Speeding Ticket Question

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by sicsun

I didnt mind them pulling me over if i was driiving bad, but i wasnt. They were most likely looking for certain vehicle that look like mine, thats why i got pulled over. But why did they still need to give me a ticket for it. I told him its my brother car,that i did not know he had the expire cards mixed with the new ones. It happen around 6pm in the summer back then. Was quite embaressing when they made us stood there until they finished searching.

Reading this made my eyes start to bleed.

[Dion]

should read sicsuns whole post

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by sicsun

But why did they still need to give me a ticket for it. I told him its my brother car,that i did not know he had the expire cards mixed with the new ones.

Why? Because that would be turning a blind eye to the law. As well, you can't use ignorance as a plea for innocence.

A lot of people jump on cops for giving them tickets for stupid things like tint, exhaust, noise, etc.... but they don't realize that the police don't make the laws, they are only there to enforce them. As long as these are still written laws, police will continue to enforce them. To expect anything else is selfish, and quite frankly, means the officer wasn't doing his job to the full extent. At a minimum, expect to get charged for anything you have not going with the law, getting away with something is a bonus. Too many people go into a stop thinking they are saints and don't deserve a thing.

I've noticed a fairly large increase in people showing disregard for the police and a general lack of respect of what they do. Compare them to firefighters and they wouldn't hold a candle to the heros that protect our property from fire and natural disasters. In my mind, they are equal and unfortunately police are getting a bad rap now, and I'm not sure why.

This whole concept has kept me from applying to the force.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Why? Because that would be turning a blind eye to the law. As well, you can't use ignorance as a plea for innocence.

A lot of people jump on cops for giving them tickets for stupid things like tint, exhaust, noise, etc.... but they don't realize that the police don't make the laws, they are only there to enforce them.

Part of being a police officer is discretion. Penny-ante stuff like giving out tickets for expired insurance papers to someone in a car which ISN'T EVEN HIS is not showing discretion. You are punishing someone for an offence which is not only obscure, but which isn't even his fault - HE never left those papers in there, his brother did.

What does the officer accomplish by doing this, that he couldn't have done much more effectively by saying, "Hey, you're not supposed to keep old insurance paperwork in your car, I could give you a ticket for that. Tell your brother to throw them out in the future."

I know being a cop is hard - my dad was a cop for many years here in Calgary, and I've heard the stories. Still, any officer that just blindly applies the law, or worse, uses it to get back at members of the public he feels don't show the proper respect, is never going to anything more than a poor cop. It's like being a parent - you have to know when to punish and when to merely admonish.

[Cawz]

Originally Posted by krazycanuck

Well I got a speeding ticket today, that coupled with the Stamps loss and a sunburn, I have had a trifecta of crap happen to me.

I got pulled over, going northbound on Macleod trail, right by Stampede park...where for some reason the road goes down to a 50 zone. I haven't lived in Calgary for almost a year and when I lived here I was very conscious of driving the limit in that area because of how often I would see speed traps there. Unfortunately, I didn't look down at my speed, and I was going 66, which is certainly a VERY reasonable speed given the conditions of that road. Now, i have a 100 dollar ticket, but lets be honest it's not the ticket at all...it's the conviction and the insurance hike that goes with it.

I need to fight this, because well I cannot afford another added expense and I don't believe that going 66 in a zone that could very well support 70km/h traffic is a bad thing.

Does anyone know how they set the speed limits?

In that area, you have the C train station, the stampede grounds, Talisman Center and the pathways coming along the river close to the street. That could be why the limit is 50kph.

I almost got a ticket driving south on Highway 2 around Bowden on monday. I was in the passing lane going around 135 and the cop going the other way hit his lights. Fortunatly that was the last I saw of him. I wonder if the busy Labour Day Weekend traffic made it too difficult to stop and turn around.

[Shawnski]

Interesting about that expired document ticket. Cannot in my life fathom why that would be a chargeable offense, and in such case would bring it forward to court. If anything, it shows your history of registration/insurance. What is wrong with that?

But it does bring up a memory for me. I don't get pulled over often anymore, but in the few cases I have been, when I handed the officer my packet that contained my insurance and registration they asked that I remove them from the packet. So of course, I removed just the current registration and insurance. Obviously, the officers actions ensured I didn't put myself into the position of "submitting" expired documents.

VERY odd law, and again, one that I would fight tooth and fist.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by jammies

Part of being a police officer is discretion. Penny-ante stuff like giving out tickets for expired insurance papers to someone in a car which ISN'T EVEN HIS is not showing discretion. You are punishing someone for an offence which is not only obscure, but which isn't even his fault - HE never left those papers in there, his brother did.

It's like being a parent - you have to know when to punish and when to merely admonish.

May he was doing just that in this case... we've only heard one part of the story don't forget.

I disagree on this not being the drivers fault though. Sure he didn't cause it... but ultimately the responsibility is always on the driver of the vehicle to ensure the documents are proper. Law is the law... if the cop doesn't decide to disagree with it, then don't disagree with the cop when he doesn't give you that break. Simple as that.

I agree though, I feel the LAW in this case is bull. However, I don't know the full intent behind it and it might even have a legitimate excuse for being on the books and regularly enforced. I just don't see any problem in what the cop did.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Just my two cents.
It seems to me that at least one logical reason for this law is that it keeps people from possibly showing someone they've been in an accidnet with, those expired documents. Someone could intentionally or inadvertantly give out false insurance information and this may just be a means of preventing that.

Or it could be something entirely different, but too often it seems to me that people just throw out phrases like "it's a stupid law" or "The speed limit could easily be 70 there" without actually giving it some critical thought.

[MolsonInBothHands]

I had a member of the RCMP give me crap for having expired copies of insurance and registration in with the current ones during my last ticket, and informed me he could give me a ticket for it. He said the longer a cop has to thumb through expired paperwork along the side of a highway, the more his life is at risk. Take that for what it is worth.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

May he was doing just that in this case... we've only heard one part of the story don't forget.

I disagree on this not being the drivers fault though. Sure he didn't cause it... but ultimately the responsibility is always on the driver of the vehicle to ensure the documents are proper. Law is the law... if the cop doesn't decide to disagree with it, then don't disagree with the cop when he doesn't give you that break. Simple as that.

We'll have to agree to disagree then - this looks to me to be a textbook example of where disrespect for the law is increased by applying it inappropriately. I'm not arguing that he didn't break the law, I'm arguing that discretion should have had the officer simply let the offender off with a warning, as clearly from the original commentary this incident left a lasting - entirely negative - impression on an already peeved citizen. Do that enough times and you end up with a police department like LA's - respected by few and viewed with hostility that makes their jobs that much harder.

[fredr123]

The charge for producing an expired insurance card probably comes from section 167(8(b) of the Traffic Safety Act, below.

Traffic Safety Act

Production of documents

167(1) On the request of a peace officer, a person driving or otherwise having the care or control of a motor vehicle or trailer shall produce to the peace officer for inspection the following documents as requested by the peace officer:

(a) the person’s subsisting operator’s licence;

(b) the subsisting certificate of registration issued in respect of the motor vehicle and any trailer attached to the motor vehicle and, in the case of a vehicle in a prescribed class of commercial vehicles, either the subsisting certificate of registration or a copy of the certificate of registration;

(c) the subsisting financial responsibility card issued in respect of that motor vehicle;

(d) the customs permit issued in respect of the motor vehicle where a customs permit has been obtained in respect of the motor vehicle’s entry into Canada.

(3) Where a peace officer makes a request under subsection (1)(d), the peace officer shall allow the person to whom the request was made reasonable time within which to produce the document.

(6) If a person produces to a peace officer a document under this section that is illegible, mutilated, defaced or altered, the peace officer may request that person to produce to a peace officer within a reasonable time a new document or duplicate of the document issued under this Act.

(7) A person who fails to produce to a peace officer a document as requested under subsection (1), (2) or (6) is guilty of an offence.

(8) A person driving a motor vehicle is guilty of an offence and liable to the penalty and any other sanction provided for under section 54(4) to (7) if, when requested to produce a financial responsibility card under subsection (1), the person produces

(a) a document that purports to be a financial responsibility card but that was not issued pursuant to Part 7 of the Insurance Act, or

(b) a financial responsibility card relating to an insurance policy that is not in force or is otherwise invalid at the time of production.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by fredr123

(b) a financial responsibility card relating to an insurance policy that is not in force or is otherwise invalid at the time of production.[/COLOR]

And to me, the spirit of that law is to keep people from showing an insurance card that is expired; hoping the cop won't notice. Like if I have a card that expired February 9, 2002- and the date shows "09-02-02".... if I give that to the police hoping they will assume Feb 2, 2009 then I deserve an additional ticket for trying to pull a fast one.

But it does mean that I can keep my old insurance in the car, and just take the current one out and give it to the officer. I suppose that's why they always ask you to take it out of the plastic thingy.

Originally Posted by jammies

We'll have to agree to disagree then - this looks to me to be a textbook example of where disrespect for the law is increased by applying it inappropriately. I'm not arguing that he didn't break the law, I'm arguing that discretion should have had the officer simply let the offender off with a warning, as clearly from the original commentary this incident left a lasting - entirely negative - impression on an already peeved citizen. Do that enough times and you end up with a police department like LA's - respected by few and viewed with hostility that makes their jobs that much harder.

The courts have recognized that the police DO have discretion. However, it is certainly not (as you stated in a previous post) part of being a police officer.
Just to confirm, if someone gives you some story about why they broke the law AND if they seem upset about getting a ticket, then the police should, in that case, use discretion to avoid a long lasting negative impression on said ticket getter? Does that at all seem realistic?

There is way more to the story. I can't believe you fell for the ole, 'I was driving along minding my own business when....'.

The section quoted above is for failing to produce insurance.

Someone already mentioned this, but talking to local police, the reason, in their eyes for the law is safety. Standing on Deerfoot thumbing through 10 years of expired insurance gets a little hairy. Related, imagine going to the registries to re-register your car. You're at the back of a long line and some clown presents the clerk with those 10 years of expired insurance docs. How happy would you be?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

The courts have recognized that the police DO have discretion. However, it is certainly not (as you stated in a previous post) part of being a police officer.

So you are saying that police do have discretion, but it isn't part of being a police officer? Do you maybe want to rephrase that, as that seems to be a direct contradiction of itself.

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Just to confirm, if someone gives you some story about why they broke the law AND if they seem upset about getting a ticket, then the police should, in that case, use discretion to avoid a long lasting negative impression on said ticket getter? Does that at all seem realistic?

No, I'm saying in this particular case, the ticket seemed to be ill-advised. That is the purpose of discretion, to decide when to act differently in what *seem* to be similar situations. What you are talking about is just another way of trying to apply rigid rules to avoid thinking.

"Just to confirm", are you saying police officers should always give out a ticket regardless of circumstances? Never ever give someone just a warning?

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

There is way more to the story. I can't believe you fell for the ole, 'I was driving along minding my own business when....'.

I have no doubt there is more to the story, but it is entirely possible that the police were simply looking for two asian men in a car similar to the one they were driving. So the driver was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Having the backup quickly arrive seems to support this conclusion. It's also possible that he was belligerent and unco-operative. So what? Doesn't change the fact that giving someone a ticket for something that is both trivial and unfair is poor judgement.

Again, what exactly did it accomplish to do so - make the gov't a few bucks? If he had just gotten a warning, do you think he would have driven off and said "Haha, I'm gonna leave those old certificates in there and THE LAW CAN'T STOP ME!!!"

So you are saying that police do have discretion, but it isn't part of being a police officer? Do you maybe want to rephrase that, as that seems to be a direct contradiction of itself.

You're right, it didn't make sense. In the context of all the posts, I was trying to get across that discretion is a rather subjective term.

No, I'm saying in this particular case, the ticket seemed to be ill-advised. That is the purpose of discretion, to decide when to act differently in what *seem* to be similar situations. What you are talking about is just another way of trying to apply rigid rules to avoid thinking.

I disagree. The problem is, everyone begs for discretion. I good friend of mine is troubled by what he sees as the the 'random' application of the law. That police shouldn't have discretion as they are simply tools of state.

"Just to confirm", are you saying police officers should always give out a ticket regardless of circumstances? Never ever give someone just a warning?

No. I was just pointing out the reality of 'discretion'. If a cop does exercise discretion, the person that did get the ticket for the same offense wonders why. If he does give the ticket, people wonder why the cop didnt' use discretion.

I have no doubt there is more to the story, but it is entirely possible that the police were simply looking for two asian men in a car similar to the one they were driving. So the driver was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Having the backup quickly arrive seems to support this conclusion. It's also possible that he was belligerent and unco-operative. So what? Doesn't change the fact that giving someone a ticket for something that is both trivial and unfair is poor judgement.

Not sure what backup arriving so quickly has to do with it. Do you have intimate knowledge of police work? Unfair? What is unfair about it? He applied the law. Poor judgement I guess is a matter of opinion. I have trouble arriving at that conclusion based solely on the information provided by the ticketee.

Again, what exactly did it accomplish to do so - make the gov't a few bucks? If he had just gotten a warning, do you think he would have driven off and said "Haha, I'm gonna leave those old certificates in there and THE LAW CAN'T STOP ME!!!"

I guess you could apply that every ticketable offense.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I disagree. The problem is, everyone begs for discretion. I good friend of mine is troubled by what he sees as the the 'random' application of the law. That police shouldn't have discretion as they are simply tools of state.

I can't agree with that, there is a risk of corruption with the exercise of the power of discretion, but that can be minimized by proper recruitment, training and oversight. No individual should be a "tool of the state", we are free citizens, not automatons.

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

No. I was just pointing out the reality of 'discretion'. If a cop does exercise discretion, the person that did get the ticket for the same offense wonders why. If he does give the ticket, people wonder why the cop didnt' use discretion.

This is a problem, yes, but that is because the nature of the world is that people aren't truly interested in what is fair and just, but rather in that any injustice be spread equally or tilted in their favour. This is something that isn't going to ever go away.

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Unfair? What is unfair about it? He applied the law. Poor judgement I guess is a matter of opinion. I have trouble arriving at that conclusion based solely on the information provided by the ticketee.

What's unfair is that it wasn't his car. Is it *reasonable* to expect someone to borrow a car and check to see if he has some expired insurance documents along with his valid one? Is it *reasonable* that after stopping someone and searching the car for weapons or drugs or whatever they were looking for, that upon finding nothing the logical next step is to give them a traffic ticket for an offence that had nothing to do with the original reason for search?

"I stopped you by mistake, therefore making you give me your insurance, which then technically put you in violation of an obscure law, so the correct thing to do now to give you a ticket on top of wasting your time and making you feel like a criminal." Yah, that sounds like a winning formula all the way.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by jammies

therefore making you give me your insurance, which then technically put you in violation of an obscure law

The traffic stop didn't put him into violation of an obscure law... he was already in violation before it happened.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

The traffic stop didn't put him into violation of an obscure law... he was already in violation before it happened.

Reread the section Fredr123 posted - there is nothing illegal about having the documents in your car, just in presenting them to the police.

I think we are really arguing over the same point. Discretion is a slippery slop. Where one would think discretion is the best option, others do not.

The section outlined is NOT the correct section.

There had to have been an offense (or suspicion the vehicle was a recent crime vehicle) for a traffic stop to be initiated.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I think we are really arguing over the same point. Discretion is a slippery slop. Where one would think discretion is the best option, others do not.

The section outlined is NOT the correct section.

There had to have been an offense (or suspicion the vehicle was a recent crime vehicle) for a traffic stop to be initiated.

From the headnote for R. v. Ladouceur (a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada:

Appellant was stopped while driving his car in a random police search to ensure that his papers were in order and that he had a valid driver's licence. The officers did not suspect that the appellant was acting unlawfully. Appellant admitted that he knew that his driver's licence was suspended when he was asked for his driver's licence, ownership and vehicle insurance documents. A Justice of the Peace found him guilty of driving while his licence was suspended contrary to s. 35 of the Highway Traffic Act and the Provincial Court (Criminal Division) and the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. The constitutional questions stated before this Court queried: (1) if s. 189a(1) of the Highway Traffic Act was inconsistent with ss. 7, 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the extent that it authorized the random stop of a motor vehicle and its driver by a police officer acting without any reasonable grounds to believe that an offence had been committed when such stop was not part of an organized program; and (2) if so, whether s. 189a(1) could be justified pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter?

Held: The appeal should be dismissed.

Per Lamer, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin JJ.: Appellant was detained in violation of s. 9 of the Charter. The police officers assumed control over his movement by a demand or direction and the legal consequences of the detention were significant. The detention was arbitrary in that the decision as to whether the stop should be made lay in the absolute discretion of the police officers.

Sections 7 and 8 of the Charter were not violated. No "seizure" within the meaning of s. 8 occurred here. It was unnecessary to decide whether these random stops infringed s. 7 since it has been determined that routine check random stops violate s. 9 of the Charter.

Section 189a(1) of the Highway Traffic Act was saved by s. 1 of the Charter. The power of a police officer to stop motor vehicles at random is derived from s. 189a(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and is thus prescribed by law. The authority also has been justified by this Court as a prescription of the common law.

The statistics relating to the carnage on the highways substantiate a pressing and substantial concern which the government was properly addressing through the legislation in question and the random stops. A more specific aspect of this concern related to areas where the probability of accidents can be reduced: the mechanical fitness of the vehicle, the possession of a valid licence and proper insurance, and the sobriety of the driver. They are directly pertinent to the question of random stopping.

The means chosen was proportional or appropriate to those pressing concerns. The random stop is rationally connected and carefully designed to achieve safety on the highways and impairs as little as possible the rights of the driver. It does not so severely trench on individual rights that the legislative objective is outweighed by the abridgement of the individual's rights. Indeed, stopping vehicles is the only way of checking a driver's licence and insurance, the mechanical fitness of a vehicle, and the sobriety of the driver.

Deterrence is a critical aspect of the random routine check. The suspension of the driver's licence for driving offences is important in that the court can impose lighter jail terms for the benefit of the offender and yet ensure that society is protected. Licence suspensions, however, must be enforceable to be an effective means of punishment. A real element of risk of detection of driving by unlicensed drivers is necessary for the suspension of a licence to be an effective remedy. Random stops supply the only effective deterrent.

To recognize the validity of the random routine check is to recognize reality. This form of deterrent is a plausible response to the general difficulties of establishing such programs due to fiscal constraints and shortages of personnel and due to the impossibility of establishing an effective organized program in rural areas in particular.

The random routine check does not so severely trench upon the s. 9 right so as to outweigh the legislative objective. Mechanisms are already in place to prevent abuse by law enforcement officers. Officers can stop persons only for legal reasons -- in this case reasons related to driving a car such as checking the driver's licence and insurance, the sobriety of the driver and the mechanical fitness of the vehicle. Once stopped the only questions that may justifiably be asked are those related to driving offences. Any further, more intrusive procedures could only be undertaken based upon reasonable and probable grounds. Where a stop is found to be unlawful, the evidence from the stop could well be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Similar powers have been legislatively conferred upon police officers in other free and democratic societies regarding the stopping of motor vehicles.

The Ontario statute in question read as follows:

189a--(1) A police officer, in the lawful execution of his duties and responsibilities, may require the driver of a motor vehicle to stop and the driver of a motor vehicle, when signalled or requested to stop by a police officer who is readily identifiable as such, shall immediately come to a safe stop.

In Alberta, we have:

Stopping for peace officer

123(1) For the purposes of administering and enforcing this Act, a peace officer may
(a) signal or direct a driver of an off‑highway vehicle to stop the vehicle, and
(b) request information from the driver of the off‑highway vehicle and any passengers on or in the vehicle.

(2) When signalled or directed to stop by a peace officer who is readily identifiable as a peace officer, a driver of an off‑highway vehicle shall
(a) forthwith bring the vehicle to a stop,
(b) forthwith furnish to the peace officer any information respecting the driver or the vehicle that the peace officer requires, and
(c) remain stopped until permitted by the peace officer to leave.