Speeding Ticket Question

Originally Posted by fredr123

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.

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.

You missed THE most important part of that ruling:

The random stop constituted an arbitrary detention. The Crown's efforts to discharge its s. 1 onus must be viewed in the context of the s. 9 breaches sanctioned to date in meeting the objective of ridding the highways of dangerous drivers. Police officers are entitled to stop motorists at organized check points as part of the R.I.D.E. program to provide a roadside screening test of sobriety and to check for licences, insurance and mechanical fitness. The organized check point is available, therefore, as a means of detection of the unlicensed driver. This case may be viewed as the last straw. If sanctioned, a police officer could stop any vehicle at any time, in any place, without having any reason to do so. For the motorist, this would mean a total negation of the freedom from arbitrary detention guaranteed by s. 9 of the Charter.

The Crown has not demonstrated that this unrestricted power is a necessary addition to the impressive array of enforcement methods which are available. Random checking at a stationary, predetermined location infringes the right much less than the unlimited right contended for. It is somewhat more carefully designed to serve enforcement, and is less intrusive and not as open to abuse as the unlimited power sought to be justified. The roving random stop, by contrast, would permit any individual officer to stop any vehicle, at any time, at any place. The decision may be based on any whim. The unlimited power has the potential of being much more intrusive and occasioning a greater invasion of privacy.

The other sections you quoted (one from Ontario and the Traffic Safety Act from Alberta) are not in context as they are directed solely at stopping for an officer to address an infraction or something related.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

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.

One reason for this also is to prevent people from bribing the officer or attempting to bribe the officer. When I dealt with drivers I always had them remove their ID/Insurance from their wallets or holders.

On more than a few occassions I have found money in the insurance holders. Whether or not it was put there for an emergency or to try and bribe the officer is really unknown, but we are taught to watch out for that.

Also with the ID's in someones wallet, beside the obvious point in having it removed to take the id with you, an officer never wants to be accused of taking money out of someones wallet when reviewing their documents.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

You missed THE most important part of that ruling...

Your quote was from the portion of the headnote derived from the decision of Dickson C.J. and Wilson, La Forest and Sopinka JJ. Those were the four Justices who combined to write for the four member MINORITY decision. Ladouceur was a controversial decision decided by a 5-4 majority. It was from the majority decision that I took my excerpts.

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

The other sections you quoted (one from Ontario and the Traffic Safety Act from Alberta) are not in context as they are directed solely at stopping for an officer to address an infraction or something related.

Both the majority and the minority were of the opinion that an aribitrary detention occurred in violation of s. 9 of the Charter. The majority felt, however, that the Ontario legislation was saved by s. 1. The minority disagreed on this point.

There was more to the song and dance under the Ontario act than I quoted. Under that legislation, drivers are obligated to have a valid license and to have it with them. Similar requirements are imposed upon drivers in Alberta under our Traffic Safety Act. In my opinion, the sections I quoted from the Ontario act are analogous to the sections I quoted from the Alberta act. Traffic safety legislation is pretty uniform across the country in this respect in large part because of decision like Ladouceur.

If you're referring to the driver in this thread who got a ticket for his expired insurance card, then yah, the sections I quoted don't have much to do with that. They do, however, speak directly to an officer's power to stop you as you're driving along minding your own business.

Originally Posted by fredr123

Your quote was from the portion of the headnote derived from the decision of Dickson C.J. and Wilson, La Forest and Sopinka JJ. Those were the four Justices who combined to write for the four member MINORITY decision. Ladouceur was a controversial decision decided by a 5-4 majority. It was from the majority decision that I took my excerpts.



Both the majority and the minority were of the opinion that an aribitrary detention occurred in violation of s. 9 of the Charter. The majority felt, however, that the Ontario legislation was saved by s. 1. The minority disagreed on this point.

There was more to the song and dance under the Ontario act than I quoted. Under that legislation, drivers are obligated to have a valid license and to have it with them. Similar requirements are imposed upon drivers in Alberta under our Traffic Safety Act. In my opinion, the sections I quoted from the Ontario act are analogous to the sections I quoted from the Alberta act. Traffic safety legislation is pretty uniform across the country in this respect in large part because of decision like Ladouceur.

If you're referring to the driver in this thread who got a ticket for his expired insurance card, then yah, the sections I quoted don't have much to do with that. They do, however, speak directly to an officer's power to stop you as you're driving along minding your own business.

Thanks for the debate Fred. However, unless an officer can articulate the reason for a traffic stop beyond stating he was checking for documents (unless of course he can prove that it was part of a systemic and random check that he had been conducting that evening, through the week, month, etc) the stop will be seen as a charter breach.

What I was getting it from those 2 other provincial statutes you quoted was that they imply duties of a driver and not powers of a police officer.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Thanks for the debate Fred. However, unless an officer can articulate the reason for a traffic stop beyond stating he was checking for documents (unless of course he can prove that it was part of a systemic and random check that he had been conducting that evening, through the week, month, etc) the stop will be seen as a charter breach.

What I was getting it from those 2 other provincial statutes you quoted was that they imply duties of a driver and not powers of a police officer.

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the TSA does in fact grant certain statutory powers to police as well as impose obligations upon drivers. I also think that there need not be any further articulation of reasons beyond documents, vehicle fitness or driver sobriety when that is the reason for the stop.

I have managed to find a decision of the Provincial Court of Alberta that specifically addresses the arbitrariness of random stops (s.9) and the application of our Traffic Safety Act: R. v. Nyal

In Nyal, the accused was pulled over after leaving the Westlock Inn. There was nothing unusual about the way the car was being driven but the officer in question pulled over Nyal anyway. The officer asked for his documents and began speaking with him, asking questions about his drinking.

At trial, Nyal's counsel argued that Ladouceur had been overruled by subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada like Simpson and Mann. These cases (to borrow words from Simpson) "require a constellation of objectively discernable facts which give the detaining officer reasonable cause to suspect that the detainee is criminally implicated in the activity under investigation. The requirement that the facts must meet an objectively discernable standard is recognized in connection with the arrest power." Nyal's counsel argued that because there was nothing out of the ordinary about his client's driving and that the officer was operating on nothing more than a basic hunch, the detention was arbitrary.

The trial judge disagreed:

I disagree, not because he misstates the test upon which he relies, but because in my view it is not the one which applies in these circumstances. Simpson does not refine Ladouceur so much as distinguish it. When one reads all of the relevant cases, it becomes clear that the power a peace officer has to detain someone has two sources: statute and common law. Where the common law is engaged, the ambit of that power may be circumscribed by the purpose of the stop. That is what Mr. Justice Doherty said at p. 191 of his judgment:
Similarly, in Ladouceur, the authority to stop provided under the Highway Traffic Act was addressed entirely in the context of a “routine check” of drivers and their vehicles for purposes referable to the enforcement of motor vehicle related laws. Cory, J., for the majority, wrote at p. 1278 S.C.R., pp. 37-38 C.C.C.:

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: see Hufsky, supra, at p. 407. The authority also has been justified by this court in its decision in Dedman, [infra], as a prescription of the common law.


Equating the statutory power to stop found in the Highway Traffic Act with the common law power to stop referred to in R. v Dedman reflex, (1981), 32 O.R.(2d) 641, 59 C.C.C. (2d) 97, appeal dismissed for different reasons 1985 CanLII 41 (S.C.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2, 20 C.C.C. (3d) 97 is particularly illuminating. In Dedman, at pp. 32-36 S.C.R., pp. 119-22 C.C.C., the court held that the common law ancillary police power justified random stops of vehicles in the course of the enforcement of laws relating to the operation of those vehicles. This power to stop was, however, closely tied to the particular purpose of the stops, the dangers presented by the activity targeted by the stops, the qualified nature of the liberty interfered with by the stops, and the absence of less intrusive means of effective enforcement of the relevant laws. The authority to stop described in Dedman was clearly not a general power to stop for all police purposes, but was limited to stops made in furtherance of the police duty to protect those who use the public roadways from those who use the roadways in a dangerous manner. [Italics mine]

Anyways, the judgment goes on to say that the Traffic Safety Act gives police officers in the execution of their duty (that is, enforcing traffic laws and protecting the safety of Albertans) certain powers to require a vehicle to pull over and answer certain questions. These stops are not arbitrary if the purpose is limited to traffic safety reasons (documents, vehicle fitness, driver sobriety). Any purpose beyond that would require further conditions, such as those in Simpson and Mann, to be met in order to pass Charter muster.

[amorak]

Hey guys,

I have a traffic court date tomorrow for a speeding ticket 20 over - 70 in a 50 on 17th ave going down the hill.

Now, I was going maybe 55-60 as I saw the cops, but he pulled me over and gave me a ticket for gonig 20 over, which enraged me, as I knew I was not going that fast.

Now my question is, what can I do in court with respect to this? I have never done this before and am unsure of how to approach the issue.

If the officer in question shows up, and I ay I pleed not guilty, what happens? Would they put me on the stand? the officer? would I be able to question him? What would I ask?

Thanks!

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by amorak

Hey guys,

I have a traffic court date tomorrow for a speeding ticket 20 over - 70 in a 50 on 17th ave going down the hill.

Now, I was going maybe 55-60 as I saw the cops, but he pulled me over and gave me a ticket for gonig 20 over, which enraged me, as I knew I was not going that fast.

Now my question is, what can I do in court with respect to this? I have never done this before and am unsure of how to approach the issue.

If the officer in question shows up, and I ay I pleed not guilty, what happens? Would they put me on the stand? the officer? would I be able to question him? What would I ask?

Thanks!

I'd say the best you can do is just state your case and hope for a reduction.

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by amorak

Hey guys,

I have a traffic court date tomorrow for a speeding ticket 20 over - 70 in a 50 on 17th ave going down the hill.

Now, I was going maybe 55-60 as I saw the cops, but he pulled me over and gave me a ticket for gonig 20 over, which enraged me, as I knew I was not going that fast.

Now my question is, what can I do in court with respect to this? I have never done this before and am unsure of how to approach the issue.

If the officer in question shows up, and I ay I pleed not guilty, what happens? Would they put me on the stand? the officer? would I be able to question him? What would I ask?

Thanks!

Yes. The cop will go on the stand. You can ask for the cop to give you his notes he made that day. Ask him questions like what was the traffic like that day, where was he stationed, where were the signs posted (speed), how can he be sure that your vehicle was the one he targeted (ie: heavy traffic).

The prosecutor will usually ask the obvious questions before you have the chance:

Are you trained to use laser
when was it serviced?

[Stan the Man]

Originally Posted by amorak

Hey guys,

I have a traffic court date tomorrow for a speeding ticket 20 over - 70 in a 50 on 17th ave going down the hill.

Now, I was going maybe 55-60 as I saw the cops, but he pulled me over and gave me a ticket for gonig 20 over, which enraged me, as I knew I was not going that fast.

Now my question is, what can I do in court with respect to this? I have never done this before and am unsure of how to approach the issue.

If the officer in question shows up, and I ay I pleed not guilty, what happens? Would they put me on the stand? the officer? would I be able to question him? What would I ask?

Thanks!

I had almost the exact situation -Shaganappi north of Country Hills Blvd.-70 in a 50. On my ticket both estimated and clocked were checked. How can it be both clocked and estimated? If it is estimated at 70, it could be 69 and I believe the fine (and demerits) are decreased??? Anyone know where the break is?

[jayswin]

I got one of those stupid "you can't turn left onto elbow between 4 and 6pm" near anderson. I totally forgot about that sign.

You could tell the cop was only there to fill his quota, as I had an empty beer can in my cup holder, no seatbelt ( I originally thought that's why I was getting pulled over) and was yaking on my cell phone. He noticed all three infractions, but said he was just there to get people for the illegal left turns, and had my ticket written up (without asking for registration) in under a minute.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by flameswin

I got one of those stupid "you can't turn left onto elbow between 4 and 6pm" near anderson. I totally forgot about that sign.

You could tell the cop was only there to fill his quota, as I had an empty beer can in my cup holder, no seatbelt ( I originally thought that's why I was getting pulled over) and was yaking on my cell phone. He noticed all three infractions, but said he was just there to get people for the illegal left turns, and had my ticket written up (without asking for registration) in under a minute.

I'm not sure if you are joking or not here. If he was there to meet his monthly quota, he would have issued tickets for all your offenses then you'd be saying a different tune that he was an a-hole cop trying to fill his quota. However, that's not the case here... it's an ongoing problem so they posted a cop to act as a deterrent... similar to common speeding areas. I fail to see how this is a quota... unless you were joking.

Is anything the cops do good enough for some people? Doesn't seem like it.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Is anything the cops do good enough for some people?

Yep. They catch speeders and passers in our local school zone frequently.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Stan the Man

I had almost the exact situation -Shaganappi north of Country Hills Blvd.-70 in a 50. On my ticket both estimated and clocked were checked. How can it be both clocked and estimated? If it is estimated at 70, it could be 69 and I believe the fine (and demerits) are decreased??? Anyone know where the break is?

My friend always asks to see the radar gun (Which is perfectly fine and most cops show it too you anyways). But if they removed the speed on the gun and have nothing to show you they cant give you a ticket because they have no proof of your speed. At least this is what my friend tells me and hes gotten out of a few tickets this way, but dont take it as gospel.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Is anything the cops do good enough for some people? Doesn't seem like it.

They are plenty good at being giant d-bags. Actually, I feel that most go above and beyond in that regard.

Originally Posted by MattyC

My friend always asks to see the radar gun (Which is perfectly fine and most cops show it too you anyways). But if they removed the speed on the gun and have nothing to show you they cant give you a ticket because they have no proof of your speed. At least this is what my friend tells me and hes gotten out of a few tickets this way, but dont take it as gospel.

A myth. Police are not obligated to show you the reading.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by soulchoice

For a complete reduction in demerits and a reduced fine(or even ticket being thrown out), PM me and I will give you a way I use to enhance your chances of having success. Its been discussed in another thread, but I dont feel like typing it all out again here.

Um...since you're going to have to "type it all out again" anyway for a PM, why not just post it for all of us?

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Um...since you're going to have to "type it all out again" anyway for a PM, why not just post it for all of us?

Here, here.... copy/paste is also your friend.

[crazycanuck]

I got a $115 ticket for pulling a U-Turn at an intersection controlled by lights. It was interesting that after the cop gave me the ticket, he pulled a U-turn at the next set of lights to go back in the direction he was going originally.

1) Any idea if there are demerits for this and how many?
2) Can I get the fine or demerits reduced for this at the First Appearance Centre or is it only for speeding tickets?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Off the top of my head. 2 demerits.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by crazycanuck

I got a $115 ticket for pulling a U-Turn at an intersection controlled by lights. It was interesting that after the cop gave me the ticket, he pulled a U-turn at the next set of lights to go back in the direction he was going originally.

1) Any idea if there are demerits for this and how many?
2) Can I get the fine or demerits reduced for this at the First Appearance Centre or is it only for speeding tickets?

He also carries a gun in public, when you cannot. Deal with it.