Act Charges after the criminal ones are delt with. If the facts of the case are true, he could face jail time and will lose his job.

Serge I gave up trying to explain things to you along time ago ;)

[abrracing]

Do you think the people who were charged by these officers will be compensated?
________
Live Sex Webshows (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[George]

Do you think the people who were charged by these officers will be compensated?

Depends what you mean by compensated..lol

They might have already missed the notice period for commencing a civil action against the Crown/OPP and would therefore have to seek leave to file a Statement of Claim - although the Court would likely allow it nevertheless the application is an extra step ($) in the proceedings if they were to sue the cops for conspiracy and abuse of process etc.

Out of pocket expenses are likely below $5,000.00 ie cost of storage, transportation costs for duration of impound; that kind of stuff plus legal fees if any prior to commencement of the action. So not really worth going to Court over by itself.

In a case like this though, litigation counsel would seek a significant sum for punitive damages and full recovery of legal fees as opposed to the usual partial indemnity costs award. Punitive damages are awarded when the Defendant has engaged in some kind of conduct that the Court finds particularly disgusting; it’s arguable that the conduct of the OPP in this matter would attract such damage award.

Possible strategy for the cops would be to try and make it go away by offering a slightly better than nominal out of court settlement with the proviso that failure to accept same would result in a vigorous Defence and the possibility that the case will drag on for years - the government has deep pockets and could run them into the ground - the result being that even if they win they still lose in one way or another.

[tanney]

There are 35,000 Police Officers in this Province, so if you want to put your spin on this over one alleged bad cop fill your boots but the highways are a safer place these days

Unfortunately Steve, there is one person who has the public trust and has abused it. If there are 35000 then you be be assured, if there is one, there is more than one.

I don't object to the law, it's the roadside judge and jury that is the issue. Piss off a cop having a bad day and this abuse will no doubt happen on occasion. In this case more than once. It puts a lot of charges laid under this law in question. Were they really doing 155 or 160 or maybe 145 with an attitude.......

Just sayin'....

[thgear]

Serge I gave up trying to explain things to you along time ago ;)

i'm just saying

i feel no safer or scared on our 400 series highways today as i did a year ago, or two years before that.

[Steve Moore]

Wes, if the facts prove true, it had nothing to do with pissing the cop off.

Serge....change your driving habits and youll feel alot safer!

So will we ;)

[sti_schumacher]

Steve,

yet you dont argue against the fact that this law goes against the charter of rights and freedoms...:rolleyes: just to mention, this isnt the first law (and not necessarily a highway traffic act law) to do this, hint-hint nudge-nugde.

another concerning thought: the cop is treated as 'innocent until proven guilty' ('laid off with pay', and i bet he just hates not working and getting paid for it...), but the opposite is true for the citizen who is left stranded in the middle of a highway without a means of transportation. how do you explain that the police officer in this case is treated in a way completely opposite to the way the citizen is? or am i missing something?

you say that the highways are a safer place, but that is your personal bias opinion. there is no fact or comparable figure that would allow one to say that there are less auto accidents occuring since this law has taken effect. 'if the facts prove true' - ok, we will wait and see. but i dont know if we will even be able to feel the difference in 'safety'... to put things into perspective:

http://www.cyberbeach.net/~mtrenout/results.html


Oddly enough, as shown from the table to the left, whose data was collected by police accident reports, shows speeding accounts for only 1.05% of all accidents. Furthermore table 3.11 (p#25) of the same report shows that out of ALL provincial accidents our highways only account for 20% of the total. This brings us to the million dollar question. Why are our police agencies devoting close to 60% of their enforcement and legal resources, on the cause of only 1.05% of accidents on our safest roads? It is one of those things that make you go Hmmm!

on a side note: an irrefutable and already proven fact, however, is that the OPP is rolling in that much more $$$ due to the new 2K fine the accused pays being 'guilty until proven innocent' ...

HMMM :D

[BGregovski]

Steve, these guys will never look at a problem or occurrence from a different angle. All they see is the 'cop' doing wrong, not the fact that he has been caught and is being punished for his wrong doing should be looked at as a good thing. None of the secrect society/brotherhood they all think is out there

STI....your quote I disagree withanother concerning thought: the cop is treated as 'innocent until proven guilty' ('laid off with pay', and i bet he just hates not working and getting paid for it...), but the opposite is true for the citizen who is left stranded in the middle of a highway without a means of transportation....a citizen would never be stranded out in the middle of a highway with no means of transportation,:rolleyes: think about it. Laid off with pay....well suspended with pay would most likely mean stuck in the office all day answering phones and doing paper work right out side the brasses office:(. When ones job is on the line the facts should be presented before dismissal don't you think. This happens in all types of jobs...think auto industry or whatever else.


I have to disagree with this quote as well. on a side note: an irrefutable and already proven fact, however, is that the OPP is rolling in that much more $$$ due to the new 2K fine the accused pays being 'guilty until proven innocent' ......you have NO idea where the money goes do you. You just say this because it sounds good and it will stir a reaction. How about your municipality, your parks, roads, schools etc............that is more the truth.

As for guilty before being proven innocent.....but they are caught speeding well in excess of the posted limit...50% or more faster than the posted limit on any of the 400 series. So they are guilty of something correct...the act states what the fines are....and the cop well..........has to act in accordence with the act, so vehicle is impounded and date set for trial. That is not the 'cops' making that up at the road side, its what he/she is mandated to do. This is much the same as in domestic violence situations...and before everyone jumps on that I know that is Criminal Code and speeding is HTA. Society in general is to blame for this type law being written, take discreation out of the equation and this is what we get...think about it. You complain that the 'cop' is having a bad day and this some how influences the decision on a ticket or warning....or the quota needed to filled. The 'cop' is nice and lowers said fine and you will complain about that as well.

There is no quota.....I challenge all to go to work for the next three days and "do nothing...or have no paper to show what you did", and see how long it takes for you to visit with the boss. For those of you who work for your selves..........do nothing and you make nothing correct.

Oh I could go on .............

end rambling....back to our regular scheduled program.......Brad

[Maddog]

Steve, these guys will never look at a problem or occurrence from a different angle. All they see is the 'cop' doing wrong, not the fact that he has been caught and is being punished for his wrong doing should be looked at as a good thing. None of the secrect society/brotherhood they all think is out there

STI....your quote I disagree with....a citizen would never be stranded out in the middle of a highway with no means of transportation,:rolleyes: think about it. Laid off with pay....well suspended with pay would most likely mean stuck in the office all day answering phones and doing paper work right out side the brasses office:(. When ones job is on the line the facts should be presented before dismissal don't you think. This happens in all types of jobs...think auto industry or whatever else.


I have to disagree with this quote as well. ...you have NO idea where the money goes do you. You just say this because it sounds good and it will stir a reaction. How about your municipality, your parks, roads, schools etc............that is more the truth.

As for guilty before being proven innocent.....but they are caught speeding well in excess of the posted limit...50% or more faster than the posted limit on any of the 400 series. So they are guilty of something correct...the act states what the fines are....and the cop well..........has to act in accordence with the act, so vehicle is impounded and date set for trial. That is not the 'cops' making that up at the road side, its what he/she is mandated to do. This is much the same as in domestic violence situations...and before everyone jumps on that I know that is Criminal Code and speeding is HTA. Society in general is to blame for this type law being written, take discreation out of the equation and this is what we get...think about it. You complain that the 'cop' is having a bad day and this some how influences the decision on a ticket or warning....or the quota needed to filled. The 'cop' is nice and lowers said fine and you will complain about that as well.

There is no quota.....I challenge all to go to work for the next three days and "do nothing...or have no paper to show what you did", and see how long it takes for you to visit with the boss. For those of you who work for your selves..........do nothing and you make nothing correct.

Oh I could go on .............

end rambling....back to our regular scheduled program.......Brad
You didn't address the part about using alot of resources for a small problem, which is a problem in itself.

[DEK]

Like it or not, I recently heard that Ontario has the "safest" roads in Canada. They might have said North America. (safest being defined by some-one elses definition) As a Professional driver responsible for the safety of 100 Elementary School students 5 days a week, I have no quams saying that if I drove around a bus load of Police Officers, that they couldn't write tickets fast enough for what is going on outside the bus. It really is unbelievable. The dumb actions and with drastic results that some of these people do leads to draconian legislation. The legislators didn't come up with these ideas because there wasn't something happening. Yes, the final analysis of what really happened isn't always the same as the 1st day front page head lines, but the media can't wait for ever before they publish a "news" story.
P.S. 50+ over conviction should get one banned from driving for a LONG time !!!!

DAVE KING

[spd-dmn]

what's the use of arguing? police are always right!

even when they're wrong...

>> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/05/25/opps-speeding.html



there is NO defense for having your property seized by police at the roadside before being convicted at trial. no amount of "safety" propaganda could ever justify such an action.

[a_ahmed]

Lets all migrate to Germany and enjoy the autobahn :D

Make an organization to promote autobahn highway standards locally. Bad for business, good for people who enjoy cars :D

I wish, but seriously this will have to go... it was made for only two reasons. Business revenue & sweeping increase on population control... You do or else, we big, you poo.

[Steve Moore]

There is a simple defense to avoid having your car seized....Obey the Law

The Police arent always right, thats just your perception, it sure isnt mine.

Obviously the majority of you know very little about accountability the Police face daily.

The Police never leave anyone stranded on the side of the highway

As for the Charter, define unreasonable search and seizure?

I cant believe how no one has brought up the new tougher Drinking & Driving Laws

You lose your car and licence for having .05 bac, yet the legal limit is .08 bac, wheres the complaining about this?

The majority of people see reckless driving in the same light as impaired driving, yet for some reason you guys dont?

99% of the Police in this province do the right thing, the 1% who dont, get caught and face the concequences and are dragged through the media.


just my .02

[h-bomb]

I live very close to a police station and regulary witness extremely unsafe driving by officers who are returning to the station (aka they are not on a call).

I've seen:

1) An officer blow through two stop signs in a snow-storm (we're not talking rolling stops here, we're talking reckless behaviour here).
2) Officers piloting their vehicles while talking on a cell-phone (radio I can accept but the cell phone is likely personal)
3) No signalling of lane changes
4) Improper turns (going directly into the second or third lane directly)
5) Tailgating (me)
6) Speeding (>30-50 past the limit on surface roads)

Should I start recording dates, times and license plate numbers?

BTW: I do aplaud most of the work the police do - there is no money you could pay me to put up with what they deal with on a day-to-day basis, but if they are going to uphold the law, they should be seen as at least attempting to follow it.

[TrackMart]

I cant believe how no one has brought up the new tougher Drinking & Driving Laws

You lose your car and licence for having .05 bac, yet the legal limit is .08 bac, wheres the complaining about this?


I guess I have been living under a rock, when did this happen?


Anyone have any statistics that actually show our road safety past and present vs. other areas of North America?

[spd-dmn]

I cant believe how no one has brought up the new tougher Drinking & Driving Laws

You lose your car and licence for having .05 bac, yet the legal limit is .08 bac, wheres the complaining about this?



wrong. that's not the law at all. thank you for proving my point.

with the new drinking & driving law, only your license is suspended for 3 days.

your vehicle is not automatically taken from you. if there is another qualified driver with you, they can drive the vehicle home. otherwise it gets towed to your residence or wherever, so long as it's off the side of the road.

in other words, even with this latest drinking & driving legislation, THERE IS NO VEHICLE SEIZURE.


Steve, just to be clear, I'm not trying to be antagonistic with you here. Please don't take it that way. I respect most police officers and I appreciate the difficulties of the job. I really do.

But I would suggest that way too often, way too many officers act inappropriately. (Much much more than your stated figure of 1%. Who are we trying to kid here). Or they make mistakes.

Which is WHY we value due process in this country.

Taking away someone's vehicle for a week (at an IMMEDIATE cost of $1000 to them) without PROVING their guilt IN A COURT OF LAW is wholly contrary to the concept of due process.

It is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is illegal.



As for guilty before being proven innocent.....but they are caught speeding well in excess of the posted limit...50% or more faster than the posted limit on any of the 400 series. So they are guilty of something correct


Incorrect. You are not guilty simply because you are "caught" doing something. You are guilty when found so by a judge in a courtroom. Mistakes can and DO happen.

But the roadside is not the place to have your CAR taken away from you for what is arguably a minor traffic infraction.

We're not talking about seizing narcotics or an illegal firearm here. We are talking about a CAR.


NOT TO MENTION:

Everyone only talks about the speeding aspect of the stunt driving legislation.

How about the other so-called "stunts" in the statute?

e.g. you are stopped at a red light making a left turn. the light turns green (no advance) but you jump the left anyway, ahead of opposing traffic that is just beginning to move.

that, my friends, is considered a STUNT.

is it a smart thing to do? of course not.

but is it SO SERIOUS that it warrants having your vehicle SEIZED for seven days? i don't think it is.

but that's what can happen under the stunt driving legislation.


The punishment is completely disproportionate to the offence. And that is my main concern with the legislation.

[Caveman]

Its simple I drive my sticker V8 RX-7 around (If any car is going to draw attention its the one) and i don't get tickets (yet to get stopped)And I live in the OPP capital.
You know how. I DON"T SPEED!!! If you don't give them a reason thay have no reason to stop you.

theirs no reason to have to go 50% faster then posted limit EVER. If nothing else others are not thinking to react that fast.

Little kids don't think at that speed.

The OPP are just doing there jobs.

If you want to drive fast take it to a track!!!

however I am stressed abuoght the street racing impound law.
cause you don't have to be speeding to get charged with stunting.
high power in the rain = slippery tail

so if we all try to set an example and drive respectably there should be no problem right?

There are always going to be 1 or 2 bad seeds in any organization.

Dumb Law But it is what it is so deal with it.

Those are my thoughts on the subject as a automotive service tech who relays on having his DL to have a job

RASR
Racers Against Street Racing

[BGregovski]

Well I disagree with your statement.

Incorrect.You are not guilty simply because you are "caught" doing something.:eek: What ???:confused:

You are guilty when found so by a judge in a courtroom. you will never be found guilty by a 'Judge' in traffic court....JP would be the person on the bench......

Mistakes can and DO happen.going 50%faster than the posted limit on a 400 series highway or worse doing 50km over a posted limit of say 60kph is no simple mistake. Also if your caught doing something wrong aren't you guilty of breaking the rules.....and the rule is "going 50km over a posted limit is a stunt and you are subject to vehicle impoundment for 7 day as well as a 7 day suspension.


The new 'warn' for the roadside screening device.....is 3 day suspension for the first offence and the penilty increases from there for every offence there after.......

Not trying to be antagonistic, just to make that clear

Brad

[Steve Moore]

Well said Caveman

The Majority of Officers enforce this Law fairly and use common sense.

Spd-dmn, I dont take it personally, I enjoy a good debate.

As for your doubt in the Percentage of Bad Cops, I would suggest my present job title allows me to know this better than you would ever know.

Trust me, those of us in this profession wish it was less because all our hard work gets tarnished everytime one of these idiots gets caught.

This post was about a Cop being held accountable for his alleged misconduct. Please dont get into debating bill 203 all over again, it is a dead horse in this forum.

[SmokeScreen]

It is good to see there IS accountability for the cops, too bad they are not watched closer. With absolute power comes abuse. Most people can probably recount an event in their life when they witnessed an officer of the law bend the laws they have sworn to uphold and some have likely even witnessed outright criminal acts committed by officers. When an officer of the law is given the powers of judge and jury at the roadside WITHOUT having any physical evidence of a violation as one would have in a breathalizer for instance it provides a slippery slope that anyone of us could find ourselves sliding down some day.
This section of the HTA only requires the officer to see someone racing or to suspect a person of having raced. They need not exceed the posted limit by 50 kph to be charged. So now a person is treated as guilty with nothing else than an officers opinion. This is very dangerous for us all, and it gives too much power to the officer. Without close scrutiny of all police officers
we as a society run the risk of being harmed by a law that as ill thought out and "knee jerk" reaction it is was intended to protect us all.
Every police cruiser should have a dash cam, every word an officer utters recorded. At the end of each shift downloaded and put on file, if the officer laid a charge of any kind, that evidence would have to be disclosed to the deffendant in a timely manor. This would both help police officers and deter "unethical" behavior in the course of the performance of their duty.
I am surprised that there has not yet been a challenge to this law as being against the Charter, but perhaps the right person has not been charged thus far.
It may seem extreme to some to watch the police that closely, but consider this. Some people with professional drivers licenses (myself included) are watched via gps and data loggers every time we are behind the wheel of a company vehicle. There big fancy high def monitors that show our location, speed ect in offices in various locations to several people. If we speed we are toast, cut someone off who calls and complains we are toast. And as a bonus we are subject to random drug and alcohol testing programs, just to satisfy American DOT laws, even if we never venture south of the boarder with a company vehicle. Now what ticks me off the most of all this is we do not watch the police this closely, we give them badges, guns and cars with flashy lights on top but no one is watching their every move, they never have to pee in a cup to keep their job.

[TrackOut]

There is a simple defense to avoid having your car seized....Obey the Law

You're joking. Right? This is equal to allow privacy intrusive measures (like tapping phone lines, monitoring emails, bugging homes), claiming that it's fine. And that if you fear problems, it's because you have things to hide...

[thekid]

Its simple I drive my sticker V8 RX-7 around (If any car is going to draw attention its the one) and i don't get tickets (yet to get stopped)And I live in the OPP capital.
You know how. I DON"T SPEED!!! If you don't give them a reason thay have no reason to stop you.


It's not that simple, you can be driving down the street, obeying all the laws (following the speed limit, signaling your lane changes, etc.) but because you're young and have a bright coloured car, you get pulled over. Tell me how that isn't discrimination?

Cop even said, I pulled you over because the colour of your car caught my eye. Well isn't that cute, the colour caught his eye. Now I have to sit there for 15 minutes while he does his checks and listen to him ask me where the street race that I'm headed to is? WTF!! Do cops really think people are that stupid? Not that I would ever do that (I don't need to I race at the track), but if I was on my way to a Street Race, would I tell him?

Thanks for wasting 15 mins of my time because the colour of the car caught your eye!

[Steve Moore]

Trackout, why must I be joking?

There are millions of people out there who have no fear of Bill 203 because they obey the rules of the road.

See how far you will get with the Clerk of the Course at Mosport by bending the rules, you will be sent home, possibly fined and your racing privilages could be revoked.

Why should you obey the track rules and not the rules of the road?

Smokescreen, you are obviously new to the forum, as I have pointed out time and time again how closely the Police are monitored.

They are watched on GPS, their speeds are flagged if excessive, there are cameras & microphones in the cars. Not too mention two levels of civilian oversight, professional standards and the media all watching there every move.

A tough job indeed, considering the stress of the moment they have seconds to make a decision that everyone else has weeks to analysis and armchair quarterback.

Trackout, we do bug phone lines, homes and monitor e mails...whats the point? We work within the Charter, even though the criminals dont!

[Caveman]

The Cop's need a reason. Young, late at night, sporty car, loud exhaust will definitely draw attention but technically its not a reason. but no seat belt or a out light and depending ware you are dark tint are all reasons. I'm not a young kid out cruising around in 2nd gear 11 or 12 at night any more and if i was cruising around at 3500 with a can on the back Id expect to get pulled over if for nothing else but the noise. (put it in 4th)
I'm not old ether I have just learned how to play the game. yes I used to get pulled over all the time. I lived in a small town & worked till midnight
had loud pipes (V8 not quite as obnoxious but close) was always told routine check. and with the amount of DD in the area I don't blame them.
But now thay need a reason so don't give them one and obey the laws,
don't be a dick to the cop he/she is just trying to protect us and our kids from bad drivers. And you shouldn't have any problems. if you do you have recourse. now saying that there are some exceptions the high and mighty cop's young rookie's with a chip on there shoulder. that when thay do pull you over thay automatically thing their a mechanic and think there qualified to judge you car. I have learned that game to. I show my other liscence and request a MTO Mechanic :D and i dont care how bright your car is. mines a first gen RX7 with a 90 Z24 front clip, racing sponser stickers, loud pipes, flat black sides and burgendy top bits, flat black moon roof and a camed V8 sticking out of the hood. and i cant get it not to chirp the 1-2 shift :o (Auto):p Mines far more atention getting:cool: then a sun bright yellow or a hot pink honda any day (IMO)

It's not that simple, you can be driving down the street, obeying all the laws (following the speed limit, signaling your lane changes, etc.) but because you're young and have a bright coloured car, you get pulled over. Tell me how that isn't discrimination?

Cop even said, I pulled you over because the colour of your car caught my eye. Well isn't that cute, the colour caught his eye. Now I have to sit there for 15 minutes while he does his checks and listen to him ask me where the street race that I'm headed to is? WTF!! Do cops really think people are that stupid? Not that I would ever do that (I don't need to I race at the track), but if I was on my way to a Street Race, would I tell him?

Thanks for wasting 15 mins of my time because the colour of the car caught your eye!

[SmokeScreen]

Yes I am somewhat new to this forum, but I still wish every move they made was recorded. And I still think it is a huge mistake to give them powers of judge and jury when some cannot handle the powers they currently have.
Laws have been in place for a long time that have dealt with reckless and dangerous driving. All that was needed was proper enforcement of them.

[sti_schumacher]

Steve and Brad, its too bad that you see us arguing against the poilce officers, because we're not. they are doing their jobs, and i can respect that. im not arguing against the fact that the majority of police officers work hard and have a boss to answer to.

we're mostly arguing against the mindless law thats being enforced, mostly because its doing nothing towards improving highway safety (as i've said before, speeding is only 1% of the problem, yet its credited as a much bigger one for obvious reasons...) and is wasteful of our tax money.

as spd-dmn said, the problem is the lack of due process. enforcement is taking place without the mistake (if there was one) being taken into account, which would not happen had the matter been taken to court.

i dont think dicussion of this law should be left alone in a state of 'it is what it is'... next thing you know we have a 'patriot act' in Canada, but who cares? it is what it is...

btw Steve, a dead horse begins to rot and stink if you dont deal with it correctly ;)

as i've said before, speed is hardly a major safety concern and the resources spent on controlling it do not justify by a long shot the safety benefits that may or may not be taking place... then the million dollar question stands - why is speed being chosen for enforcement? hmmm...

[sti_schumacher]

Yes I am somewhat new to this forum, but I still wish every move they made was recorded. And I still think it is a huge mistake to give them powers of judge and jury when some cannot handle the powers they currently have.
Laws have been in place for a long time that have dealt with reckless and dangerous driving. All that was needed was proper enforcement of them.

precisely - proper enforcement, and we may actually see improvements in road safety... IMO

[MazdaMatt]

There is a simple defense to avoid having your car seized....Obey the Law

Unless you travel on the 403 and QEW and the officer in question takes your car too... just sayin'.

There was an unfounded argument against this law - "what about cops that take your car unjustly?" And that argument was just given MAJOR foundation. Previously it was just pot stirring, but now it is a true issue.

I propose this: Accused of street racing or stunting on the roadside, get a court date. Proven in court of street racing or stunting - lose your licence for a year.

[Burnsey]

I propose this: Accused of street racing or stunting on the roadside, get a court date. Proven in court of street racing or stunting - lose your licence for a year.

Add a 12 hour roadside suspension to this, and I'd be happy. That accomplishes a few things:
1) Gives the police the tool(s) they need to enforce a behaviour (aggressive driving/"street racing") that is vague in description to begin with.
2) Protects innocent people from getting totally shagged. Case in point:

>> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/05/25/opps-speeding.html


This way, the police can remove someone from the road whom they deem to be an immediate threat to public safety, annnnnd still give them a chance to defend themselves in court.
While I understand that it is a "priviledge" to drive, and not a right, there's no reason why our "priviledge" can't be governed fairly.

Steve: as for the new DUI laws/suspensions, they don't bother me quite so much. The little machine that we blow into is (presumably) accurate.

[feds]

There is no quota.....I challenge all to go to work for the next three days and "do nothing...or have no paper to show what you did", and see how long it takes for you to visit with the boss. For those of you who work for your selves..........do nothing and you make nothing correct.



And the reason the US went to Iraq was to liberate the people, right?

I was looking for the Ottawa Police Union complaint about ticket quotas, and found these:

Police On Defensive After Alleged "Ticket Quota" Scheme Revealed
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_6138.aspx

http://www.ottawaxpress.ca/news/brief.aspx?iIDArticle=12202

Munoz created quite a stir in March when he told the Journal de Montréal that the police have a quota for the number of tickets
officers are supposed to hand out each day. (He said it was one or two per day for regular officers and 16 for members of the traffic squad.) He has since revised that claim. Munoz says part of the police budget is based on revenue from tickets and, while there may not be a hard quota number, the need to meet revenue projections puts pressure on officers to hand out tickets.


I never did find the article, but the police union in Ottawa actually fought the ticket quota during their last contract negotiation.

[thekid]

Sorry, but my car is bone stock, no tint, no aftermarket exhaust, and I wasn't reving it high either. I'm just saying that there is discrimination when they see the person behind the wheel is young-ish. Never had any issues driving my much louder dark tinted truck!

Don't get me wrong, I had never had an issue with discrimination before this incident, before that, the only time I had ever been pulled over in the last 14 years was when I was doing something contrary to the highway traffic act. I'm just saying it can happen without just cause.

The Cop's need a reason. Young, late at night, sporty car, loud exhaust will definitely draw attention but technically its not a reason. but no seat belt or a out light and depending ware you are dark tint are all reasons. I'm not a young kid out cruising around in 2nd gear 11 or 12 at night any more and if i was cruising around at 3500 with a can on the back Id expect to get pulled over if for nothing else but the noise. (put it in 4th)
I'm not old ether I have just learned how to play the game. yes I used to get pulled over all the time. I lived in a small town & worked till midnight
had loud pipes (V8 not quite as obnoxious but close) was always told routine check. and with the amount of DD in the area I don't blame them.
But now thay need a reason so don't give them one and obey the laws,
don't be a dick to the cop he/she is just trying to protect us and our kids from bad drivers. And you shouldn't have any problems. if you do you have recourse. now saying that there are some exceptions the high and mighty cop's young rookie's with a chip on there shoulder. that when thay do pull you over thay automatically thing their a mechanic and think there qualified to judge you car. I have learned that game to. I show my other liscence and request a MTO Mechanic :D and i dont care how bright your car is. mines a first gen RX7 with a 90 Z24 front clip, racing sponser stickers, loud pipes, flat black sides and burgendy top bits, flat black moon roof and a camed V8 sticking out of the hood. and i cant get it not to chirp the 1-2 shift :o (Auto):p Mines far more atention getting:cool: then a sun bright yellow or a hot pink honda any day (IMO)

[MazdaMatt]

This way, the police can remove someone from the road whom they deem to be an immediate threat to public safety

I don't buy this. As soon as the speeder or stunter is pulled over, they are no longer a threat - a drunk is, but a speeder is no longer speeding when they are pulled over.

Just to sit on the other side of the fence for a second - whoever said that bolting from a light to turn left before the other side gets to go is not a big deal... think again. What if someone on the other side was bolting to go straight. That's a stupid move and worthy of a hefty penalty... just not at the roadside.

[feds]

Just to sit on the other side of the fence for a second - whoever said that bolting from a light to turn left before the other side gets to go is not a big deal... think again. What if someone on the other side was bolting to go straight. That's a stupid move and worthy of a hefty penalty... just not at the roadside.

With modern powertrains, you could have a collision in the neighbourhood of 20 kph! I'll forgive you if you consider the pedestrian in this situation.

[nrg3k_civic]

The funny part about the defenders of this bogus law, and those against it... it's the same every time i read a new thread here. Majority of people don't break the law, or go out of their way to piss of the world with their so-called stunting, while those who truly fear the negative press the cops get, defend the BS until they are blue in the face.

This law is about one thing: Fear.

I drive a sticker'd civic with nothing illegal about it, and i obey all the laws and haven't been pulled over. I fear being pulled over and having some my car taken for no reason. I fear this law, because it doesn't give me ANY recourse if i happen to get stuck with that 1% of bad cops.

DJM:>

[MazdaMatt]

With modern powertrains, you could have a collision in the neighbourhood of 20 kph! I'll forgive you if you consider the pedestrian in this situation.

I don't consider any collision to be acceptable. Especially one caused by selfish impatience and disregard for safety.

[DaveCotie]

Before I start my rant let me say that my brother is a Police Officer and my Father-in-Law is a retired Officer. I have the utmost respect for the Police.

That being said a number of the new laws are absolutely rediculous:

1. Street Racing and Stunting - unconstitutional

2. The new 0.05 BAC law - as indicated earlier the law says that 0.08 is illegal - NOT 0.05, so change the law if you want to. (I don't tolerate drunk driving, but make the law the law). Poorly written if you ask me.

The problem with speed laws is our absolutely archaic speed limits. The 400 series highways are designed for travel at 120 km/h. Ask an MTO engineer. The 90km/h highways are designed for 110/km/h and 80 km/h for 100km/h. The design speeds were set in the 50's when we were driving 2 1/2 ton boats with big engines and drum brakes! Therefore the vast majority of the people see speed limits as ridiculous and therefore they violate the law. This lowers the respect for laws, in general, and leads to more disrespect of the law. It also leads to disrespect of the Police.

The fact is that good highway and law design says that you should observe that speed that the 85th percentile drivers operate at and that should be the speed limit. Higher in rural areas and lower in urban. This takes the outriders out of the equation. If this was done, then I would speculate that the 400 series speed limits would be more like 120 t0 130 km/h.

One more thing, the OPP, since Julian Fantino, took over have definitely changed. Highway Officers used to sit in the open where they acted as a deterrent to speeding. Now where do you see them:

- Tucked in private driveways in obvious "fishing holes" (areas of reduced limits for no obvious reason - try Hwy 118 east of Bracebridge).
- Hidden behind overpass supports
- Hidden behind trees and shrubs
- Etc. etc.

Also, you would typically drive 3-4 hours in Ontario and see maybe 2 speed traps. The last time I headed home from Toronto I passed 8 officers doing speed traps.

This is about one thing - Revenue Generation - They should just combine the OLGC with the OPP.

[Whiplash]

^Well said. It is in fact all about the money. Not even slightly about safety. If it was about safety the speed limits would be raised. Most people read the paper and watch the news and see these new laws as a good thing. :rolleyes:

[George]

Seems that the only constitutional challenges so far are dealing with the 50 over provision of section 172.

As most of you will be aware the penalties under section 172 provide for the possibility of imprisonment upon conviction for speeding/stunting.

BROWN, March 19, 2008:

Even though speeding has long been regarded as an absolute liability offence for which a custodial sentence would be unconstitutional the court held that speeding as per section 172 was strict liability because, inter alia, section 172 does not contain language that would define it as an absolute liability offence and the legislature had intended that 50 over be treated as a more serious offence than speeding under section 128 of the HTA. Absolute liability offences do not allow for a defence whereas strict liability offences allow for the very limited due diligence defence. Accordingly, 172 did not offend the section 7 Charter right to life, liberty and security of the person not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

At paragraph 53 the court appears to recognize that the vehicle impound and license suspension are in fact penalties; however, numerous provincial appeal courts including Ontario have deemed the administrative license suspensions arising from DWI situations to be constitutional and those cases would likely be determinative of the suspension issue under 172. The vehicle impound provision of 172 was not challenged in Brown.

AFTAB, April 15, 2009:

This case followed the reasoning in Brown but also dealt with the section 11(d) Charter right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

The court held that, with respect to speeding, the penalty provisions of 172 were consistent with the goals of sentencing and the principles of proportionality.

With respect to section 11(d) the court stated at paragraph 69 that although there may be some administrative consequences provided under 172 nevertheless the right to due process was not prejudiced. As with Brown, the issue of administrative suspension and impound was not before the court so no decision was rendered on that front; the court was simply saying that your right to trial and to know the case against you was no different under 172 than any other legislation.

At this juncture then, it would seem that the 50 over provisions of 172 are constitutionally secure although it is of note that these decisions were rendered by a JP and are subject to appeal as of right; whether the issues would ultimately be heard by the Court of Appeal for Ontario is another matter though.

Notwithstanding the foregoing it may well be that other provisions of the stunting law are constitutionally unsound.

The broader issue in my view is that of the legislature doing an end run around the courts by introducing administrative consequences which are in fact penalties imposed prior to adjudication. It is of some note that the vehicle impound under 172 has little or no rational connection with the intent of the legislation.

I realize that there is no point in trying to explain anything to the average police officer or internet law and order warrior but the bigger problem here is not so much about the police force as it is about the law having taken a wrong turn with respect to the matter of administrative penalties which are becoming severe enough to engage the concept of due process. I expect to see more of this in law and it’s the type of thing which may not get resolved until it gets bad enough for the Supreme Court of Canada to have a go at it.

[Burnsey]

Thank you for the above posting, George. That was quite informative. I'm no expert in Legal-ease, but it seems that the above mentioned cases may have come at this issue incorrectly. I think there is still a fight to be had over this yet...

I expect to see more of this in law and it’s the type of thing which may not get resolved until it gets bad enough for the Supreme Court of Canada to have a go at it.

Which begs the question - who has the time and money to persue this? Also, try finding an MPP who would be willing to propose changes to this law...

[George]

Yeah, criminal and regulatory law isn’t my area so I'm not sure why defence counsel fixated so much on trying to knock out 172 because it contained the possibility of a prison sentence. It's certainly an area of concern and should have been argued but one of the remedies available to the court in constitutional cases is to strike out the offending portions of the legislation so if that happened and counsel’s arguments were successful the court could just eliminate the language regarding imprisonment and leave the rest of 172 intact. So your ass would be out of the fire with respect to jail time however unlikely that might have been on a first offence but you’d still be going to trial and looking at a substantial fine.

In Aftab, 16 constitutional challenges to 172 were being heard together - you’d think they would have come up with more stuff to place before the court..lol

[Vicsr44]

As I read through this thread, I shook my head sadly & thought what a statement it is to some very negative changes in our society. The lack of respect for our laws & the people who enforce them is a truly sad situation. The lack of respect for others generally has gone. It's not just out on the roads that respect for "authority" has deteriorated - ask almost any school teacher about what happens in the classroom or coaches about their teams.

Yes there will be police who abuse the power they are given but if you have not seen the same thing from officials at the track (in a smaller way) you have not been racing very long! One bad cop does not mean you tarnish the whole group as being corrupt or even make generalizations about the rest. I watched a couple of drivers ignoring a waved yellow on the track on the weekend putting another driver's safety in jeopardy - does that mean I should think all of the racers at that event were reckless?

If you think a law is bad, make your feelings known to the people who make them - your member of provincial parliament or get a group of people to take action. If you think speed limits are too low do the same thing. Personally I don't think a good percentage of the driving public are capable without a lot more training of handling their cars in all conditions & situations at our current speed limits. You may be able to handle your car at 120 kmh but can the guy behind or beside you?

To all the members of this board who are police officers, thanks for doing the job as well as you do & realize there are people out there who respect what you do.

Vic

[thgear]

Personally I don't think a good percentage of the driving public are capable without a lot more training of handling their cars in all conditions & situations at our current speed limits. You may be able to handle your car at 120 kmh but can the guy behind or beside you?


the person that cant drive at 120km/h wont

while i get penalized because i can

logic?

[MazdaMatt]

eek... i wouldn't say, serge, that the person that can't safely drive 120 won't... Every day about twenty thousand poeple that can't safely drive 120 do so with a coffee in one hand and a cell in the other steering with a knee.

To be very very clear about an important point - I definately respect the police for the job that they do. I don't respect police that abuse their power, but the others are stand-up guys and gals for sure. My problem is with the law that these officers are being told to uphold. They are merely the visible portion of the system - the messengers, if you will. I wish that our lawmakers did not have them out there side-stepping due process and punishing people.

I like police.
I don't like speeders.
I like due process.

no more confusion... i think my opinion is shared by the majority of the people bitching and griping about this law.

[thgear]

eek... i wouldn't say, serge, that the person that can't safely drive 120 won't... Every day about twenty thousand poeple that can't safely drive 120 do so with a coffee in one hand and a cell in the other steering with a knee.



yet every day thousands of people seem to get to where they are going..

whats the fatality rate again? out of how many?

i said it before and i'll say it again, speed is just a small piece of the puzzle, but is the easiest to enforce.

someone up there said "go and change the laws"

we dont need to change laws so much as we need to nuke the current initiation (licensing) system and build from the ground up.

and get those old people to re-do the test every 2-3 years or something.



a motor vehicle is serious business, yet a blind man with Parkinson's is able to obtain a license.

"not a right, privilege", a privilege easily earned

I get penalized for my ability to control my car because the majority cant.

i get hit with high insurance rates attentivly driving a capable and tuned car while the idiot soccer mom pays next to nothing driving a dinky ass minivan on balding tires.

am i the only one that sees the backwards nature of this?



when a police officers pulls me over and gives me a speeding ticket or some shit, this is how i interpret it "you are a danger on the road", which is bullshit, except you cant explain that to the cop, because its written black on white "speeding over posted speed limit XXX = YYY fine".

and you cant argue with cops, atleast i cant, maybe its cuz i look like i'm 17 and they are "teaching me a lesson", all the while i see cops pull the stupidest shit on the road themselves, and i am powerless to stop them!! (see that video i posted about "man pulls over cop" )

and people question my frustration?!!! seriously!

[MazdaMatt]

You don't need to argue with the cop... that's not what he's there for. Argue with the judge. Then argue with the law makers. I understand the feeling of scapegoat by the police.

Let me be smug for moment - If you're so good at controlling your car, why can't you keep it under the limit? :p

Despite the fact that the huge majority of people could responsibly own a handgun, I'm happy that we have strict laws against them here and I'd rather see handguns removed from public hands entirely (not to be confused with longguns). Same goes for people operating cars at high speed. You and I can make it to work at 180km/h, but I'm willing to drive 100 so that soccer mom in the rustmobile next to me has to do 100 as well.

[Maddog]

You don't need to argue with the cop... that's not what he's there for. Argue with the judge. Then argue with the law makers. I understand the feeling of scapegoat by the police.

Let me be smug for moment - If you're so good at controlling your car, why can't you keep it under the limit? :p

Despite the fact that the huge majority of people could responsibly own a handgun, I'm happy that we have strict laws against them here and I'd rather see handguns removed from public hands entirely (not to be confused with longguns). Same goes for people operating cars at high speed. You and I can make it to work at 180km/h, but I'm willing to drive 100 so that soccer mom in the rustmobile next to me has to do 100 as well.Oh please, don't start something about handguns as that's another baseless Liberal argument. :rolleyes:

[Vicsr44]

thekid wrote "and get those old people to re-do the test every 2-3 years or something."

I am probably one of those "old" people you are talking about & I will put my driving ability against yours any day any place. However I do agree that EVERYONE should have to be retested every 24-36 months on the road just as our vehicles should have to have a safety certification every 24-36 months - but that's just another tax grab right??!! I also agree that we need to revamp the driver training requirements to have to include collision avoidance & skid control training before a driver is allowed a full license plus shortening the time you can hold a G1 & G2 without a retest.

Yes, if you have the capability to handle all driving situations, then you are going to be penalized by our laws because they are made to cover the majority. Even in racing at the highest level & for the best drivers, something done, a mistake, by another driver can cause you to crash no matter how "capable" you or your vehicle are. So laws are designed to try to compensate for the lack of skill of the majority.

All the "normal" police officer is doing is enforcing what our politicians have made the rules of the road. Note I am not talking about the one that was the subject of this thread. So if you choose to not follow those rules, don't complain about how capable you & your vehicle are. As the slogan goes - Take It to the Track!

Vic

[slucas]

I'm all for hand guns & high speed.
The next to perfect solution.

[thgear]

Let me be smug for moment - If you're so good at controlling your car, why can't you keep it under the limit? :p


because the limit is laughably low,

its like if you went to a rollercoast and the "you must be this tall" line was 8 feet off the ground, makes you scratch your head for a second.

[thgear]

I'm all for hand guns & high speed.
The next to perfect solution.

hand guns should be mandatory, that way people wont start shit they are too afraid to finish. :):):):)

[Maddog]

hand guns should be mandatory, that way people wont start shit they are too afraid to finish. :):):):)Now we're talking. :D

[thekid]

thekid wrote "and get those old people to re-do the test every 2-3 years or something."

I am probably one of those "old" people you are talking about & I will put my driving ability against yours any day any place. However I do agree that EVERYONE should have to be retested every 24-36 months on the road just as our vehicles should have to have a safety certification every 24-36 months - but that's just another tax grab right??!! I also agree that we need to revamp the driver training requirements to have to include collision avoidance & skid control training before a driver is allowed a full license plus shortening the time you can hold a G1 & G2 without a retest.


I don't think I wrote that, not that I disagree with the statement, but I can't take credit. Don't let my board name fool you, I'm not a kid, but I'm not old either. You probably can hold your own in terms of driving ability, most people visiting this board probably can, it's about the other 98% of the population that we're worried about here. If you're up to par you'd pass the test, and I don't disagree with on road re-testing for everyone, but isn't that why we have laws to control that stuff.

Unfortunately most of the Highway Rules are selectively enforced, as others have mentioned those that are easiest to enforce are. The # of times in a day where I see people run red lights or change lanes without signaling in front of cops and they do nothing about it is frightening.

[thgear]

.....

he probably confused thgear/thekid :)


nice to see you posting Brian!

[Vicsr44]

Yah I got the poster wrong - See I told you I was old!

[George]

Some tow truck driver on another board was talking about kickbacks on the 50 overs 6 months ago - seems he was right.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/645345

[tanney]

The # of times in a day where I see people run red lights or change lanes without signaling in front of cops and they do nothing about it is frightening.
We saw a cop in a marked cruiser doing about 65 (in a 60 zone) blow straight through a red light at Kipling and Evans this morning. No cherries going, no siren, no excessive speed, just your typical run of the mill red light runner...... But wait, this guy (a uniformed police officer) is SUPPOSED to be setting an example for the rest of us. And the police wonder why they get no respect from the public.

[MazdaMatt]

so... falsely laying charges, taking kickbacks from towing companies...

I'm not saying our police forces are crooked, these are just reminders of why we have due process. Roadside penalties open the door to a lot of wrong-doing and solve nothing that a court date wouldn't solve.

[feds]

I really hope everyone is writing their MPPs with their concerns.

[DEK]

To Tanney... As a school bus driver I needed to find out what to do about the idiots that blow by the flashing red lights on my school bus. It turns out that at least in Toronto, one goes to the local police station and fills in a form that details the incident. Although I was lead to believe I could end up in court testifying, for the 6 I've reported going back 2 years I've yet to hear anything back on any of them, Oh well !!!!!

DAVE KING

[RacerJason]

Halloween nightmare among 250 cases in OPP officer probe:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/645979

[h-bomb]

Good thing I wasn't driving past on his "white car" day...

[tanney]

I couldn't be bothered reporting it as we all know they will do nothing about it. I doubt they would even ask the officer about it. Regardless of what is said here, we all know that cops will protect each other long before giving in to public outcry.

Funny when I contacted our city counselor and the police about the excessive speeds in a specific 40 zone (which Steve has even said he sat at and ticketed a number of people) where the average speed is 70-75, we have seen a police car once since then.... sitting having a coffee.

Whatever.....


To Tanney... As a school bus driver I needed to find out what to do about the idiots that blow by the flashing red lights on my school bus. It turns out that at least in Toronto, one goes to the local police station and fills in a form that details the incident. Although I was lead to believe I could end up in court testifying, for the 6 I've reported going back 2 years I've yet to hear anything back on any of them, Oh well !!!!!

DAVE KING

[MitS]

Why does he get supended with pay? The people he charged did not have the luxury of being innnocent until proven guilty.

[Maddog]

You can thank "Fat Hitler Fantino" for all this BS.

And I don't care what anyone says, the roads are no safer than they were before this dumass law was passed, but income generation has gone up.

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/576637

[13inches]

Why does he get supended with pay?

Unions.

[MitS]

Unions.

Yes, I know. It was more of a rhetorical question.

It's just a strange disparity.

[Travis]

I don't think this is an isolated case. I've witnessed something similar from Toronto Police.

I fought a speeding ticket a few years ago, and I would have won if it wasn't for the officer falsifying evidence. His notes included information that I knew to be false, and while questioning him there were a total of 3 things that he lied about so the situation was painfully obvious to me. Unfortunately it seems to me that Justices of the Peace seem to take cop's notes are irrefutable facts. What boggles my mind is why a cop would risk perjury to nail me for 24 km/h over.

After reading this story I'm considering digging up my records so that I might help send the swine-c**t I met to jail with Dennis Mahoney-Bruer. In fact, seeing the lying piece of shit officer go to jail might reverse my complete lack of trust in police officers, and the legal system in general.