Speeding Ticket - Doesn't Make Sense

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by dexlargo
And the hood of the car diving as the driver locks up his brakes isn't obvious?

To slow down by 10km you don't need to lock brakes. I don't go 50 over or anything.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by frizzlefry

Not east of Saskatchewan it isn't. If it was a criminal act here it would be the only thing I know of that violates the Canadian criminal code in one province but not the others...

I asked a friend of mine who is a prosecutor, and she said the most likely reason that there is very few charges is that the police realize that a criminal charge of obstruction is a little extreme for a simple traffic violation. Since they're people too, and don't want to send people to jail over such a trivial thing, they're not going to actively enforce it. (kinda like the pot laws)

She also commented that the other provinces probably came to the same conclusion, and enacted legislation to make it a minor offense, instead of a major one.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by codetrap


I asked a friend of mine who is a prosecutor, and she said the most likely reason that there is very few charges is that the police realize that a criminal charge of obstruction is a little extreme for a simple traffic violation. Since they're people too, and don't want to send people to jail over such a trivial thing, they're not going to actively enforce it. (kinda like the pot laws)

She also commented that the other provinces probably came to the same conclusion, and enacted legislation to make it a minor offense, instead of a major one.

A very logical idea. Thanks for the info codetrap. At least a part of my opinion was backed up by what your friend said in this thread I sorta hijacked.

[DEATH2000]

Originally posted by frizzlefry

Not east of Saskatchewan it isn't. If it was a criminal act here it would be the only thing I know of that violates the Canadian criminal code in one province but not the others...

If its a Criminal Offense in one province its a Criminal Offense in ALL provinces. Its up to the individual officer making the stop to lay the charge. Every Police Officer has the right to lay it if they see fit.

Originally posted by frizzlefry

Yep. Most traffic officers have likely been jammed numerous times and had no idea. Sometimes takes a shot or two to get reading without a jammer being used.

Are you serious? Have you actually ever used a LASER device? No it doesnt. One shot, up to a full KM away if sufficient.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by DEATH2000
If its a Criminal Offense in one province its a Criminal Offense in ALL provinces. Its up to the individual officer making the stop to lay the charge. Every Police Officer has the right to lay it if they see fit.


Are you serious? Have you actually ever used a LASER device? No it doesnt. One shot, up to a full KM away if sufficient.

Hate to disagree but...say what? Many jurisdictions have a 1000 feet or less rule due to unreliable/false readings beyond that point.

Read the LTI TrueSpeed Manual for example. It mentions the various ways the gun cannot get a reading:
E 01 Measurement Error - the target was out of range or was too close.
E 02 Measurement Error - insufficient data. The unit does not have
enough data to measure speed. Possible Cause: early release of the
TRIGGER or time-out.
Measurement Error - low level of interference from a light source such
as a xenon headlight.
E 07 Jam Detect - high level of interference from a light source such as a xenon headlight. (So is everyone with Zenon headlights getting pulled over for jammer inspection? Pretty sure the sun is hellah bright too)
E 52 Temperature too cold. Stop operation.
E 53 Temperature too hot. Stop operation.

Maybe this is why prosecuters usually fight allowing people to have a copy of the user manuals for these things. The Laser Atlanta, one of the more popular lidar guns due to its jamming detection, is very reliable. Except when it returns jam codes for:
Snow
The Road
and a Honda's daytime running lights. The Stalker's often think there are jammers in couches although even the older blinder M25 did not throw jam codes on it.

Given that the MANUAL says a xenon headlight can throw jam codes and that the headlight is the best aiming point in AB as we have no front plate....I would disagree that lidar guns are 100% point and shoot. They sometimes can't get readings. I remember also reading a posting elsewhere from a cop saying that black cars in very sunny conditions are hard to get a read on. I also recall traffic_cop (pretty sure it was him) mention some time ago that they are trained to visually determine speed when their laser guns won't work.

Sorry, they are not perfect.

*edit* and I am aware that a person needs to be trained and I am sure someone will point out that the videos are by amatures but come on, the bloody manual says headlights cause jamming.

[Danny Meehan]

Respect Sir : )

Thanks for the laugh

Originally posted by Traffic_Cop


Thats BS!! I showed up at least twice a week!!, they even showed me how to spell guarantee.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by Danny Meehan
Respect Sir : )

Thanks for the laugh

No problem. Now that this top secret info is all out there and stuff...guess drivesafe BC will have to add "your headlights can cause the police to be unable to determine your speed. So think, is driving with your headlights on really worth a criminal conviction for obstruction?"

[frizzlefry]

Oh yeah...because they use LTI guns here and in the manual it admits that they false due to headlights I thought I should give everyone a tip Don't want to be pulled over for jammer inspection because of your headlights? Best way to prevent an LTI gun from showing a JA-1, JA-2 or JA-3 jam code is to use a jammer.. Granted, it did show an E-01 near the end meaning the car was too close. So its not perfect.

[frizzlefry]

Hate to resurrect a dead thread but there was a recent posting in a radar detector forum I read regarding some poor bastard who was recently charged under section 135.1 of the BC motor vehicle act for running a jammer. The specific violation is for obstructing a traffic control device (the act specifies traffic lights, the guy is easily going to win). This is NOT a criminal obstruction charge like the drivesafeBC site says you can be charged with. In fact, the drivesafeBC site is NOT a government site but a community blog run by a former RCMP cop. So any statements on the site are purely his opinion and, in fact, the page about being charged with criminal obstruction has changed to appear less factual and more opinion based. An "I have seen people charged successfully with criminal obstruction" (with no case law available) has replaced the previous "You will be charged with criminal obstruction". This subtle change occurred after comments were posted outlining how a criminal charge is not legally viable. Given that very recently someone was charged under the motor vehicle act I would say that the RCMP got slapped for hitting people running jammers with a criminal code charge and have, instead, applied charges under the BC motor vehicle act which really makes more sense as that is what other provinces have enacted jammer laws under.

In the recent posting by the person accused under the motor vehicle act they confiscated his jammer...here is the rundown on how this violates his 8th amendment rights against unwarranted search and seizure. Though I have no doubt the accused person in this case acted poorly and consented to a search of his car.

a) If they are charging people under the traffic act then they have no grounds to search vehicles or your person for a jammer unless you consent. Warrantless search can only be performed if there are reasonable grounds or suspicion that a CRIMINAL act has taken place, not a traffic violation. They can only search you (or your car) without consent if you are arrested for a criminal act.

b) The poster who recently got charged for his jammer mentioned that they confiscated it. This violates section 8 of the charter of rights and freedoms as in his case no criminal act was being alleged, only a traffic act violation. And warrantless search and seizure can only be performed if there is suspicion of a criminal act AND that there is reasonable suspicion that potential evidence will be destroyed if time is spent getting a warrant. Of course a warrant cannot be issued for a traffic violation.

c) Further to the confiscation of jammers…right now, under the law, bath salts (synthetic cocaine) can ONLY be confiscated if labeled/marketed as ecstasy or other illegal drug. As this type of synthetic cocaine is not illegal presently police cannot confiscate it. If you watch the news you will know that the cops cannot do anything about it as there is no specific provision banning “bath salts”. Messed up, I know, but the point is that Laser Jammers are also NOT illegal in BC and therefore cannot or, to be more exact, SHOULD not be confiscated by police. In short, the police violated his rights 6 ways from Sunday because he was not charged with a criminal act but a traffic act violation. Unless, of course, he consented to being searched. Even IF he did, he was charged under the traffic act and the traffic act in BC does not have a provision allowing jammers to be confiscated.

I honestly think that there is a lot of chest pounding by BC cops right now in regards to jammers. This recent post by a radar forum user seems to indicate that they are now charging under the traffic act, not the criminal code. Says to me that the RCMP got slapped for hitting people with obstruction over what is a traffic violation in other provinces. Being that they seem to be charging people with traffic violations they do not have the right to search you or your car and they do not have the right to confiscate your jammer without a provision in the traffic act that says they can do so. EXACTLY the same as the RCMP not being able to confiscate bath salts. They are not illegal just as jammers are not illegal, period. But, I suppose, bath salts don't mess with ticket revenue so the BC RCMP are trying their damndest to not apply the laws correctly in regards to laser jammers as they admittedly apply the law correctly to synthetic cocaine

[dexlargo]

Sorry to resurrect a thread that was quietly passing back into the grave, but i'm just seeing this now, and while I don't disagree with most of your message, I'd just like to point out a couple of things I think you've gotten wrong.

Originally posted by frizzlefry
here is the rundown on how this violates his 8th amendment rights against unwarranted search and seizure.

Probably just a typo, but of course in Canada we don't have any rights arising from the 8th amendment to the US constitution (no cruel and unusual punishments), but section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does protect against unreasonable search or seizure, which I'm sure is what you meant.

a) If they are charging people under the traffic act then they have no grounds to search vehicles or your person for a jammer unless you consent.

Not exactly. I don't have the time to dig up cites for you, but I believe that even for traffic safety act violations, police have the same power of seizure of evidence that they would for criminal offences. What you'd have to do is check on the seizure provisions of the criminal code that apply to summary conviction offences and see what they say about seizure of evidence. I'm pretty sure that they do apply, because police do seize evidence on TSA matters, and they don't get warrants. There just aren't very many offences in the TSA where they would want to seize evidence.

So, if there was a TSA provision that said 'possession of laser jammers is prohibited', or words to that effect, the jammer itself is obviously relevant evidence to that hypothetical offence. So long as the officer was properly positioned when he saw the device, I think he could legally seize it - but again, only if there is an offence for which it would be relevant.

Warrantless search can only be performed if there are reasonable grounds or suspicion that a CRIMINAL act has taken place, not a traffic violation. They can only search you (or your car) without consent if you are arrested for a criminal act.

Again, not exactly. The Provincial Offences Procedure Act incorporates the provisions of the Criminal Code that deal with summary conviction offences and makes those provisions applicable to provincial offences, like the TSA. Again, I'm not going to go through the Criminal Code and work it all out, but I'm reasonably confident that there are some powers to search related to TSA type offences. The thing is, there isn't a general power to search on arrest (or detainment) for a provincial offence, the officer would have to have a reasonable expectation that the search would discover evidence that is connected to the offence. Usually there isn't anything that could turn up, (e.g. on a speeding offence, what could they possibly search for in the vehicle that would be evidence for the speeding offence?), but for an offence like say, display unauthorized licence plate, they can and will seize the licence plate that they say is unauthorized. They don't need a warrant to do that. Under the Gaming and Liquor Act, they can seize alcohol from a vehicle as evidence related to improper transportation of the alcohol, etc. See what I'm getting at?

ETA - I may be wrong here - I'm not super-familiar with traffic laws and how they relate to seizure powers. The two examples I gave don't prove my point. There are explicit sections in the TSA and the GLA that allow seizures of licence plates and alcohol respectively. I'll have to think about whether or not some other type of evidence could be seized just for proof of a traffic offence.

It's the same point again, if there is a traffic offence for having/operating a laser jammer, I think the police could lawfully seize it. ETA - If such a law existed, it likely would also provide for the seizure of the item, similar to my above examples of license plates and alcohol. The only question is, is it actually illegal to have/operate a laser jammer in Alberta? If yes, then they could seize it. If no, then they can't.

I'm not sure if it actually is illegal or not. The TSA doesn't appear to have any applicable sections, but maybe the criminal code charge of obstruction of a peace officer could apply. The courts will have to decide that one, or the government could also explicitly make jammers illegal by changing the TSA to explicitly list them.

warrantless search and seizure can only be performed if there is suspicion of a criminal act AND that there is reasonable suspicion that potential evidence will be destroyed if time is spent getting a warrant. Of course a warrant cannot be issued for a traffic violation.

Why can't a warrant be obtained for a traffic violation? I don't see why a police officer couldn't get one, if he had the requisite grounds. I also don't see why an officer would ever bother to get one for a traffic matter - getting warrants takes more time and effort than most traffic tickets are worth. I don't want to be taken as saying that they can get warrants for traffic matters, I don't know that and I'm not going to research it. I just don't immediately see why warrants "of course" don't apply to TSA matters. You might be right, though, I don't know.

Anyway, those aren't the only conditions under which a warrantless search can be performed, those are just some of the grounds. There are other times (that I don't want to get into - this is already way too long) when warrantless searches are justified.

I also want to point out that the police officer has to have more than a bare 'suspicion' of a criminal offence, he has to have a reasonable belief that the evidence exists.

...[Bath salts aren't illegal and can't be seized, and] the point is that Laser Jammers are also NOT illegal in BC and therefore cannot or, to be more exact, SHOULD not be confiscated by police.

I think this is your best argument, and I don't know the answer.

I was surprised to read that police were charging with obstruction under the criminal code for using these, but it looks plausible. It strikes me as a bit like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly, but I don't see anything legally wrong with it. If I'm right that there's nothing legally wrong with that charge, it would make the jammer itself highly relevant evidence to the obstruction charge and police can certainly seize relevant evidence, without warrant, related to criminal charges. So, in my view the police could legitimately seize it without warrant, as evidence of the criminal offence of obstruction of a peace officer.

Whether or not you'd actually be convicted of that offence is another question. I suspect that those charges would not go to trial very often. I think the prosecutor would likely agree to withdrawing the criminal charge so long as the driver consented to forfeiting the jammer, but that's just a guess.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by dexlargo

I was surprised to read that police were charging with obstruction under the criminal code for using these, but it looks plausible. It strikes me as a bit like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly, but I don't see anything legally wrong with it. If I'm right that there's nothing legally wrong with that charge, it would make the jammer itself highly relevant evidence to the obstruction charge and police can certainly seize relevant evidence, without warrant, related to criminal charges. So, in my view the police could legitimately seize it without warrant, as evidence of the criminal offence of obstruction of a peace officer.

Whether or not you'd actually be convicted of that offence is another question. I suspect that those charges would not go to trial very often. I think the prosecutor would likely agree to withdrawing the criminal charge so long as the driver consented to forfeiting the jammer, but that's just a guess.

I doubt they do go to trial often. There is case law that states an inconvenience does not equal obstruction. Section 173 from the posted case:

It is not, in my view, sufficient for the Crown to meet its onus by simply demonstrating that the police officer has been inconvenienced to some degree. (R. v. Hargrove, (1985) 35 MVR 217.) The police are inconvenienced daily in their duties, but that is not enough to criminalize the actions of the person that has caused the inconvenience. When an inconvenience amounts to an obstruction is, of course, dependent upon the individual circumstances of each case. Suffice it to say that the inconvenience or the extra work generated by the accused’s conduct must be more than trifling or de minimus in nature.

Given that officers are trained to visually estimate speed and that visual estimation is accepted as evidence in speeding cases in liu of radar/lidar, all the officer running the lidar trap has to do if they cannot get a reading is to lower the gun and simply observe the vehicle, or observe it through the gun for that matter. Just as they could if the lidar gun failed because the car is black, has no front plate or has bright headlights. I would say having to lower the lidar gun and observe the car for a couple of seconds is a trifling inconvenience.

*edit* Rather than kick this thread back up I thought I would just edit for those who are following this thread. Found this alberta case law that addresses the question of turning the jammer off after a few seconds. Section 19.3 under the definition of obstruction states "Trifling, momentary or transitory actions on the part of the accused, which do not cause problems of consequence or which require only an insignificant amount of additional effort on the part of the peace officer, may not be sufficient to constitute “obstruction”

There you go. If you jam a lidar trap only for a few seconds and allow the officers to read your speed after that you only caused a momentary or transitory action and therefor your actions would not meet the requirements of an obstruction charge.

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by frizzlefry


I doubt they do go to trial often. There is case law that states an inconvenience does not equal obstruction.
...
Given that officers are trained to visually estimate speed and that visual estimation is accepted as evidence in speeding cases... I would say having to lower the lidar gun and observe the car for a couple of seconds is a trifling inconvenience.

First, that case law isn't binding on any court anywhere - it's a lower court decision from Ontario.

Second, the facts don't really translate to this situation. In your case the alleged obstruction was a bouncer not getting out of a doorway fast enough for the police officers. He didn't try to push them or brace himself, he stood with his arms folded and didn't immediately get out of the way when the officers wanted in to rapidly gain entry to enforce a time-sensitive warrant.

There was no positive action by the accused, rather there was brief inaction, before the police took him down to gain entry.

The judge also wasn't convinced that the bouncer intended to interfere with the police's execution of their duties, largely because he didn't do anything more than stand still, and it was just his sheer size that made him a barrier to the police.

That is very different than using a laser jammer. Using a laser jammer is a positive action, with the intent of interfering with the police's ability to measure speed. No intent issues, and there is a positive action taken - you are actively, purposely interfering with the police. I don't think you can characterize that as a 'trifling inconvenience'.

*edit* Found this alberta case law that addresses the question of turning the jammer off after a few seconds. Section 19.3 under the definition of obstruction states "Trifling, momentary or transitory actions on the part of the accused, which do not cause problems of consequence or which require only an insignificant amount of additional effort on the part of the peace officer, may not be sufficient to constitute “obstruction”

There you go. If you jam a lidar trap only for a few seconds and allow the officers to read your speed after that you only caused a momentary or transitory action and therefor your actions would not meet the requirements of an obstruction charge.

Again, not really applicable.

First off, it's at least an Alberta decision, but still at the Provincial court level, so not binding on any courts.

That said, it also doesn't support you in its reasoning. In that case the obstruction was a guy retrieving beer cans from a vehicle involved in an alcohol related collision. He was ordered to stop and leave the evidence alone, but he kept doing it. He was then charged and convicted.

The judge said that his actions were not trifling, and not de minimus in nature.

I don't think you can characterize briefly using the jammer as trifling or de minimus because the time that it's in use, even though it's just a few seconds, is the entirety of the time that is relevant for the purposes of enforcement. You wouldn't switch it off while you're still speeding, would you?

Edited for spelling - autocorrect doesn't get Latin.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by dexlargo

I don't think you can characterize briefly using the jammer as trifling or de minimus because the time that it's in use, even though it's just a few seconds, is the entirety of the time that is relevant for the purposes of enforcement. You wouldn't switch it off while you're still speeding, would you?

The cases I posted are quite relevant as they deal with the requirements for a successful obstruction charge. If you peruse canlii you will see that, overwhelmingly, obstruction charges are laid after extended willful acts and with police warnings being issued to cease that act. And the obstructions cause the officers to have to exert a considerable amount of effort to overcome it ie physically resisting arrest, giving a false name causing hours of delay and trying to destroy evidence of a crime after the fact etc etc.

If, in the absence of any instruction, you turn off the jammer within seconds of suspecting, not even knowing, but suspecting an officer is trying to hit you with lidar I think that meets the criteria of being a transitory act requiring no additional effort of the officer to measure your speed as the very action of using lidar causes them to be visually observing the vehicle which is a court accepted method of determining a person's speed. Is it a very brief inconvenience? Yes. But case law supports the position that an inconvenience does not equal obstruction. R v. Whalen states “[the obstruction] must result in more than a fleeting or momentary diversion or expenditure of effort” in order for it to be considered obstruction. The officers running the lidar trap are already observing the vehicle. It’s a zero amount of effort to continue doing what you are already doing. Traffic_Cop has mentioned they are trained to visually assess speed when the lidar guns won't get a reading, which happens sometimes without the use of jammers. Only way the officer could be significantly obstructed is if their training was inadequate and they could not really visually assess the person’s speed…but that could not be true could it?

On top of all this, most of the people who are being charged in BC for using jammers were not even speeding. So there was not even an execution of a charge that was being obstructed. But that’s another matter entirely.

After all this discussion, it’s pretty clear to me why some provinces have chosen to enact specific laws in regards to jammers. BC should do the same. I’m done.

[94boosted]

So has anyone in ALBERTA ever been charged (Motor Vehicle Act or Crminal) for having a laser jammer? Also are the posts in this thread strictly about laser jammers (i.e Blinder) or laser shifters (i.e Passport 9500ci)?

PS could someone on here confirm/deny the following please:

- Laser/Lidar is not used on highways as a rule of thumb and/or at distances over 1000'.

- There is a delay with laser though much less so than with radar. i.e when a laser DETECTOR goes off and you slow down immediately.

[alloroc]

Curb and parking sensors are legal.

Many also jam lasers --- oops.

[A2VR6]

Originally posted by 94boosted


PS could someone on here confirm/deny the following please:

- Laser/Lidar is not used on highways as a rule of thumb and/or at distances over 1000'.

- There is a delay with laser though much less so than with radar. i.e when a laser DETECTOR goes off and you slow down immediately.

For your first question, this is being less and less the case. I know for a fact that Banff uses Lidar. But I believe the majority of the rural/highway areas use Radar still,

For your second question, I know with my laser detector if it does go off with a warning, it's pretty much too late.

For your second point

[codetrap]

Originally posted by 94boosted
- There is a delay with laser though much less so than with radar. i.e when a laser DETECTOR goes off and you slow down immediately.

Hahaha..
A delay with laser. That's awesome. You do realize that light travels at 299,792,458m/s, right?

[Cos]

.

[94boosted]

Originally posted by A2VR6



For your first question, this is being less and less the case. I know for a fact that Banff uses Lidar. But I believe the majority of the rural/highway areas use Radar still,

For your second question, I know with my laser detector if it does go off with a warning, it's pretty much too late.

For your second point

Thanks man, I could of sworn I saw them using laser on the highway just past Banff last week

Originally posted by codetrap
Hahaha..
A delay with laser. That's awesome. You do realize that light travels at 299,792,458m/s, right?

Reason I asked if there was a delay or not was because I was not familiar with the operation of the LIDAR gun and how long it takes the gun to acquire an accurate reading but thanks for the physics lesson.

Originally posted by Cos
He is right. The delay is usually because they miss. They dont always get you on the first hit. Or they are hitting the guy in front of you and some gets refracted. However there is a reason that they sell the jammers. 99.99% of the time once it reads Laser you are f**ked.

Guess its time to pick up a blinder lol

[Mattyk]

I've wondered how quick laser worked to get a accurate reading. I've had thee separate instances on hwy two where my laser detector went off and I hit the brakes right away, but only once did the cop come after me. I was going the same approx speed in each case. Maybe I was just lucky?