Distracted driving ticket court case - did i win or lose?

[gwill]

I figured people would enjoy this but its a long one.... I got pulled over in a small town by the RCMP for distracted driving. I didn't say a word during the stop. During the stop i had my dash cams rolling the entire time. During the stop the officer claimed i made the turn at the intersection without any hands while holding my phone and that i should be thankful i didn't get a dangerous driving ticket as it would have been double the cost of a distracted driving ticket($287). I plead not guilty, requested disclosure and requested a trial where i could play the dash cam if needed.

Fast forward 6 months i get to appear in court. I'm as prepared as I can be with all sorts of dash cam videos and photos. Sitting in the court room was nerve wracking. The prosecutor is mad. Hes on a major power trip. He is telling anyone who decides to go to trial on this day that they risk having their fines tripled. He tells everyone that they dont want to go to trial and lose as the fines get crazier and people typically leave more upset. He keeps telling people if they waste the courts time with a BS excuse that he will make an example of them. He makes it clear that the first one to trial during the day will get it the worst. As the morning progresses through all the first appearances he keeps reminding people. Slowly those there for trial start dropping like flies.

An hour and half later we went from 100 people in the court room to 8. During a recess i chat up a guy who decides hes not going to risk having his fine tripled that he's changing his plea. I say i'm contemplating the same thing just to avoid this crazy tyrant. Why risk a quick trial if it means my fine goes up to $1000. I mention my dash cam videos and that i have a legitimate defense that i wasn't using my phone as the rcmp claimed in my disclosure. He encouraged me to fight as i had video evidence of things. Only issue was it only showed outside my vehicle not inside.

Trial comes. The first rcmp guy takes the stand. He starts talking about the traffic stop with details that didn't happen. He is remembering things that happened that never did. He is so far off on what actually happened that i'm shocked. When i get to question the officer i confirm that his recollection is 100% correct. I confirm every one of his details one more time that happened. I confirm that in no way shape or form is he remembering things incorrectly. Next the second RCMP officer takes the stand. He too is remembering things wrong. He's making stuff up on the fly. Its beyond ridiculous at this point.... at this point i tried to offer the officer multiple ways out of his lies. At the end i gave up and thanked him for having such a vivid memory and recollection of the events as his testimony is very important.

Then it was my turn to take the stand. At this point i asked to play my dash cam video as it would show the RCMP officers lied about everything on the stand. The prosecutor went ballistic. I got accused of creating a fake video. I got accused of not informing the court i had a dash cam. I was then told the court didn't have the equipment needed to play the video. Shit got really weird for 20 minutes as i argued with the prosecutor and the judge. I explained i requested the court room be able to play a dash cam video in case i needed to submit some evidence. I requested this with the prosecutors when i booked the trial so they were aware this may happen. I then said i brought my own equipment in to play the videos in case the court was not prepared for this request, which they weren't. The judge took a 20 min recess as the prosecutor tried hooking up the equipment that was there.

During this mini recess i told the prosecutor he should withdraw the charges as his officers lied and the video will show this. He continued to yell at me and tell me i shouldn't be talking to him. I was trying to inform him that once the video is played it is evidence of the lies the rcmp officers told. Well he didn't listen. Court was brought back into session. I took the stand and i played the video. As it turns out dash cam videos are really good at catching lies that the RCMP or police say during the trial. The entire testimony of the RCMP officers were shown to be a lie. I took the stand and explained i cant drive a 1 ton truck with no hands, nor can i do so and make a fast turn at an intersection as they claimed and that its impossible to use my knees to drive a truck as this was also proposed by one of the officers. I walked the prosecutor and judge through the dash cam videos and pointed out every single lie shared on the stand.

After i was done sharing the prosecutor grilled into me. Accused me of many things. At one point he wanted to bring the court house out to my truck in the parking lot to make sure there wasn't a dash cam facing inwards into my vehicle. It got pretty heated and i expressed my disgust towards the prosecutor and the questions in general. Eventually he stopped questioning me. After this he brought one of the RCMP officers back to the stand. Showed him the video and asked if he wanted to add anything to his testimony. He said no. I got to question the officer and confirm every detail of his testimony was wrong based on the video evidence that was submitted. He agreed that everything was wrong.

The prosecutor then rested his case. We both gave closing statements. The judge took all but 10 seconds to come to a conclusion. She started with grilling into me for a few minutes.. she mentioned i got a bit defensive on the stand. She agreed the officers testimony was so specific and detailed that its evidence is over whelming but.. then she said the video evidence can not be ignored. That the video shows a vastly different version of events. It showed the officers version of events didn't happen at all and that there was extreme doubt in almost everything that happened.

At this point in her speech she must have apologized to the RCMP officers 5 or 6 times as she eventually announced that she had to withdraw the ticket. I WON!! I WON!! But WTF did i just go through???

[gwill]

Now the questions that are burning inside of me. Can a prosecutor purposely bully people like this one did all morning just to get people to plead guilty? Many people plead guilty under the fear that if they went to trial that they'd be stuck with higher fines that they couldn't afford. Other burning question is why did the judge continuously apologize to the rcmp officers? They just got caught lying on the stand. Thats perjury. Lastly, if you were in my shoes do you file formal complaints for the lies shared on the stand?

[Disoblige]

You can't get a higher fine than what you were given initially lol. That's complete bullshit and I never heard of anything like this.

What small town is this?

On another note, I've been in court as well when cops lied on the stand as well saying shit that never happened because they probably forgot what really happened and relied on poor memory or shitty notes.

[rage2]

This sounds like the Ponoka court. Same deal, threats of trying to go to trial, I would get fucked worse. I went in there in my teens with a solid case, argued all the points correctly, only for all my evidence to be thrown out because I did not have a certificate to prove I was an expert at math, even though this was grade school shit. The rcmp has a certificate trained for pressing a stop watch. My argument was that human reaction time could deviate the speed by something like 20km/h while I got ticketed at 15 over.

Ya I drive the speed limit thru Ponoka now. Too many horror stories haha.

[ThePenIsMightier]

No "formal complaints for the lies". Take your money and run.
Litigation is a lottery. We have a legal system, not a justice system.

[Gman.45]

It's a shame you didn't have a recorder going before the trial when the Crown said all that BS - it'd make a fantastic YT video to show just how corrupt and fucked up our so called "justice" system can be.

You should call up the RCMP professional standards and file a complaint, and explain that for us civilians "misremembering" testimony is typically perjury, while the cops often skate. My father after he was hurt from a fall from a rappelling line while training was made court officer in a similar small town court while he was recovering back when he was a cop. It's unreal the crap that happened even back then, and this story doesn't surprise me whatsoever. I think I'd be way more angry about the Crown's behavior and statements than the officers, everyone's memory after 6 months and countless incidents in between can and will be compromised.

[D'z Nutz]

As soon as I read "I got pulled over in a small town by the RCMP", I thought Ponoka.

[max_boost]

Wow. That is some fked up shit.

[dirtsniffer]

Don't they record what happens?

[Misterman]

Don't they record what happens?

I was wondering about this too. The officers dash cam footage should've been part of disclosure. And if it wasn't that's a big red flag as it means there is no evidence to support their testimony on it. But possible some odd ball small towns don't have dash cams yet?

[The_Penguin]

Holy shit! Thanks for sharing.
Not surprised about rural RCMP, had similar issues in High River. Surprised at the prosecutor and judge attitudes though.

[speedog]

Holy shit! Thanks for sharing.
Not surprised about rural RCMP, had similar issues in High River. Surprised at the prosecutor and judge attitudes though.

I wonder how things went for the person after you.

[infamous]

you may have won the case, but if possible i'd stay as far away from that rcmp detachment as possible. they will find some reason to pull you over and give you more tickets (even if you will fight them too) just to show they can make you waste your time and resources. similar thing happened to me in Calgary at the courthouse. little man cop was fuming mad that people were fighting his tickets, was telling the same bs stories (fines will go up if you fight and lose, who do you think the judge is going to believe more? a cop or some random?). my tickets were bs to begin with; running a yellow light and unsafe lane change (from 15 blocks away apparently he saw it). was able to get the yellow light dropped but he was sticking with the unsafe lane change. stupid pricks.

[gwill]

Don't they record what happens?

Thinking about this a bit more it is a bit strange my stop didnt have a dash cam from the rcmp vehicle. It was an under cover vehicle and I think the one guy was newer. But as I sat there early on I saw them handing out many CD's with peoples disclosures which I assume was dash cam videos.

I'm sure if there was a video that I would have been provided it. I did request it if there was on with my disclosure.


I wonder how things went for the person after you.

Haha. Yeah I wonder as well. I got the heck out of there when I won tho. By that point there had been so much yelling, so many stare downs and so many demands by the prosecutor that I wanted to gtfo.


It's a shame you didn't have a recorder going before the trial when the Crown said all that BS - it'd make a fantastic YT video to show just how corrupt and fucked up our so called "justice" system can be.

You should call up the RCMP professional standards and file a complaint, and explain that for us civilians "misremembering" testimony is typically perjury, while the cops often skate. My father after he was hurt from a fall from a rappelling line while training was made court officer in a similar small town court while he was recovering back when he was a cop. It's unreal the crap that happened even back then, and this story doesn't surprise me whatsoever. I think I'd be way more angry about the Crown's behavior and statements than the officers, everyone's memory after 6 months and countless incidents in between can and will be compromised.

I'm not sure but I'd assume I cant record in the court room. There are also already mics in there for the entire trial that i could get access to. If I lodge a complain with the rcmp this will become part of the evidence in that complaint.

[msommers]

This whole scenario is so fucked. I mean part of me is at least content that the judge ruled in your favour and didn't dismiss the evidence you provided. On the other hand, this was clearly everyone against you which is total bullshit.

Can someone with real legal experience say if tickets can go up after court rulings or not? I have never heard of this before and frankly I'm surprised the judge allowed it in open court. Given this was a public matter, the judge and prosecutor's names should be able to be publicized.

Some Beyond Baller should get a measily ticket and go in there with a high end lawyer just to shit down that guy's throat and put him in his place. The fact he scared 90% of the people there to plead guilty by some bogus claim seems like a crime in and of itself.

[gwill]

you may have won the case, but if possible i'd stay as far away from that rcmp detachment as possible. they will find some reason to pull you over and give you more tickets (even if you will fight them too) just to show they can make you waste your time and resources. similar thing happened to me in Calgary at the courthouse. little man cop was fuming mad that people were fighting his tickets, was telling the same bs stories.

This is what my wife says, not to push things any further. I'm all for standing up for peoples rights so I think I need to lodge a few complaints. I'm curious if the prosecutor broke any rules and definitely interested in holding the rcmp accountable. Just need to think about things a bit before proceeding.

The reason I have dash cams is because I've had a similar experience with the police where they lied on the stand before. So I was prepared with all sorts of evidence at this trial as I expected certain things to be said and I was ultimately right.

- - - Updated - - -


This whole scenario is so fucked. I mean part of me is at least content that the judge ruled in your favour and didn't dismiss the evidence you provided. On the other hand, this was clearly everyone against you which is total bullshit.

Can someone with real legal experience say if tickets can go up after court rulings or not? I have never heard of this before and frankly I'm surprised the judge allowed it in open court. Given this was a public matter, the judge and prosecutor's names should be able to be publicized.

As I stood for my trial the prosecutor explicitly stated that I understand my risks that the ticket can be $287 up to $1000 depending on how the court decided at the end. I had to agree to this before proceeding.

I agree I've never seen this. Never had this stated on a previous traffic ticket that I fought. This was new for me.

[msommers]

What other evidence did you have or things to get ready? Inquiring minds would like to know...

I wonder about the ticket increasing if that's some sort of BS "verbal contract" that you essentially "signed".

You should call or make an appt with Alberta Legal Aid just to get an idea on where this stands. http://www.legalaid.ab.ca/contact/Pages/default.aspx

[98brg2d]

Here are some interesting articles about this subject:

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/10/26/star_gets_action_crown_must_now_report_police_who_lie.html

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-march-25-2018-1.4589621/michael-s-essay-when-the-police-give-false-testimony-in-court-1.4589643

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/02/04/what-to-do-about-police-who-lie.html

If you do some searching, you will probably find that in Canada, police perjury is almost universally accepted and not punished but in the US it is taken extremely seriously, to the point that the entire testimony history of an officer could be reviewed and every case they touched be reopened.

[gwill]

What other evidence did you have or things to get ready? Inquiring minds would like to know...

I wonder about the ticket increasing if that's some sort of BS "verbal contract" that you essentially "signed".

You should call or make an appt with Alberta Legal Aid just to get an idea on where this stands. http://www.legalaid.ab.ca/contact/Pages/default.aspx

I expected to hear them say I drove with my knees so I had lots of photos of my truck and steering wheel showing it was impossible. I assumed they'd say they saw a light glowing from my phone so I took photos of me in my truck with my phone turned on at its brightest setting which you couldnt see. Obviously had my dash cam video.

Lastly I took shots of my truck with the glare from my windows that would have made it really hard to see inside. They kept claiming they had no obstructions which I wanted to be prepared for.

Lastly the most important part to everything is having the judge believe your testimony. Keep your answers simple and short. I did get a bit cocky on the stand at one point which is never a good idea.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Disgusting abuses of authority. Glad you won. Evidence yet again that traffic enforcement is largely nothing more then revenue generation.

[Ca_Silvia13]

Do they transcribe what is spoken in traffic court? My time spent in the court house you can always pay for transcripts for everything spoken on the mics.

[gwill]

Do they transcribe what is spoken in traffic court? My time spent in the court house you can always pay for transcripts for everything spoken on the mics.

Yes they do when court is in session. I dont think it records anything when the judge is not in the room so it wont have my conversation when I attempted to talk some sense into the prosecutor nor will it have the conversations between the prosecutor and the first appearances that were there.

[schurchill39]

Not surprising at all. I had a very similar situation (minus the yelling) in Medicine Hat when I was 16 and got into an accident for "unsafe passing on the left hand side" when a guy pulled out from the shoulder across two lanes of traffic into me. Before the trial the RCMP officer was a complete dick and the prosecutor basically that he was going to take me to the cleaners because I was young and needed to be taught a lesson. After I won the case in the Judge's ruling he tore a strip off of me for taking it to trial and that I shouldn't consider this a win as all I did was create a reasonable doubt in his mind but that doesn't mean I didn't do it. After the trial the RCMP officer was one of the nicest guys. Such a bizarre situation that I hope to never repeat. It sounds like you had it wayyy worse (agree that it sounds like Ponoka) which sucks.

+1 on filing a complaint over perjury.

[Mitsu3000gt]

+1 on filing a complaint over perjury.

Perjury is very difficult to prove as you need to prove intent and that the deception was deliberate. It also has to be done under oath, affidavit, etc. The officer could just say he didn't mean to lie, he remembered it differently, that was to the best of his recollection, had wrong notes, etc. Nothing would ever come of it in a million years, unfortunately, and even then I am sure the officer would be given leniency.

[gwill]

Perjury is very difficult to prove as you need to prove intent and that the deception was deliberate. It also has to be done under oath, affidavit, etc. The officer could just say he didn't mean to lie, he remembered it differently, that was to the best of his recollection, had wrong notes, etc. Nothing would ever come of it in a million years, unfortunately, and even then I am sure the officer would be given leniency.

I specifically asked all sorts of questions to prove perjury. For example I asked if he could be remembering things wrong. I asked if his version of events was 100% correct. I also asked if he didnt remember things clearly or was unsure of everything how should the question be answered. I gave the officer multiple attempts to say at any point that his testimony was perhaps not as he mentioned.

I then asked him to confirm his version of events did not happen as per the dash cam video. He agreed.

I'm not a lawyer but if I lodge a complaint I would hope my line of questioning would be enough to prove intent/perjury.

I'm open to hearing what type of question I should have asked if those wont be enough. Might have went too easy on him and should have asked why he lied... but the judge may not have liked that.

[revelations]

Holy shit - I was going to guess Pincher Creek or Ponoka -> there is something definitely wrong with that town and the traffic members there.

But perjury on a traffic stop testimony - is not (unfortunately) going to go anywhere in Canada. You would have to be dealing in a criminal case in order to have perjury claims looked into.

Also, the CP likes to put on a good act it sounds like. Yelling and shouting at the defendants is pure theatrics.

[msommers]

I specifically asked all sorts of questions to prove perjury. For example I asked if he could be remembering things wrong. I asked if his version of events was 100% correct. I also asked if he didnt remember things clearly or was unsure of everything how should the question be answered. I gave the officer multiple attempts to say at any point that his testimony was perhaps not as he mentioned.

I then asked him to confirm his version of events did not happen as per the dash cam video. He agreed.

I'm not a lawyer but if I lodge a complaint I would hope my line of questioning would be enough to prove intent/perjury.

I'm open to hearing what type of question I should have asked if those wont be enough. Might have went too easy on him and should have asked why he lied... but the judge may not have liked that.

File a complaint regardless. The whole thing stinks to high hell.

[Perfect Dark]

Holy shit - I was going to guess Pincher Creek or Ponoka -> there is something definitely wrong with that town and the traffic members there.

Coming home from Edmonton last year I saw an RC from Ponoka parked in the ditch on the far side of the overpass trying to catch people speeding as they crossed over it. While this wouldn't be out of the norm usually, this guy happened to be standing with one foot on his seat and the other on the window sill of his open door to try and get a better angle.

Odd bunch in Ponoka for sure.

[revelations]

Ponoka traffic members also sit on the overpass in fucking lawn chairs, with PCs lined up on the onramp, waiting for the next perp.

[Buster]

What are these shitholes going to do when we all have autonomous vehicles that don't speed.

[Maxt]

What are these shitholes going to do when we all have autonomous vehicles that don't speed.

thought crime violation tickets for thinking about speeding.

[revelations]

What are these shitholes going to do when we all have autonomous vehicles that don't speed.

Thats not going to happen in 20 years - at least not until smart roads are implemented. Even the best estimators of road edge fail in snow/ice. A system similar to the cat-eyes on the roads (radar reflective) needs to be implemented first on all the edges and centre lines.

Even then the rural roads in most of AB means that you will always have a need for a manual-mode vehicle.

We will never reach 100% autonomous vehicles in the province - ever.

[Mitsu3000gt]

I specifically asked all sorts of questions to prove perjury. For example I asked if he could be remembering things wrong. I asked if his version of events was 100% correct. I also asked if he didnt remember things clearly or was unsure of everything how should the question be answered. I gave the officer multiple attempts to say at any point that his testimony was perhaps not as he mentioned.

I then asked him to confirm his version of events did not happen as per the dash cam video. He agreed.

I'm not a lawyer but if I lodge a complaint I would hope my line of questioning would be enough to prove intent/perjury.

I'm open to hearing what type of question I should have asked if those wont be enough. Might have went too easy on him and should have asked why he lied... but the judge may not have liked that.

Sounds like you did all the right things (I am also not a lawyer), but I would put money on nothing coming of it, unfortunately. No judge is going to slap an officer with a perjury charge from traffic court, though it sure would be nice if they would be held accountable for outright lying. Has that ever even happened before? Glad you got out of it, regardless - they are so many BS distracted diving tickets being handed out it seems.

I still think the best thing would be for officers to have to pay the ticket if the defendant proves their innocence. Clearly, that would never happen, but it would at least add some accountability and nobody would hand out tickets without being 100% sure.

[phil98z24]

Complain. Perjury is perjury. It doesn’t matter if it’s in a deposition, traffic court, or before the Supreme Court. Take it to the RCMP or the SolGen’s office. If what you’ve said is the complete account of it, then they’ve lied under oath and that’s not only criminal, but incredibly unethical and deceit is a surefire way to get canned from the profession.

None of us want those sorts of coppers out there interacting with the public and “upholding” the law, nor do we want them working with us. Get a complaint rolling on it.

[gwill]

mitsu - I've actually had a police officer lie on the stand before during a different traffic ticket many years ago which is why I've got dash cams in my vehicle now.
phil - i will be lodging a complaint. I've hit a few road blocks on getting the exact officers names to formalize a complaint. I've got one on the ticket which is easy but there were 2 officers in the car. The name of the second officer isnt on the ticket and my notes from the trial arent clear enough to know the name is 100% right.

So far the court house wont help me and the calls to the officers superiors havent been returned. I've even called the prosecutors office as a way to sort things out.

The rcmp office has pretended that they don't know who the one officers partner is. It seems no ones in a rush to help when you mention you want to be lodging a complaint against an officer and you need some help confirming some details.

[HiTempguy1]

Probably going directly to the station would help.

Unfortunately, this whole thing will be a struggle without the help of a lawyer. You should be able to get the court documents easy enough as they are public record. Even a paralegal or one of those "law help" services will probably get you rolling.

[nismodrifter]

keep us updated, very interested to see how this goes.

[msommers]

The transcript should have everyone in attendance.

[revelations]

Complain. Perjury is perjury. It doesn’t matter if it’s in a deposition, traffic court, or before the Supreme Court. Take it to the RCMP or the SolGen’s office. If what you’ve said is the complete account of it, then they’ve lied under oath and that’s not only criminal, but incredibly unethical and deceit is a surefire way to get canned from the profession.

None of us want those sorts of coppers out there interacting with the public and “upholding” the law, nor do we want them working with us. Get a complaint rolling on it.

Phil, in your opinion - perjury in a traffic court room - how much effort does the OP have to put into this and what are the potential results of a 3-5 year investigation with RCMP K Div brass?

For eg. I can see a member being reassigned and an official apology being issued - but the OP is out all his time and thousands in lawyer/legal fees.

Even then, does anything change? The RC's are still very much an old boys club - no matter how much LGBTQ press the HQ puts out in Ottawa.

[LUDELVR]

He keeps telling people if they waste the courts time with a BS excuse that he will make an example of them. [/U][/B]

I would love for you to get ahold of him and let him know that you plan to do the same thing! Best of luck to you on this one but as it has been stated, I don't think any of those guys in Ponoka will do anything to help you and moreover, they will do everything they can to prevent you from being successful. It sounds like you might need to enlist in the expertise of a lawyer which means you will have to fork out some cash and this will end up being, how much will it be worth to stand up for your principles.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see these guys get what they deserve but people in positions of power also have the power to take advantage of those they are looking down on. Best of luck to you on this endeavour.

[gwill]

The transcript should have everyone in attendance.

Finally got ahold of a nice lady at the court house who got me the correct spelling of the one officers name. She said transcripts are crazy expensive so she spent 2 minutes to help me out.

I conveniently left out the reason for why I needed the name but she helped out and got me what I was missing.




Phil, in your opinion - perjury in a traffic court room - how much effort does the OP have to put into this and what are the potential results of a 3-5 year investigation with RCMP K Div brass?

For eg. I can see a member being reassigned and an official apology being issued - but the OP is out all his time and thousands in lawyer/legal fees.

Even then, does anything change? The RC's are still very much an old boys club - no matter how much LGBTQ press the HQ puts out in Ottawa.

I've officially submitted a complaint now that I got the last name of the officer. In doing so the rcmp website did not work. I had to submit it over the phone.

I won't be paying a lawyer for the complaint. I'll be doing this all myself. So far what I learned is the complaint will be take a while to get started(up to 45 business days). Every 30 days I'll be provided an update in writing on any progress. Apparently the rcmp will assign an officer to investigate their own member. They said summer can be a busier time for complaints and it may take longer. I'm assuming due to summer vacations??

While it was a civilian committee that took my complaint all they do is review things. She did mention it's hard to prove the officers intent when lying on the stand and asked me to submit specific examples of the lies. It sounds like it's going to be a long process.

I've also filed a complaint with the law society over my concerns with how the prosecutor handled the entire day at the court house. Did this as no one from the prosecutors office has replied to my emails or returned any voice mails in my attempts to chat with them first.

And for the record this didnt happen in ponoka. Not that it matters.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Good on you for pursuing this.

I genuinely hope something comes of it but I will be shocked if there is any significant punishment whatsoever, let alone a (seemingly well deserved) perjury charge.

[msommers]

Without the transcript this could be hard but still, if the assholes name comes up again, it could really mean they do more digging.

Good on you for doing this.

[tonytiger55]

Was the RCMP officer under oath..?

[phil98z24]

Phil, in your opinion - perjury in a traffic court room - how much effort does the OP have to put into this and what are the potential results of a 3-5 year investigation with RCMP K Div brass?

For eg. I can see a member being reassigned and an official apology being issued - but the OP is out all his time and thousands in lawyer/legal fees.

Even then, does anything change? The RC's are still very much an old boys club - no matter how much LGBTQ press the HQ puts out in Ottawa.

It shouldn’t take much effort, because if there is enough evidence of deceit and perjury, they’ll pursue it relentlessly, especially after our own internal inquiry revealed the failings of our service to adequately address these sorts of matters. Deceit in this line of work is a flat out, no questions asked, you’re done, transgression. You have no credibility anymore and you aren’t useful, both in terms of trust and in the courts. It’s taken seriously.

Also, this shouldn’t cost the OP a dime. Complaining about actions of the state shouldn't cost the person making that complaint, unless it’s vexatious and frivolous. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it investigated by an external agency to ensure the integrity of the investigation, given the current state of affairs in policing and questions of accountability, ethics, etc.

It doesn’t change if people don’t ask for change. I am an advocate of people complaining about the people who do wrong in this profession, either to correct mistakes or all the way to ultimately dismissing them as they are unfit for duty. Properly demanding accountability makes us all better.

[spikerS]

It doesn’t change if people don’t ask for change. I am an advocate of people complaining about the people who do wrong in this profession, either to correct mistakes or all the way to ultimately dismissing them as they are unfit for duty. Properly demanding accountability makes us all better.

Hey phil98z24 good to see you still around.

Could I ask you, in your personal and professional opinion and of course with your experience, given the context as presented by the OP (assuming all true statements by the OP), what are the chances that these 2 RCMP officers are going to be in any hot water, or is this kind of instance really weak if there are no other examples of these 2 officers showing this type of behavior?

[Kloubek]

Entertaining story. Thanks for sharing, and thanks for fighting for proper justice. Assuming it all played out as you say (and I believe it did) what you experienced was ridiculous. Sounds like one of those brutal one-sided courts overseas.

[gwill]

Without the transcript this could be hard but still, if the assholes name comes up again, it could really mean they do more digging.

Good on you for doing this.

I'd assume the first thing the investigation will do is get the court transcripts. There couldn't be a better setting in regards to sorting out what was said. I suppose I could pay for this but if they are that expensive I'll let the investigators get it and I can give it a read.


Was the RCMP officer under oath..?

Yes 100%. It was a trial.

[suntan]

Sounds typical. Lawyers gonna lawyer. Lawyers lie all the time in court. Character assassination is common. They are trying to make you slip in your story. They are trying to make you lose focus.

[JRSC00LUDE]

These are the threads where I like to see Phil chime in, it's no secret I'm pretty anti-authoritarian and anti-government in a lot of ways but if everyone in Phil's position were like him we would have a much nicer balance.

[spikerS]

Sounds typical. Lawyers gonna lawyer. Lawyers lie all the time in court. Character assassination is common. They are trying to make you slip in your story. They are trying to make you lose focus.

lawyers are not under oath in the courtroom. It is their job to try and rip apart credibility by any means. They also don't usually directly accuse someone of something, or lie, but are usually suggesting/hinting at it.

[suntan]

Yup, you got it.

[gwill]

Sounds typical. Lawyers gonna lawyer. Lawyers lie all the time in court. Character assassination is common. They are trying to make you slip in your story. They are trying to make you lose focus.

I hold no grudge against the prosecutor for doing his job while I was on the stand but his actions before the judge were in the room were questionable IMO.

It seemed as tho people were pleading guilty out of fear. There was a bullying and intimidation factors being used. He made it seem if people decided to go to trial for their ticket that they'd be worst off.

He didnt want people exercising their right to a trial.

[Disoblige]

I hold no grudge against the prosecutor for doing his job while I was on the stand but his actions before the judge were in the room were questionable IMO.

It seemed as tho people were pleading guilty out of fear. There was a bullying and intimidation factors being used. He made it seem if people decided to go to trial for their ticket that they'd be worst off.

He didnt want people exercising their right to a trial.
That's what happens when you hate your job. You get jaded, grumpy and complacent.
He probably dealt with so many idiots in the past that he starts generalizing and judging people before they even speak.

[msommers]

While the prosecutor was able to do that, is a ticket legally allowed to increase in amount because you went to trial? I've only come across that you could be on the hook for court costs if the trial is longer than 5 days.

[suntan]

I hold no grudge against the prosecutor for doing his job while I was on the stand but his actions before the judge were in the room were questionable IMO.

It seemed as tho people were pleading guilty out of fear. There was a bullying and intimidation factors being used. He made it seem if people decided to go to trial for their ticket that they'd be worst off.

He didnt want people exercising their right to a trial.

From my experience with lawyers "on the other side", this is normal behaviour from them.

[Rat Fink]

.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Even to write a ticket for a cell phone off a glow you see is bullshit. The new instrument clusters are so bright everyone has a glow on their face haha.

This. The info. screen in the new Ram is bigger than my fucking laptop. But a phone is illegal if you so much as touch it.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Even to write a ticket for a cell phone off a glow you see is bullshit. The new instrument clusters are so bright everyone has a glow on their face haha.

Completely agree. There was someone on here who got a DD ticket for driving a manual, and another who didn't even have a phone in his car at the time he got a ticket for using one.

What is even more ridiculous in my mind, is that you can get a ticket for an officer seeing a glow on your face at a red light or hitting one button on your phone at a red light where there is zero danger, but while driving you are still allowed to:

- Have an extra large piping hot coffee in your hand
- Smoke a burning hot cigarette/cigar
- Eat / drink as much as you want
- Have a bunch of screaming kids in the vehicle throwing stuff at you, etc.
- Have a giant dog in the vehicle, unrestrained
- Play with your vehicles infotainment as much as you want, plug in electronics, put in a CD like it's 1995, enter long addresses into NAV, etc. which is all way more distracting than glancing at a smartphone to initiate a voice command or something
- Have alcohol in your system up to 0.05 BAL
- Put on makeup

I'd be fine with the law if there was any consistency whatsoever, but the way it is now it's set up as a pure money grab IMHO and ignores things that are far more likely to cause an accident.

[revelations]

^ there was a member here (or some other local group) that mentioned they were handing out more DD tickets now than speeding tix. And it wasnt reaching either - these people were texting with their phones visible on the steering wheel or calling with it in their ear.

[Mitsu3000gt]

^ there was a member here (or some other local group) that mentioned they were handing out more DD tickets now than speeding tix. And it wasnt reaching either - these people were texting with their phones visible on the steering wheel or calling with it in their ear.

Doesn't surprise me. It's what, $267? Easy money.

If people are swerving down the road texting, absolutely they deserve a ticket. Talking on a phone though is probably the least distracting thing I can think of among all the things mentioned. It's more the fact you can't even glance at your phone at a 5-minute-long red light, but you can have a soccer mom driving a van full of misbehaving kids around with a 0.04 BAL, a dog in the back, cigarette in one hand, while trying to enter a navigation address with the other, and that is 100% fine lol.

[gwill]

This. The info. screen in the new Ram is bigger than my fucking laptop. But a phone is illegal if you so much as touch it.

I learned that if you look at your phone if it's on that's illegal. There was one guy at the court house who wanted to go to trial. He had his phone in a phone holder being used as a GPS and because it was on and facing him the prosecutor said that is distracted driving.

That guy ended up pleading guilty out of fear he would have his fine tripled.

[Mitsu3000gt]

I learned that if you look at your phone if it's on that's illegal. There was one guy at the court house who wanted to go to trial. He had his phone in a phone holder being used as a GPS and because it was on and facing him the prosecutor said that is distracted driving.

That guy ended up pleading guilty out of fear he would have his fine tripled.

That is how you know the law has nothing to do with safety whatsoever.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can still use a traditional standalone GPS without issue, which is equally ridiculous if true given that it takes 10X longer to put in an address haha.

[firebane]

That is how you know the law has nothing to do with safety whatsoever.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can still use a traditional standalone GPS without issue, which is equally ridiculous if true given that it takes 10X longer to put in an address haha.

I saw a guy driving 10 under while looking at a mounted phone using navigation AND entering the coordinates.. I was like wtf.

[Rocket1k78]

Well done!

[RX_EVOLV]

I saw a guy driving 10 under while looking at a mounted phone using navigation AND entering the coordinates.. I was like wtf.

Is it considered DD if you have your phone mounted on the vents and using it to say use navigation or change music? or it has to be in your hand.

is it also considered DD if you are holding a coffee and drinking it with one hand while driving?

curious.. would hate to get pull over for drinking a coffee...

[Mitsu3000gt]

Is it considered DD if you have your phone mounted on the vents and using it to say use navigation or change music? or it has to be in your hand.

is it also considered DD if you are holding a coffee and drinking it with one hand while driving?

curious.. would hate to get pull over for drinking a coffee...


That is illegal apparently, just because it's a phone:


I learned that if you look at your phone if it's on that's illegal. There was one guy at the court house who wanted to go to trial. He had his phone in a phone holder being used as a GPS and because it was on and facing him the prosecutor said that is distracted driving.

That guy ended up pleading guilty out of fear he would have his fine tripled.


Drinking your hot coffee is fine though, that isn't distracted driving even though it's way worse haha. See my earlier posts - you can smoke, drink, eat, play with your infotainment, pet your dog, etc. all of that is fine to my knowledge.

[revelations]

It shouldn’t take much effort, because if there is enough evidence of deceit and perjury, they’ll pursue it relentlessly, especially after our own internal inquiry revealed the failings of our service to adequately address these sorts of matters. Deceit in this line of work is a flat out, no questions asked, you’re done, transgression. You have no credibility anymore and you aren’t useful, both in terms of trust and in the courts. It’s taken seriously.

Also, this shouldn’t cost the OP a dime. Complaining about actions of the state shouldn't cost the person making that complaint, unless it’s vexatious and frivolous. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it investigated by an external agency to ensure the integrity of the investigation, given the current state of affairs in policing and questions of accountability, ethics, etc.

It doesn’t change if people don’t ask for change. I am an advocate of people complaining about the people who do wrong in this profession, either to correct mistakes or all the way to ultimately dismissing them as they are unfit for duty. Properly demanding accountability makes us all better.

Thanks Phil - based on your knowledge - has anyone been punished for Perjury in TRAFFIC COURT?

There are plenty of public examples with regards to CRIMINAL cases. One RCMP member spent almost 2 years in jail for this (YVR taser debacle).

[JRSC00LUDE]

That is how you know the law has nothing to do with safety whatsoever.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can still use a traditional standalone GPS without issue, which is equally ridiculous if true given that it takes 10X longer to put in an address haha.

The only people who believe it's ever been about safety also eat with corks on their forks.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

I learned that if you look at your phone if it's on that's illegal. There was one guy at the court house who wanted to go to trial. He had his phone in a phone holder being used as a GPS and because it was on and facing him the prosecutor said that is distracted driving.

That guy ended up pleading guilty out of fear he would have his fine tripled.

Pretty much, based on how the law is written:


Cellular telephones, electronic devices, etc.

115.1(1) Subject to this section and the regulations made under section 115.5, no individual shall drive or operate a vehicle on a highway while at the same time

(a) holding, viewing or manipulating a cellular telephone, radio communication device or other communication device that is capable of receiving or transmitting telephone communication, electronic data, electronic mail or text messages, or

(b) holding, viewing or manipulating a hand‑held electronic device or a wireless electronic device.

(2) An individual may drive or operate a vehicle on a highway while using a cellular telephone or radio communication device in hands‑free mode.


Emphasis in bold. Viewing a telephone screen while driving for any reason is technically illegal. The only exception is for calling 911 in an emergency. If you use your phone as a music source or for GPS, if you even glance at it you are breaking the law. Dedicated GPS units follow different rules.

The next section makes a distinction for looking at a telephone in "hands-free mode", good luck proving that one in court.



Display screen visible to driver prohibited

115.2(1) Subject to this section and the regulations made under section 115.5, no individual shall drive or operate a vehicle on a highway if the display screen of a television, computer or other device in the vehicle is activated and is visible to the individual.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the display screen of

(a) a global positioning system navigation device while it is being used to obtain navigation information in accordance with section 115.3,

(b) a cellular telephone or radio communication device being used in hands‑free mode,

(c) a logistical transportation tracking system device that is used to track vehicle location, driver status or the delivery of packages or other goods for commercial purposes,

(d) a dispatch system used for the transportation of passengers,

(e) a collision avoidance system device while it is being used to provide collision avoidance information, or

(f) an instrument, gauge, device or system that is used to provide information to the individual regarding the status of various systems or the location of the vehicle.


The law was written to give officers and prosecutors huge leeway to charge you for pretty much having a visible telephone screen in your car at any time.

[revelations]

I recall the initial debate around the DD law - it was supposed to be used in cases where it was OBVIOUSLY affecting someone (weaving, etc.) behind the wheel - but the LEOs in the province wanted to have another tool to throw around.

[holden]

Would you be allowed to wear a GoPro on your head to document the bullying?

[Misterman]

I recall the initial debate around the DD law - it was supposed to be used in cases where it was OBVIOUSLY affecting someone (weaving, etc.) behind the wheel - but the LEOs in the province wanted to have another tool to throw around.

Yup. That's the problem with these sweeping laws like this. They actually do have good intentions, and that's the argument these Liberal Helen Lovejoy's take when they vouch for this shit. The right wing says the same thing every time, "If you make a law to allow the government to infringe on your rights, it will get abused. Period" Sure enough, every single damn time the right wing is right about that.

It's really sad that revenue generation is the main driver for traffic enforcement. There actually IS a legitimate major problem with DD in regards to safety. It accounts for around 65% of accidents. But when law enforcement does not enforce these things within the spirit of the law, behaviors never change because the actual distracted drivers tend to get away with it 99.9% of the time.

[Misterman]

^ there was a member here (or some other local group) that mentioned they were handing out more DD tickets now than speeding tix. And it wasnt reaching either - these people were texting with their phones visible on the steering wheel or calling with it in their ear.

I call 100% bullshit on this. There might be one small jurisdiction where they have actually decided to enforce traffic safety in their traffic division. But as a whole it is not even remotely close on tickets. I drive by the same god damn 5 mass speed traps every single day here, and outside of that it is very rare to see someone so much as pulled over. Yet I am almost taken out twice a day by some dipshit looking down at his phone in his lap more than the road.

[kertejud2]

Yup. That's the problem with these sweeping laws like this. They actually do have good intentions, and that's the argument these Liberal Helen Lovejoy's take when they vouch for this shit. The right wing says the same thing every time, "If you make a law to allow the government to infringe on your rights, it will get abused. Period" Sure enough, every single damn time the right wing is right about that.


More power to law enforcement (traditionally right wing organizations), Helen Lovejoy (religious moral zealot)...you have your left and rights all messed up.

[Misterman]

More power to law enforcement (traditionally right wing organizations), Helen Lovejoy (religious moral zealot)...you have your left and rights all messed up.

You might have reality all messed up.................still.

[msommers]

No he's got you there. That's the problem with sweeping statements like this.

[kertejud2]

You might have reality all messed up.................still.
So paint the reality for me:

The right wing introduced the law, the right wing continuously pushes the importance of law enforcement so is unlikely to take away a lucrative money stream away from them. How disappointed in the right wing will you be when they don't get rid of this law now that they're back in power?

Also, Helen Lovejoy is a caricature of the Christian right moral authority of the 90s. What gave you the impression she's in any way liberal? She's constantly at odds with the liberal archetypes in the show (Lisa and Marge, particularly).

[Misterman]

So paint the reality for me:

The right wing introduced the law, the right wing continuously pushes the importance of law enforcement so is unlikely to take away a lucrative money stream away from them. How disappointed in the right wing will you be when they don't get rid of this law now that they're back in power?

Also, Helen Lovejoy is a caricature of the Christian right moral authority of the 90s. What gave you the impression she's in any way liberal? She's constantly at odds with the liberal archetypes in the show (Lisa and Marge, particularly).

Good for you, you tried to form a conjecture based argument that didn't exist in the first place. Back to your regular scheduled program.

[kertejud2]

Good for you, you tried to form a conjecture based argument that didn't exist in the first place. Back to your regular scheduled program.

Where's the conjecture? The right wing made the law. So when they say it will get abused and they're right about it, it just means they made a law knowing they would abuse it. Not sure what's so great about being right about that.

[Misterman]

Where's the conjecture? The right wing made the law. So when they say it will get abused and they're right about it, it just means they made a law knowing they would abuse it. Not sure what's so great about being right about that.

The government introduced the law, not the people. Helen Lovejoy as a pop culture reference is not as a Christian moral authority, but for her catchphrase of "Somebody think of the children" in support of all the kneejerk BS, which is akin to the left.

[kertejud2]

The government introduced the law, not the people. Helen Lovejoy as a pop culture reference is not as a Christian moral authority, but for her catchphrase of "Somebody think of the children" in support of all the kneejerk BS, which is akin to the left.

It is akin to the Barbara Bush era ‘moral crusaders’ who wanted kids to be protected from rock music and violent video games and other explicit imagery. She is a member of the Springfield Republican Party (when Sideshow Bob rigged the vote to “toughen up on crime, lower taxes and rule you like a king!”).

Helen Lovejoy is a right winger through and through.

[gwill]

Interesting issue on one of my complaints. Turns out the prosecutor is not a lawyer so the law society cant take a complaint. The prosecutors office has refused to acknowledge my complaint or return any of the calls.

They wont even acknowledge that they've received a complaint. Law society says I have to deal with the prosecutors office which is going no where or Alberta Justice. I can't seem to find any official links from Alberta justice to contact. Maybe due to the election and the cabinet changes???

[msommers]

Alberta Legal Aid may be a better resource to answer your question:
http://www.legalaid.ab.ca/Pages/default.aspx

[dirtsniffer]

how is the prosecutor not a lawyer?

[rage2]

Wait WUT? You don't need to be a lawyer to be a prosecutor?

[rx7boi]

Interesting. Prosecutors don't need to be lawyers?

Any chance they're just fucking with you?

[revelations]

hahahaha, thats funny..... CP not a lawyer.

a) they are fucking around
b) they have some tool 'pretending' to be a CP - because small town traffic court and no one gives a fuck? You might have stumbled on something thats not supposed to be talked about.
c) they might mean someone who did not get called to the bar, but otherwise went to law school? (technically, not a lawyer)

[JRSC00LUDE]

It is akin to the Barbara Bush era ‘moral crusaders’ who wanted kids to be protected from rock music and violent video games and other explicit imagery. She is a member of the Springfield Republican Party (when Sideshow Bob rigged the vote to “toughen up on crime, lower taxes and rule you like a king!”).

Helen Lovejoy is a right winger through and through.

Serious question. Are you masturbating WHILE you have these arguments or just when you're thinking about them after?

[rage2]

Serious question. Are you masturbating WHILE you have these arguments or just when you're thinking about them after?
What's funny is that it was the dems who pushed for protection of kids from music. You know those parental advisory stickers? That was Tipper Gore. So I'm pretty sure kertejud2 just picked the wrong second lady and the wrong party. I'm still pissed that Twisted Sister got fucked over out of all that, for We're Not Gonna Take It. I don't even know why Tipper Gore is still with Al Gore, considering he invented the internet, which is way worse than Twisted Sister.

[HiTempguy1]

Serious question. Are you masturbating WHILE you have these arguments or just when you're thinking about them after?

In her case, probably both.

[Clever]

Wait WUT? You don't need to be a lawyer to be a prosecutor?

I remember seeing this position being advertised and I was surprised that being a lawyer is not required for the job.

Also, I’m not discounting the story of the OP about the prosecutor but, that kind of behavior doesn’t usually fly in court, someone, most likely the clerk or court orderly would let the judge or justice know and they deal with it prior to or during court.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Turns out the prosecutor is not a lawyer

wait what

[gwill]

Interesting. Prosecutors don't need to be lawyers?

Any chance they're just fucking with you?

The law society said since traffic court is a non criminal matter that the prosecutors are not always a lawyer. The charges are not technically under the criminal code but under the highway traffic act.

They said it sounds like my prosecutor is most likely a former police officer who's been acting as an agent for the crown.

I'm not having any luck finding out who takes a complaint with a person who isnt a lawyer as the crown office has refused to acknowledge I exist and refused to return my calls.

[Ca_Silvia13]

The law society said since traffic court is a non criminal matter that the prosecutors are not always a lawyer. The charges are not technically under the criminal code but under the highway traffic act.

They said it sounds like my prosecutor is most likely a former police officer who's been acting as an agent for the crown.

I'm not having any luck finding out who takes a complaint with a person who isnt a lawyer as the crown office has refused to acknowledge I exist and refused to return my calls.

Have you thought about calling Points? I think they do free consultations and really you're just asking who to contact and not for them to get involved.

[88CRX]

I commend you for taking the time to actually run this up the flagpole. I'm sure they're ignoring you in hopes that you just give up. Fuck em.

[killramos]

Maybe get in contact with Doug Schweitzer’s office (new Justin Minister).

Sounds like a good opportunity for the new government to knock the establishment down a peg in a way that will be popular with every day people.

[Misterman]

They said it sounds like my prosecutor is most likely a former police officer who's been acting as an agent for the crown.



Well that explains the attitude.

Whether this person is a lawyer or not seems irrelevant imo. They are representing the provincial government in a court of law, and as such that makes Alberta Justice responsible for this person. I hope someone isn't blowing smoke up your ass about this, but I'm not sure what else could be going on? There's no way they can just let some goof ball that they employ act in whatever manner he deems fit, just because he isn't an official lawyer.

[gwill]

Maybe get in contact with Doug Schweitzer’s office (new Justin Minister).

Sounds like a good opportunity for the new government to knock the establishment down a peg in a way that will be popular with every day people.

looks like Doug's info isnt online yet to reach out. This may be a good next step until someone from the prosecutors office reaches out.

[spikerS]

out of curiousity, I wonder if it might be worthwhile contacting a media outlet about this, and see if this is a story they might like to run with? They love David VS Goliath stories, and when they can stick it to the government, they love it even more... And if they do pick it up, it would probably get you WAY more traction and results than you could reasonably expect on your own.