Bloody cops... go figure?

[DEFCON]

I do not bwlieve that your arguement can survive the test.

Let's take a look at the evidence as it's presented in Mitch's post. We'll ignore the evidence that convicts Mitch on a number of counts for the sake of brevity.

"falling in behind a cop car just as we exited the 427 onto the 407 eastbound... There were 3 of them in the well marked highway cruiser, and it looked from behind to be not an OPP car"

"I stayed about 100 ft behind him as he doddled along at between 130 and 140 kph... occasionally slowing as people in front of him eased off the speed because of his presence."

"Eventually, after about 10 miles of that, he came upon a van in the left lane who slowed but wouldn't move"

"I passed them both at a decent 125kph... As I went by I confirmed it was a Durham Region cop car"

"we wouldn't be in their jurisdiction for another 10 miles or so

"Soon he too pulled right into the middle lane to pass the van and I stayed where I was to let him pass me in the left lane... As he went by I glanced over and noticed the right seat cop grinning at me... I followed (still at a respectably healthy distance) again, up to about 140."

"Suddenly, with no one in front of him, he started breaking"

"I slowed and closed the distance a bit... more breaking and again the distance closed... then he put his light show on the roof on for just a second, then resumed his pace"

All of the above proves what? I believe it demonstrates the police were moving at a higher rate of speed than posted. They also provided a warning to an individual demonstrating very unusual behavior.

"(my guess is two of them had gone for a ride to pick up the 3rd from the airport), they would (and have many times) nail me for doing that speed."

I believe the "my guess" above led you to prosecute and convict without any evidence to support your investigatively speaking, premature conclusions.

[Guest Labtec]

Whizbang:

The courts do not consider police expert when it comes to judging speed. They only provide lay opinion evidence on this matter. Even where they are using technology they give a lay opinion. The difference is that if they are using a radar device their evidence will likely be given more weight by the court. However, even this can be overcome by an effective cross-examination if the constable can be shown to not know the proper procedure for calibrating his equipment.

Interestingly, in DUI cases where a police officer testifies as to the level of intoxication of an accused he is only providing lay opinion evidence. The courts will only consider expert evidence from toxicologists etc. If 5 other witnesses, that weren't police officers, testified contrary to the officers evidence the court would likely give the officer's evidence little weight.

If the accused has a breath sample taken the police only are give evidence that they followed a procedure, not that they are expert. Expert analysis requires a toxicologist.

Other things that the courts will accept opinions from people who have no special expertise are things like age of a person, identity, as mentioned earlier speed of vehicles and intoxication. All that is required is that the witness giving evidence have direct knowledge of the circumstances.

Happy Holidays

Labtec

[DEFCON]

Mitch

You're very funny.

"if they'd only think a wee bit about what it is that makes them feel entitled to do so,"

Should they have stopped you or perhaps you them? After you were both stopped maybe they would have provided you with an explanation for your consideration?

If you feel so stongly about issues such as "cops speeding" then why not pursue the matter on some other day without committing a number of crimes yourself?

[DEFCON]

Labtech

"lay opinion evidence"

...from a qualified observer.

"Even where they are using technology they give a lay opinion. The difference is that if they are using a radar device their evidence will likely be given more weight by the court."

There are very very very few positive outcomes when defending "radar charges". The "cop didn't show up in court" arguement isn't even a guarantee.

"However, even this can be overcome by an effective cross-examination if the constable can be shown to not know the proper procedure for calibrating his equipment."

There's one of the few good arguements referred to above. Another highly unlikely chance of probability of success here though.

Interestingly, in DUI cases where a police officer testifies as to the level of intoxication of an accused he is only providing lay opinion evidence."

If you are referring to a "qualified breathalizer operator" I'd be of the opinion that their "qualfied opinion" will survive the test as above.

"The courts will only consider expert evidence from toxicologists etc."

You don't need a degree to become an "expert" in the eyes of the court.

"If 5 other witnesses, that weren't police officers, testified contrary to the officers evidence the court would likely give the officer's evidence little weight."

The DUI's 5 buddies that happened to be in the car with him?

"Other things that the courts will accept opinions from people who have no special expertise are things like age of a person, identity, as mentioned earlier speed of vehicles and intoxication. All that is required is that the witness giving evidence have direct knowledge of the circumstances."

I agree on all bt one point. The courts will "weigh the evidence" rather than accept it.

[Mitch Cronin]

Defcon,

The comment "if they'd only think a wee bit about what it is that makes them feel entitled to do so," meant that their own self justification is likely the very same as mine.

Putting on a uniform and hopping into a highway cruiser doesn't make a man a better driver. The driving courses they take could be (and very likely are) taught by people with less experience than some of us....

The point seems to have been lost somewhere... These guys were demonstrating, quite nicely that the speed limits are silly. Yet, in another circumstance, they wouldn't have hesitated to tell me (with penalty) that I'd been endangering someone somehow doing exactly as they were.

Our speed limits are silly. I experience, demonstrate, and live that every day I drive to and from work. These guys slowed me down.

[DEFCON]

Mitch

To draw an aviation analogy:

Some duties of the police require moving at a higher rate of speed. These particular duties would be akin to the "pan pan pan" type of event in flying.

Other police duties may require the use of lights and or the siren. They would be the "mayday mayday mayday" events. When an emergency vehicle puts its lights on people are required to get out of the way in advance of their arrival. This form of road drama is not always necessary or prudent.

[Mitch Cronin]

Nope. I'm not that dense. These guys weren't in pan pan pan mode... they, like a gazillion others I've seen over time, were just trying to get where they wanted to go without wasting time. Just like you and I do all the time.

[Maverick]

You're right Mitch, SD is the only guy I've ever seen call "rotate" on the lead-in line followed by a max energy braking effort. It's a sight to behold let me tell 'ya.

Sorry Steam, I couldn't resist!

Back to the Myer's and coke!!

[Guest Labtec]

Defcon:

With respect, I think you are confusing admissibility with weight. They are two very different things. In order for the trier of fact to weigh the evidence it has to be admissible.

There are basically three ways to beat a radar ticket. Identity (It wasn't me), Attack the reliability of the equipment, or attack the reliablility of the technician, or a combination of the three.

The easiest way is to plead guilty with an explanation and throw yourself on the mercy of the court. You can beat a traffic ticket. Police make mistakes.

In Ontario breathalyzer technicians are not considered experts by the court. You are correct when you say you don't need a degree to be an expert in any particular area. However, if you are going to give evidence as a toxicologist you had better have some sort of post secondary education. If you are going to give evidence as an expert on flight operations you had better be a pilot. There is no need for a degree but it helps.

In fact, the notion of "expert" is a fairly low threshold to meet.

Interesting discussion...

[DEFCON]

I believe we've made the same staements in different ways. In any event, I have no arguement with your position.

[Mitch Cronin]

Defcon.. I don't want to beat this to death, but I see now you may have reached the conclusion that they were going as fast as they could, traffic permitting... They were not. Not even close. They were doddling. If there was some emergency, they could have been travelling MUCH faster, between momentary slow periods, with ease.

This was nicely demonstrated when pulling up behind the van, they neither used their lights, nor passed on the right, until I did after about a minute.

They weren't in any big hurry, they just knew they could drive faster than the posted limit (and faster than the unwritten 125kph that the OPP generally let people travel at) without worrying about getting ticketed.

Anyway, I think we have beaten this to death... I get it. Perks of the job... I'm still going to relate this story to the next cop that gives me a ticket... I think they're such highly visible role models / pace setters / example setters... that they ought to do as they would have us do.

Cheers, and thanks all, for your input.

Mitch

[Steam Driven]

Maybe so, but look at my on time performance!

[Guest Whizbang]

Labtec,

I'd love to debate this further; however, quite frankly, I haven't got the time to sit and type out a complete response to counter all your arguments. So, I will simply let you believe as you do, except for a couple of points.

"In Ontario breathalyzer technicians are not considered experts by the court."

Absolutely incorrect. I spent 3 weeks at the Center of Forensic Sciences in Toronto to become a Qualified Breathalyzer Technician. I have a certificate from the Ontario Solicitor General of Ontario to signify that fact. We are, or I should say I was, considered to be an expert witness in the eyes of the law when it came to giving breathalyzer evidence. That is why any good Defense Attorney was allowed to grab the operating manual for the applicable breathalyzer and question my knowledge on the theory and operation of the equipment to try and discredit my evidence.

You do not have to be a toxicologist to give "expert testimony" wrt breathalyzer evidence.

I know I won't convince you of this. Sorry for the "cop-out" if you excuse the pun, but discussions like this need to be discussed orally instead of writing a book.

Regards, Whizbang

[Guest Whizbang]

Hi Mitch,

Yeah, things have changed alot since I was chasing speeders. I used to never stop a vehicle unless it was doing 112kph in a 90kph zone. Then, after checking that the person wasn't wanted for murder, it was ALL attitude on their part which dictated the issuance of a ticket. There was however always a bad apple in every detachment who just loved giving out tickets. Big D&*k Theory methinks.

Regards, Whizbang

[cavok]

You are mistaken: See section 128.(13) subsection ( of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act:

128.(13) The speed limits prescribed under this section or any regulation or by-law passed under this section do not apply to,

(a) a fire department vehicle as defined in section 61 while proceeding to a fire or responding to, but not returning from, a fire alarm or other emergency call;

( a motor vehicle while used by a person in the lawful performance of his or her duties as a police officer; or

© an ambulance as defined in section 61 while responding to an emergency call or being used to transport a patient or injured person in an emergency situation.

The only thing open to interpretation is the "lawful performance of duty".

Police do NOT have to obey the speed limit.

[cavok]

You are mistaken: See section 128.(13) subsection -b- of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act:

128.(13) The speed limits prescribed under this section or any regulation or by-law passed under this section do not apply to,

-a- fire department vehicle as defined in section 61 while proceeding to a fire or responding to, but not returning from, a fire alarm or other emergency call;

-b- a motor vehicle while used by a person in the lawful performance of his or her duties as a police officer; or

-c- an ambulance as defined in section 61 while responding to an emergency call or being used to transport a patient or injured person in an emergency situation.

The only thing open to interpretation is the "lawful performance of duty".

Police do NOT have to obey the speed limit.

[Guest bgps]

Boy you guys should stick to what you know about...I've never seem such crap in all my life!!! Here's Mitch almost bragging that he normally drives at 130-140 in a clearly marked zone, to some guys giving their interpretation of the Ontario HTA.

I guess the next time you guys are flying on a pass to a sunny destination you will feel pretty bad sitting next to some poor slug who paid through the nose so you could fly for nearly free

BGPS