increase in "ghost" or undercover cop cars

[bb147]

Is it just me or has there been an insane increase to the number of undercover cop cars in Calgary lately?

I've seen so many undercover cars especially on glenmore, crowchild and deerfoot.

Was on my way to school just now and I saw one, I was about to fly right past it until I looked and saw the car had a bunch of gear inside so I quickly slowed down to check for hidden lights, saw em so I moved into the next lane.

For the past few weeks I've seen at least one on the way to school and back, there's a few times where they already stopped aside to pull someone over.


FYI: The car was a Purple Dodge Durango, tinted windows (like always) and has a fleet license plate.

What other types of cars have you guys seen? and is it just me or has there been a insane increase to the number of these cops.

[Twin_Cam_Turbo]

Beige Colorados, white F150s with and without headache racks, silver and white Rams with and without headache racks, Durangos of all sorts, Honda Accord in white.

[HiSpec]

Originally posted by Twin_Cam_Turbo
... Honda Accord in white.

Really? Dang... that's news to me!

[Cos]

Originally posted by Twin_Cam_Turbo
Honda Accord in white.

Really?? Wow. Havent seen him yet.

On the highway they have a new F350 with big tires on it. It is dark green so you cant see the lights very well, at least until they turn on. :(

[zipdoa]

I've seen a few undercover escapes on stoney.

edit:

looked just like this one

Undercover Ford Escape (http://www.garageplus.org/pages/gallery_129.htm)

[Mckenzie]

I got lit up by a black Dodge Ram on Deerfoot by Glenmore. Could really not tell as it was night and the truck was all blacked out. Creeper!

[max_boost]

They are out to get you! Better obey all traffic laws :D

[Unknown303]

Is it bad that this doesn't bother me?? Why not, seems most people only obey the laws when near police so ghost cars help them catch people who think that they are in the clear.

This coming from someone who just got a blowing a red light ticket a couple weeks ago..

[adidas]

Seen a bunch of undercover on deerfoot as of late. All where either Suvs or standard cars in black.

But the other night ran into a cop that was part of the gang unit im assuming. 2 Ford Excursions and in between them was a look-a-like uhaul truck.

[roll_over]

I saw the white ford f150 on deerfoot he was in the passing lane. Some dumb ass was driving slow so he turned on his lights and the driver moved over but he didn't pull them over just turned his lights off and passed.

That made my day.

Dear Police Officer thank you.

*edit* also seen a white cobalt

[bart]

all you have to look for is the black sticker and slow down just in case ;)

easy breazy

[Cos]

Hard when they are coming up behind you.

[dj_patm]

Nissan Murano. Yeah. I crapped myself.

It was a green one. I wasn't pulled over but I was beside him at a light and it was definitely a ghost car.

Cage in the back, Laptop out, Sirens and Lights and a uniformed cop driving.

My friend also claims to have seen an Altima pull someone over, full lights and all.

Pretty sneaky. It would be really easy for them to catch "at the light" racers. (Speaking of which, haven't done that in a while! Hmm... lol)

[ddduke]

Originally posted by Twin_Cam_Turbo
Beige Colorados, white F150s with and without headache racks, silver and white Rams with and without headache racks, Durangos of all sorts, Honda Accord in white.

purple Intrepid too

[googe]

What a ridiculous waste of resources. There are virtually no ghost cars here. Sounds like we need to give the cops in Calgary some more real work to do :thumbsup:

[The_Rural_Juror]

White truck with canopy and an Astrovan downtown the other day. Seriously.

[jacky4566]

I usual just avoid all domestics but with the Murano spotted maybe time to just drive safe. or invest in laser/radar jammers. jk.

[Graham_A_M]

^ thats what Im doing, but if they clock you by following you, and estimate your speed that way there isn't much you can do.

[black13]

yea definitely have noticed an increase. They've espeically stepped it up on stoney trail. Used to be almost like an auto-bahn with people doing going way over but this week I saw quite a few people pulled over and they were all with ghost cars.

[Squishy]

Seen quite a few black for escapes, as previously mentioned. I just happen to see them all the time with their lights on.

Does anyone else find that a bit hypocritical that the undercover SUV's usually have illegal tint, yet they still are able to pull you over and give tickets?...

[Twin_Cam_Turbo]

I have seen the Murano too.

[Jetta-2.0]

Originally posted by Squishy
Seen quite a few black for escapes, as previously mentioned. I just happen to see them all the time with their lights on.

Does anyone else find that a bit hypocritical that the undercover SUV's usually have illegal tint, yet they still are able to pull you over and give tickets?...

its ok if they have illegal tint they are they LAW :rofl: :rofl: i would like to see this suv with the tints snap a pic of it and when i get a tickit guess that :D i have proof they do it too :rofl:

[Squishy]

Originally posted by Jetta-2.0


its ok if they have illegal tint they are they LAW :rofl: :rofl: i would like to see this suv with the tints snap a pic of it and when i get a tickit guess that :D i have proof they do it too :rofl: I wonder what they would do or say if you actually got out while pulled over to take a picture. Think they would overreact and think you're going to harm them (assuming they don't know what you are doing) or tell you to get back in once they saw the camera?

[PulsePro]

Originally posted by Squishy
Seen quite a few black for escapes, as previously mentioned. I just happen to see them all the time with their lights on.

Does anyone else find that a bit hypocritical that the undercover SUV's usually have illegal tint, yet they still are able to pull you over and give tickets?...

You referring to the paradox of practise?

A doctor who smokes weed telling you not to.

Taking financial advice from a homeless individual.

Illegal tinted windows on a police vehicle and the office giving tickets to civilians for illegal tinted windows

[Graham_A_M]

Originally posted by Jetta-2.0


its ok if they have illegal tint they are they LAW :rofl: :rofl: i would like to see this suv with the tints snap a pic of it and when i get a tickit guess that :D i have proof they do it too :rofl:
none of their frontal side windows are tinted, only the back/rear passenger ones and the rear, of which is perfectly legal. ;)

[Speed_69]

My buddy told me there's an Escalade rolling around too that's a ghost car. They're getting sneaky!!

[Guillermo]

it's curious that everyone is so scared of the policec here. shit, i speed everywhere i go. i drive crowchild north and south to and from work every day, and i'm always driving FAR over the limit, and i've never had a problem with police. i drive fast, but i'm not a dick, and i respect the other cars on the road. i drive fast, but haven't had problems... so why are you guys so worried? :dunno:

[Squishy]

Originally posted by Graham_A_M
none of their frontal side windows are tinted, only the back/rear passenger ones and the rear, of which is perfectly legal.
Nope, I'm pretty sure when I was leaving 130th one night there was a dark green Durango that pulled someone over, and the only way I could see inside was from the flashing red and blue lights. I'm almost certain the front ones were tinted too.


Originally posted by Guillermo
it's curious that everyone is so scared of the policec here. shit, i speed everywhere i go. i drive crowchild north and south to and from work every day, and i'm always driving FAR over the limit, and i've never had a problem with police. i drive fast, but i'm not a dick, and i respect the other cars on the road. i drive fast, but haven't had problems... so why are you guys so worried? :dunno:
You mean it's interesting?....
One day they'll catch up with you, whether you drive like a dink or not. Speeding is speeding, they get you when you least expect it. It's not so much people are "scared," it's being more aware of the surrounding cars, knowing that there is higher potential that there may be an undercover cop, if not a regular cruiser.

[schocker]

Well right around christmas I recall a ghost car cutting me off and pulling over the van infront of me on stoney and I thought boy did I catch a break. Too bad that sob mailed me a registered owners ticket that was waiting for me when I got back from houston :rofl:
I must pay better attention on stoney as I have seen none of the vehicles listed here except the older durango and the f150s with the racks.

[Mibz]

I was also under the impression that CPS rarely, if ever, drove foreign. The Murano and Accord are both news to me and are, frankly, fucking frightening.

[canadian_hustla]

yeah i have noticed this too, i live in the NW and i usually see any combination of the following:

- crown vics
- chargers
- f150
- canyon
- dodge rams

there is almost always the same speedtrap on southbound stoney trail (60 kmh just passed crowchild), he picks people off in a silver dodge ram extended cab. the tricky thing is that he has the drivers door half open and stands 1/2 in 1/2 out of the truck with his stupid four ways on

tuscany is also getting really bad for speedtraps. i have noticed two in the past three days

[Graham_A_M]

Originally posted by Squishy

Nope, I'm pretty sure when I was leaving 130th one night there was a dark green Durango that pulled someone over, and the only way I could see inside was from the flashing red and blue lights. I'm almost certain the front ones were tinted too.
Tell me how that would be legal. So cops are above the law here?
The purpose of the illegal tint for the front windows is so the cops can see if a guy is about to pull a gun on them during a pull over. Thats how it is, so it would make sense for the police vehicles (only driven by cops) to be above that, but such a law would create a lot of clouding & grey areas for these tint related offenses.
So unless you have photographic proof, I stand by my statement.

And to conclude that, I'm a Calgary Native (born & raised here), and I've NEVER not once have seen a ghost car (of ANY sort) have tint for the front windows.

[Twin_Cam_Turbo]

Originally posted by Guillermo
it's curious that everyone is so scared of the policec here. shit, i speed everywhere i go. i drive crowchild north and south to and from work every day, and i'm always driving FAR over the limit, and i've never had a problem with police. i drive fast, but i'm not a dick, and i respect the other cars on the road. i drive fast, but haven't had problems... so why are you guys so worried? :dunno:

Yeah that's what I thought too until about a month ago, then I got busted doing a very unreasonable amount of speed and luckily got a warning and some smaller no demerit tickets. Now I'm very careful with my speed.

[Squishy]

Originally posted by Graham_A_M

Tell me how that would be legal. So cops are above the law here?
The purpose of the illegal tint for the front windows is so the cops can see if a guy is about to pull a gun on them during a pull over. Thats how it is, so it would make sense for the police vehicles (only driven by cops) to be above that, but such a law would create a lot of clouding & grey areas for these tint related offenses.
So unless you have photographic proof, I stand by my statement.

And to conclude that, I'm a Calgary Native (born & raised here), and I've NEVER not once have seen a ghost car (of ANY sort) have tint for the front windows.
I'm fully aware. I never said I was 100% positive, I said "I'm pretty sure." It was dark, and they looked tinted. Easy there, not trying to chew anyone's head off.

[FraserB]

Never seen a police car with front tint but if there is they are not going to toss out your tint ticket by showing the judge an undercover police vehicle with tint. Not only is it not a valid excuse to say that one person did it so it is ok fro me to do it, it can be argued that tint on a police cruiser is needed to do their job correctly. Going by the commonly held reason for not allowing driver and passenger tint (being able to see the drive, officer safety) neither of these are being affected by having tint on a police vehicle.

[rc2002]

Originally posted by googe
What a ridiculous waste of resources.

Got to spend money to make money. If they put more marked cars on the roads, people would drive slower but the police wouldn't make any money.

It would be interesting to see the finances for the traffic department. I wonder if ticket revenues even balance out the amount of money spent on ghost cars, photo radar vans, intersection cameras, traffic cop salaries, and court time.

[Graham_A_M]

Originally posted by Squishy

I'm fully aware. I never said I was 100% positive, I said "I'm pretty sure." It was dark, and they looked tinted. Easy there, not trying to chew anyone's head off.
LOL nor am I after anybodies "head". I just ask for proper documentation.

There are so many variables I find your initial statement odd.
Nothing more. Im entirely as objective as you are. ;)

[derpderp]

.

[TomcoPDR]

Originally posted by richardchan2002


Got to spend money to make money. If they put more marked cars on the roads, people would drive slower but the police wouldn't make any money.

It would be interesting to see the finances for the traffic department. I wonder if ticket revenues even balance out the amount of money spent on ghost cars, photo radar vans, intersection cameras, traffic cop salaries, and court time.

Could be confiscated vehicles they're using :dunno:

[ryder_23]

Originally posted by googe
What a ridiculous waste of resources. There are virtually no ghost cars here. Sounds like we need to give the cops in Calgary some more real work to do :thumbsup:

I heard that CHP has to follow color patterns of hood/door/roof/body panel combinations, and aren't aloud full "ghost cars"

[cancer man]

Originally posted by Mibz
I was also under the impression that CPS rarely, if ever, drove foreign. The Murano and Accord are both news to me and are, frankly, fucking frightening.

Has everbody forgotten about the Suzuki Samurai..big piece of crap probable a 1984 and gave out a done of tickets from 16th ave to Blackfoot turn off on the Deerfoot.
About 2 years ago.

[gam0s]

beige toyota camry around the chinook mall area

[master hec0]

saw a green nissan rouge that pulled someone over. the cop was even in plain clothing

also the most scary one i saw in the NW was a 2003ish beige

dodge caravan.

[Grogador]

Most of these are personal vehicles, which cops are allowed to kit out and use for enforcement.

[theken]

I really love the people who say to give them real work to do blah blah blah. THEY ARE TRAFFIC DIVISION. That is their fucking job. Plenty of other "real officers" solving "real" crimes as well. I hope a cop decides to not worry about a break-in to your house cause he was busy catching a real criminal.

[luxor]

Originally posted by theken
I really love the people who say to give them real work to do blah blah blah. THEY ARE TRAFFIC DIVISION. That is their fucking job. Plenty of other "real officers" solving "real" crimes as well. I hope a cop decides to not worry about a break-in to your house cause he was busy catching a real criminal.

I really love how you always come into these threads to defend them with the same defense every time. Most of the time these tickets aren't issues by cops in the Traffic Division. It is impossible for that many ticket to be issued a month by only traffic cops.

How is that possible then you ask? That's right regular beat cops with nothing better to do will drive around to literally look for reasons to give someone a ticket.

If only traffic violations was enforced by ONLY traffic division, there wouldn't be anyone saying they aren't doing real police work. That's far from it though.

[Shlade]

atleast their not using undercover M3`s...

Good luck getting away from those.

Personally, I would LOVE to go in the traffic division. Its one of my goals to get into that when I apply in the next couple of years.

[..*JDM Hatch*..]

Seen lots of random UC's around lately.

VW Beatle(white-in the Collingwood area N.W.),
Murano (Black),
Intrepid (Red),
Lifted ram 2500 and F250 with big tires (only seen them in the rural areas for the most part),
Black and White Focus's,
lots of escapes,
Black SRT-8 Charger,Black SRT-8 Magnum (Turner valley,black diamond area)-Got pulled over by the charger,seen him haul ass out of turner valley,so i figured i would give it some gas,and sure enough,passing it at 73km/h over the limit was a bad idea.

But yeah lots of new cop vehicals kicking around.

[Ashers]

I love the fact that the undercover Escape is the 4 banger... It couldn't catch a cold!

[Luke 96 T/A]

Originally posted by luxor


How is that possible then you ask? That's right regular beat cops with nothing better to do will drive around to literally look for reasons to give someone a ticket.

If only traffic violations was enforced by ONLY traffic division, there wouldn't be anyone saying they aren't doing real police work. That's far from it though.

Yeah, I got mailed a ticket while on my bike by someone in the homicide division..
They actually wrote my plate down, after chasing me a little bit down crowchild in their personal vehicle to shake their fist at me, and then issued me a ticket through the mail...
I fought it in court :)

I was speeding though... going about 110-115km/hr..

[googe]

Originally posted by ryder_23


I heard that CHP has to follow color patterns of hood/door/roof/body panel combinations, and aren't aloud full "ghost cars"

Wow, I hadn't heard that, so I just did some research. It is actually illegal in California for traffic enforcement to use unmarked vehicles, and that law was enacted specifically to prevent police departments from abusing fines to augment revenues. They claim that the primary purpose of patrol is to ensure safety, and the visible presence of officers does this. Some sanity...amazing.

Basically, California has a "serve and protect, not serve and collect" law.

They do have unmarked vehicles that they use for investigations, but they don't go on traffic duty, and aren't allowed to pull people over.

There are also several anti-speedtrap laws. One of them states that for a speed limit to be valid, there has to have been an independent survey done showing that the posted limit matches the 85th percentile. Otherwise, the posted limit is advisory only, not enforceable, and the ticket is garbage. :thumbsup:

[FraserB]

Originally posted by derpderp
Still don't think these actions are right in a Democracy, police shouldn't be allowed to trick citizens in such a manner, only in organized stings, but not just walking/driving the street.

How is it trickery?

The people being caught by undercover officers would be committing those crimes regardless of whether or not an officer was there. Having an unmarked car driving on the road does not induce people to speed or commit other violations. And unless the undercover officer actually induce some random individual on the street to sell them drugs, its not entrapment either. Police are allowed to operate in known areas and since someone looking to sell drugs won't realize they are asking a police officer, there is no inducement to commit an offense that is already planned.

[Goodfella]

One time I was in a rush weaving from left to right
down 68th street and noticed some maurader sweeping
up my tracks in the rear view. I thought some it was some old
dude looking for a race but by the time he caught up i realized it
was one of the big boys. He pulled me over and admitted he couldnt get an accurate estimate of what speed I was going and luckily let me off with a warning.

The scary thing about some of these unmarked car is they do
taunt people to speed and there usually mistaken for idiots that tailgate so of course you want to get them off your ass.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by FraserB


How is it trickery?

The people being caught by undercover officers would be committing those crimes regardless of whether or not an officer was there. Having an unmarked car driving on the road does not induce people to speed or commit other violations. And unless the undercover officer actually induce some random individual on the street to sell them drugs, its not entrapment either. Police are allowed to operate in known areas and since someone looking to sell drugs won't realize they are asking a police officer, there is no inducement to commit an offense that is already planned.

What of the fake construction zones they set up on Deerfoot on the weekend just to catch people a couple years back?

[derpderp]

Originally posted by FraserB


How is it trickery?

The people being caught by undercover officers would be committing those crimes regardless of whether or not an officer was there. Having an unmarked car driving on the road does not induce people to speed or commit other violations. And unless the undercover officer actually induce some random individual on the street to sell them drugs, its not entrapment either. Police are allowed to operate in known areas and since someone looking to sell drugs won't realize they are asking a police officer, there is no inducement to commit an offense that is already planned.

Because I just feel it ins't correct in a Democracy, plain clothed officers is something the Chinese do. I just think it goes to far when the police have the right to hide themselves to trick citizens, I'm not a beyond "fuck the police type" I support them for what they do, just not this. Citizens shouldn't have to feel like anyone might be a cop.

If they actually have an operation going down with an actual taget then that is a whole diffrent story.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by derpderp


Because I just feel it ins't correct in a Democracy, plain clothed officers is something the Chinese do. I just think it goes to far when the police have the right to hide themselves to trick citizens, I'm not a beyond "fuck the police type" I support them for what they do, just not this. Citizens shouldn't have to feel like anyone might be a cop.

If they actually have an operation going down with an actual taget then that is a whole diffrent story.

They do have an actual target, people who would be committing illegal acts in cases where police are not visible.

Would you agree that pulling someone over for speeding is a deterrent to stop speeding? Having an undercover unit pull you over sends the message that you can be caught committing illegal acts even when the police are not overtly present.

@Feruk; do you have a link to the fake construction sites that were used on Deerfoot. Google turned up nothing. Regardless of whether a construction site is real or not, it does not constitute entrapment. Since the people who were ticketed for speeding through them would have done so anyways, it does not qualify since the police are simply providing the opportunity to commit the act. The argument that this constitutes random virtue testing is not valid since the police can reasonably conclude that people will and do speed through construction zones. Therefore a construction zone can be viewed as a place where an illegal act will occur.

[derpderp]

Originally posted by FraserB

They do have an actual target, people who would be committing illegal acts in cases where police are not visible.

Would you agree that pulling someone over for speeding is a deterrent to stop speeding? Having an undercover unit pull you over sends the message that you can be caught committing illegal acts even when the police are not overtly present.

I mean things like infeltrating a drug ring with an undercover not throwing a line into the water and hoping for some bites.

Its great they have even more ability to stop people by hiding themselves, but Democracy and Freedom isn't all about being safe all the time, sometimes you have to understand risks come with being free. I just don't agree at all with this, simply a case of chipping away slowly all your rights to create a nanny state that needs to care for you.

It would also help if everyones phone calls were recorded, or everyones e-mail was monitored, but its simply not a right the government should have without a very clear picture of the reason for it.

[CUG]

DERP DERP

http://www.chaobell.net/newgallery/d/2110-1/14xl63c.jpg

[FraserB]

So in short you want people to be able to break the law with impunity except in the rare instances where they are given forewarning of police presence.

This not about infringing on peoples rights (your example of recording calls and emails), having undercover police present does not intrude on your right to privacy, or any other rights.

[DeeK]

Keep in mind I'm in Vancouver, but I've seen some pretty crazy ghost cars lately.

- Audi A4 Wagon, lowered with rims.
- BMW M3
- Mazda RX8

On top of all the usual domestic stuff they have.

Rumor has it that the police services across Canada just recently decided that driving drug dealer cars are a good idea. So all the cars that are confiscated to drug related charges, are now being utilized by the cops.

Only speculation, but from what I've seen lately, it's probably true.

[derpderp]

.

[Grogador]

When an unmarked car is attempting to pull you over, dial 911 and report it, ask for confirmation that it's an actual cop... after all, anyone can slap red-n-blues on their ride... if EVERYONE does this, I bet they'd eventually get the message >:]

[msommers]

Originally posted by luxor


I really love how you always come into these threads to defend them with the same defense every time. Most of the time these tickets aren't issues by cops in the Traffic Division. It is impossible for that many ticket to be issued a month by only traffic cops.

How is that possible then you ask? That's right regular beat cops with nothing better to do will drive around to literally look for reasons to give someone a ticket.

That's a pretty big claim. What are you basing that off of?

[Squishy]

Speaking of entrapment, we were cruising one night (few months back when it was still nice out) and there was an undercover Charger, dark gray, trying to get people to race. He was pulling up beside people and doing the whole forward-back thing trying to initiate a race. Of course no one "went," but man was the group pissed off at that.:thumbsdow

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Squishy
Speaking of entrapment, we were cruising one night (few months back when it was still nice out) and there was an undercover Charger, dark gray, trying to get people to race. He was pulling up beside people and doing the whole forward-back thing trying to initiate a race. Of course no one "went," but man was the group pissed off at that.:thumbsdow

Again, not entrapment, he is not making you commit a crime. Police are allowed to give anyone the opportunity to commit a crime they might normally commit so long as it can be justified.

Since you would not normally race you did not race, however someone who would normally race at traffic lights would have.

[desi112]

First you speed, then you don't want a ticket.

Heck I wish we had free gasoline.

[stevieo]

i saw a white ridgeline on stony trail

[Isaiah]

Originally posted by stevieo
i saw a white ridgeline on stony trail
That one tagged my friend.

[J-D]

I had a blue GMC SUV (almost) pull me over the other day on crowchild. All of a sudden I saw a car on my bumper (doing about 110) so I changed lanes really fast, he ended up putting his lights on and pulling over the guy in front of me who was doing just a little bit faster :eek:

[bb147]

Wait!

So you guys are saying you GOT a ticket even though the ghost cars never pulled you over?

shit..... I had a ghost car "Tailgate" me on deerfoot going northbound for a good stretch so I just kept hovering from 100 - 120... he never stopped to pull me over, i just got near my exit and pulled back into the middle lane, he sped right past me and only then i realized a ghost car had been following me the entire time.

The good news in that one is it was night time and my license plate is so dirty I don't think he would've been able to see it properly unless they have some crazy high res camera that requires no flash.


So did anyone actually get a speeding ticket just because the ghost car was following you but never actually pulled you over?


Anyway, like others have mentioned already, I'm just looking for the fleet stickers and rear tinted windows. Someone should compile a list of ALL the ghost cars we've seen by brand, model and color. (not sure what that'd accomplish but it'd be cool to look at)

Looks like CPS is REALLY cracking down hard on this as of late!!

[schocker]

Originally posted by bb147
Wait!

So you guys are saying you GOT a ticket even though the ghost cars never pulled you over?


So did anyone actually get a speeding ticket just because the ghost car was following you but never actually pulled you over?


Yes, I got a registered owner's ticket mailed to me.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Feruk


What of the fake construction zones they set up on Deerfoot on the weekend just to catch people a couple years back?

you think that is entrapment? that is the dumbest thing i've ever heard. People that rip through construction zones should lose their license IMO.

I dunno, it seems that people are completely lacking in the logic department when they claim ghost cars/undercover officers etc are "tricking" them. Give me a break. Going "undercover" is possibly one of the most effective ways for an officer to catch dumb asses breaking the law.

here is a good example. The cross walk by my house has dumb drivers not stopping for people all the time and drivers ripping down the street at 60+ all day long (in fact when I was in elementary 3 kids were killed at this cross walk over the 6 years and 2 others injured). My parents along with other neighborhood parents petitioned the city several times to put in a cross walk light. The city on several occasions would send marked cop cars to watch the cross walk during the day for drivers not obeying the law. Everyone would drive courteously and slow because the cop was in plain site. Then the city would come back and say, they've investigated it and there is no problem. This went on for years until the local parents gave up because the city wouldn't do anything about it. Had they sent a cop in an undercover vehicle, I guarantee the result would have been different.

the problem with marked cars is that everyone is an angel during the brief time they are present. Then they go back to being stupid. I hope eventually the streets are loaded with unmarked cars so we can start getting some of these horrible drivers off the streets, and hopefully people will be too scared to step out of line. Fact is, you don't need to speed and you don't need to drive like an asshole, none of those things are "rights" given to you and you don't have any business increasing the risk to others around you by speeding and/or driving outside the law (which if you are to sit down and re-read your learners handbook the laws set out make perfect sense in regards to decreasing the risk to yourself and others while driving). Driving is a privilege and if you are one of those douches that can't understand this then you deserve to have your wallet thinned out for your stupidity.

[googe]

Originally posted by J-hop


you think that is entrapment? that is the dumbest thing i've ever heard. People that rip through construction zones should lose their license IMO.

I dunno, it seems that people are completely lacking in the logic department when they claim ghost cars/undercover officers etc are "tricking" them. Give me a break. Going "undercover" is possibly one of the most effective ways for an officer to catch dumb asses breaking the law.


Speaking of lacking in the logic department...

Yes, it is entrapment. People that rip through construction zones have nothing to do with whether or not that is entrapment. They also have nothing to do with people who get tickets in fake construction zones.

The fact is, the offence could only be committed due to the opportunity that the officer provided, and the person was not already under investigation as someone that is believed to be committing those offences. This is the legal definition of entrapment. Look it up.

Speed traps and ghost cars are nothing more than a cash cow. It does not make the population safer, and they are wasting taxpayer time and money. As you pointed out, a visible presence deters speeders. Getting a ticket does not do anything. They camp out on a corner and shoot fish in a barrel all day long, and they will never run out of fish. You'd have to be an idiot to think that they're actually trying to reduce the number of speeders.

[v2kai]

Originally posted by googe


Speaking of lacking in the logic department...

Yes, it is entrapment. People that rip through construction zones have nothing to do with whether or not that is entrapment. They also have nothing to do with people who get tickets in fake construction zones.

The fact is, the offence could only be committed due to the opportunity that the officer provided, and the person was not already under investigation as someone that is believed to be committing those offences. This is the legal definition of entrapment. Look it up.

Speed traps and ghost cars are nothing more than a cash cow. It does not make the population safer, and they are wasting taxpayer time and money. As you pointed out, a visible presence deters speeders. Getting a ticket does not do anything. They camp out on a corner and shoot fish in a barrel all day long, and they will never run out of fish. You'd have to be an idiot to think that they're actually trying to reduce the number of speeders.

Bingo. Notice how everyone slows down when the police presence is known...unknown and the force just gets to rake in the funds. And if they aren't even pulling someone over and just mail a ticket, they can probably hit more people in a shorter time span, yay:clap:

:facepalm:

[bb147]

Originally posted by googe


Speaking of lacking in the logic department...

Yes, it is entrapment. People that rip through construction zones have nothing to do with whether or not that is entrapment. They also have nothing to do with people who get tickets in fake construction zones.

The fact is, the offence could only be committed due to the opportunity that the officer provided, and the person was not already under investigation as someone that is believed to be committing those offences. This is the legal definition of entrapment. Look it up.


Speed traps and ghost cars are nothing more than a cash cow. It does not make the population safer, and they are wasting taxpayer time and money. As you pointed out, a visible presence deters speeders. Getting a ticket does not do anything. They camp out on a corner and shoot fish in a barrel all day long, and they will never run out of fish. You'd have to be an idiot to think that they're actually trying to reduce the number of speeders.

+10000000


I'm gonna look like the bad guy cuz I started this thread..

But I'm all against idiot drivers too, there's times where you can really go 10-20 or heck even 30 above the limit but STILL BE A SAFE DRIVER.

Then there's people that go 5 above the limit or even drive BELOW the limit but STILL be an idiot driver!!


And guess what.. those of us that "speed safely" are the ones getting the ticket whereas the other ones aren't... because they can't make much money off them using the system when they aren't legally speeding.

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by Squishy


Does anyone else find that a bit hypocritical that the undercover SUV's usually have illegal tint, yet they still are able to pull you over and give tickets?...

No.

[Swank]

Is it illegal to make your car look like a ghost car (white crown vic, tinted windows, antenna, a couple of lights behind the grill)? They are designed to look like regular cars with a few discreet differences. It's like impersonating and impersonator, some kinda circular logic. Not that I wanna do it, just curious.

[Tomaz]

Originally posted by Swank
Is it illegal to make your car look like a ghost car (white crown vic, tinted windows, antenna, a couple of lights behind the grill)? They are designed to look like regular cars with a few discreet differences. It's like impersonating and impersonator, some kinda circular logic. Not that I wanna do it, just curious.

That's a good question. I don't think so unless you actually start pulling people over for fun. lol

I had a Crown Vic that looked awfully close to a UC. Never did get in trouble for it though the strobes still functioned. lol

[HK2NR]

Originally posted by Swank
Is it illegal to make your car look like a ghost car (white crown vic, tinted windows, antenna, a couple of lights behind the grill)? They are designed to look like regular cars with a few discreet differences. It's like impersonating and impersonator, some kinda circular logic. Not that I wanna do it, just curious.

It'll be funny to see a crown vic pulling over a crown vic... but i've seen one with tint, antenna, even says police interceptor still in the NW and downtown

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by FraserB


Since you would not normally race you did not race, however someone who would normally race at traffic lights would have.

But can't someone argue that they provided the opportunity and context? Sure, the person may normally race at a traffic light, but it doesn't mean they race at EVERY traffic light.

In fact, couldn't someone use the ghost car's actions as implied consent/invitation? With implied (or explicit) consent, if someone was to challenge me to punch them, they in turn can't press charges or file a claim against me since he technically allowed me to do so.



Originally posted by bb147


Then there's people that go 5 above the limit or even drive BELOW the limit but STILL be an idiot driver!!


And guess what.. those of us that "speed safely" are the ones getting the ticket whereas the other ones aren't... because they can't make much money off them using the system when they aren't legally speeding.

As much as I agree that it can work both ways, I think the idea of 'speeding safely' is just a fallacy we use to convince ourselves that we're better drivers than we actually are.

On a more extreme end of the spectrum; if you don't agree with the way traffic laws are enforced on you as a driver, then there is a simple solution: Don't drive. When you get your license you agree to abide by the rules and regulations of the road, including speed limits. Regardless of whether you are "speeding safely" or for lack of a better term "obstructing recklessly" there should be consequences.


Originally posted by googe

As you pointed out, a visible presence deters speeders. Getting a ticket does not do anything. They camp out on a corner and shoot fish in a barrel all day long, and they will never run out of fish. You'd have to be an idiot to think that they're actually trying to reduce the number of speeders.

A simple one-time fine, I don't think does the trick. How many times have you heard someone say "Well, it's no demerits so just pay the ticket, or don't bother fighting it (red light camera tickets, etc)." I know I'm not alone when I say those are cash cows and should not be used by law enforcement.

Instead, I think more manpower should be focused on the actual ticketing of offending vehicles by Officers. In that manner, there is the one-time fine from the speeding as well as the hit on the driver's insurance rate.

[Squishy]

Originally posted by FraserB


Again, not entrapment, he is not making you commit a crime. Police are allowed to give anyone the opportunity to commit a crime they might normally commit so long as it can be justified.

Since you would not normally race you did not race, however someone who would normally race at traffic lights would have. It is, because he was trying to make us commit a crime that we were not initially doing, that being said, HAD someone gone, he would have gotten them to go when they were innocent to begin with.

[Cos]

Entrapment is forcing you to do criminal activity. Not giving you the opportunity. Otherwise bait cars would be illegal.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by sexualbanana


In fact, couldn't someone use the ghost car's actions as implied consent/invitation? With implied (or explicit) consent, if someone was to challenge me to punch them, they in turn can't press charges or file a claim against me since he technically allowed me to do so.


Actually, ignore this part. Just realized it's irrelevant to the discussion.

[wintonyk]

I have a friend that is a private investigator. He has a old interceptor (2000ish) with spotlight, lights in the grill and cage, even the laptop in there. If I recall correctly though he needed some sort of permit to all that.

Its funny how everyone drives slow around him because they think its a ghost car.

Same guy has a similar setup in his xterra.

[Tomaz]

Originally posted by Squishy
It is, because he was trying to make us commit a crime that we were not initially doing, that being said, HAD someone gone, he would have gotten them to go when they were innocent to begin with.

It still wouldn't be entrapment because a person would still have the choice to engage in the illegal act or not.

[Mibz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment#Canada


The first type of entrapment, "random virtue testing", occurs when the police offer an individual the opportunity to commit a crime without reasonable suspicion that either that individual, or the place where that individual is located, is associated with the criminal activity under investigation. If police do have such a reasonable suspicion, they are still limited to providing only an opportunity to commit the offence.

The second form of entrapment occurs when the police go beyond merely providing an opportunity to commit an offence, and instead actually induce the commission of the offence. Some factors a court may consider when deciding whether police have induced the offence include the type of crime being investigated, whether an average person would have been induced, the persistence and number of attempts made by the police, the type of inducement used (e.g. fraud, deceit, reward), and the existence of express or implied threats.

Entrapment, at least in Canada, can be simply providing an opportunity that wasn't there, or it could be provoking someone with an existing opportunity. It has nothing to do with forcing somebody to do something illegal. Note though that in both cases it comes down to what a judge thinks.

I'd consider the "Revving at the lights" to be a borderline example of the 2nd form that probably wouldn't hold water because it's easy as hell for the guy to simply not race his car.

EDIT: Or maybe the fact that revving isn't an objective way of goading somebody into doing something, haha.

EDIT 2: I just skimmed the 3 citations from that Wiki article and the 3rd one is fucking hilarious:


The police officer here did not have a "reasonable suspicion" that the appellant was already engaged in unlawful drug‑related activity ... The officer's conduct was motivated by the genuine purpose of investigating and repressing criminal activity and the investigation was directed at a suitable area within Vancouver. Although the size of the area itself may indicate that the investigation is not bona fide, it was reasonable for the Vancouver Police Department to focus its investigation on the Granville Mall.

The appellant, when he was in the Granville Mall, was in a location where it was reasonably believed that drug‑related crimes were occurring. The officer's conduct was therefore justified.
"He was in a mall. We think drug deals happen in malls. Not entrapment. Lawyered"

To be fair, one of the judges commented that your right to walk around without being approached by undercover officers is important.

Just not if you're in a mall.

That's where drug deals happen.

[theken]

Originally posted by luxor


I really love how you always come into these threads to defend them with the same defense every time. Most of the time these tickets aren't issues by cops in the Traffic Division. It is impossible for that many ticket to be issued a month by only traffic cops.

How is that possible then you ask? That's right regular beat cops with nothing better to do will drive around to literally look for reasons to give someone a ticket.

If only traffic violations was enforced by ONLY traffic division, there wouldn't be anyone saying they aren't doingi real police work. That's far from it though. areyou retarded? Whether you like laws or not they are laws. And it is any policemans job to uphold them.
And if there's no murders or real crimes happening when they are cruising their area what do you want them to do? Sit at tims so you can bitch about that too?

[wardpr68]

Well... I tweeted about the Nissan Murano which I saw on deerfoot today with its lights on... and this is what CPS had to say....

Liars?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/wardpr68/tweet.jpg

[dj_patm]

Well could it be a force members car?

I know what I saw. I'm positive it was a full fledged cop car and I'm not the only one.

[Cos]

I saw it go north on deerfoot today. Could be a rouge too.

[Mibz]

I don't think they're allowed lights on personal vehicles.


Originally posted by Cos
I saw it go north on deerfoot today. Could be a rouge too. Would that be Moulin or Sinister?

[Skyline_Addict]

Originally posted by wardpr68
Well... I tweeted about the Nissan Murano which I saw on deerfoot today with its lights on... and this is what CPS had to say....

Liars?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/wardpr68/tweet.jpg

lol you go girl.

[luxor]

Originally posted by wardpr68
Well... I tweeted about the Nissan Murano which I saw on deerfoot today with its lights on... and this is what CPS had to say....

Liars?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/wardpr68/tweet.jpg

Murano is BULLSHIT! I don't care what you saw, unless you've got a picture of a Murano with its red and blues on. I can go around claiming cops are ghosting around on segways scooters too..

[Cos]

^^ I saw it. Brown in color had two officers in it today going up deerfoot to the fire in coventry.

[Skyline_Addict]

Yes. Its very real.

[Cos]

Originally posted by wardpr68
Well... I tweeted about the Nissan Murano which I saw on deerfoot today with its lights on... and this is what CPS had to say....

Liars?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/wardpr68/tweet.jpg

Actually I saw it at the same time as you. I was coming under Beddington and he was ripping by going north. 2 or 3 seconds later the batalion chief went by me. The fire in coventry was where I figured it was going. I could see the fire from CrossIron mall as I was driving in. Must have been 10:15 or 10:20 as I had left the office around 10:00





Originally posted by luxor


Murano is BULLSHIT! I don't care what you saw, unless you've got a picture of a Murano with its red and blues on. I can go around claiming cops are ghosting around on segways scooters too..

Just wanted to quote you so when a picture does show up. I will get one but wont put myself in jeopardy to do it. I have seen it twice. Saw a silver 4 door new Ram. Saw the Accord finally. CPS has released at proably 10 new under cover vehicles on deerfoot this week. I have seen over 10 people pulled over during my daily commute so far since last wednesday.





Also I guess it is called the Rogue, not the Rouge.... ;)

[Grogador]

Originally posted by Mibz
I don't think they're allowed lights on personal vehicles.

I was ticketed on Beerfoot by an off-duty in his personal SUV (bigger, dark, possibly Suburban?) complete with lights. He was relatively casual about it and I asked about the truck. If I find the ticket, you can Beyond CSI his name/badge and see what dept he's in...

[Mibz]

Detective maybe? Obviously I know nothing about those laws, but can you imagine if every traffic cop could have lights on their personal vehicles?

[HuMz]

Saw the 4 door ram (2500 i think) at the petro in Cranston earlier in the week filling up. And about an hour ago my roomate was pulled over in Auburn bay by a couple undercover cops in a newer black pontiac, thinks it was a G8.

[googe]

Originally posted by Mibz
[url]

"He was in a mall. We think drug deals happen in malls. Not entrapment. Lawyered"

To be fair, one of the judges commented that your right to walk around without being approached by undercover officers is important.

Just not if you're in a mall.

That's where drug deals happen.

FWIW, that is an outdoor "pedestrian mall" like stephen ave. If it was late at night downtown, this example isn't as absurd as it sounds.


Originally posted by Tomaz


It still wouldn't be entrapment because a person would still have the choice to engage in the illegal act or not.

You are confusing entrapment with duress. Entrapment always involves having a choice.

Entrapment laws exist because good people can be tempted into doing bad things. This applies to everyone. That doesn't make everyone a bad person or a criminal, it's a fault of human nature.

The legitimate use for a sting is to catch actual existing criminals, not make new ones. It is supposed to be known that they do this activity, and you are just getting a documented example of them doing what they already do.

If cops have to go around "creating crimes", that sort of defeats the purpose of why they exist in the first place.