Here's an MP question. You are pulled over by the MPs, they take your papers and go back to their car. Your civilian truck is shut off and pulled off the road. You have been very polite. You pick up your phone and check your email, next thing you got an MP lecturing you that he can be charge you with operating a phone while driving. You end up with two warnings, one for not stopping long enough at a stop sign while making a right hand turn, the other for operating a phone while operating a vehicle. Hooey or correct.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Lightguns said:
HOOEY big time.....You were pulled over to the side of the roadway with your vehicle shut off. MP was being one of those "abuse of
- Reaction score
- 1,385
- Points
- 1,260
Lightguns said:
I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like hooey.
On the other hand, during a police stop ( they say there is no such thing as a "routine" police stop ), why say or do anything that might piss them off?
It could mean the difference between a ticket and a warning.
Or worse,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,188
- Points
- 1,160
Lightguns said:
Since the text of highway or motor vehicle acts may differ from province to province, the wording matters. From the New Brunswick Motor Vehicle Act http://laws.gnb.ca/en/showfulldoc/cs/M-17/#anchorga:l_iv_01
The intent seems to be similar in most jurisdictions.
Utter nonsense. Assuming your profile is accurate in identifying you as being in N.B.:
Blackadder already nailed the use of electronic handheld devices part.
There is nothing I can see in N.B. law about 'stopping long enough' at a stop sign. As long as there is a complete cessation of motion and you enter the road safely, that covers it.
New Brunswick Motor Vehicle Act said:
Blackadder already nailed the use of electronic handheld devices part.
There is nothing I can see in N.B. law about 'stopping long enough' at a stop sign. As long as there is a complete cessation of motion and you enter the road safely, that covers it.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 5,944
- Points
- 1,160
If an MP out of uniform is driving to work and they witness a traffic act violation, say not coming to a complete stop or not yielding the right of way, can they call their dispatch and have someone on duty track the driver down and give them a ticket 10 minutes later?
Negative.
I work in law enforcement, and that kind of thing is very much frowned upon. Not only that, but there is no discernible proof the offence took place.
He might say he witnessed the infraction, but because he is off duty, he wouldn't have any dash-cam video to prove it. Therefore, it would just be your word vs. his word - and thrown out.
Not only that, but the crown prosecutor would probably have a word with him, as it would be a complete waste of their time.
(If that happened to you, the complainant sounds like a douche-bag.)
I work in law enforcement, and that kind of thing is very much frowned upon. Not only that, but there is no discernible proof the offence took place.
He might say he witnessed the infraction, but because he is off duty, he wouldn't have any dash-cam video to prove it. Therefore, it would just be your word vs. his word - and thrown out.
Not only that, but the crown prosecutor would probably have a word with him, as it would be a complete waste of their time.
(If that happened to you, the complainant sounds like a douche-bag.)
Jarnhamar said:
Legally, yes they absolutely could. The threshold for laying a charge is if the person actually swearing the information has reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offense has been committed. An off duty MP is no different from a civilian witness in their ability to recount an observed offense to someone on duty who then writes a ticket. Now, for most police it would have to be pretty serious to be worth our time, and you won't normally see it for traffic stuff, but there's nothing stopping it from happening. If I'm driving home and I see someone pull a complete jackass stunt, and I really wanted to push the issue, as long as I'm willing to testify to what I observed, the charge can stand. A lot of provinces allow a ticket to be written to the registered owner of the vehicle where the driver cannot be proven.
In practice, I'd be surprised at anyone having the time and inclination to pursue a traffic matter when off duty. Most qwould consider that pretty chickenshit. But in law it's really no different from if I'm off duty and observe someone breaching probation conditions and report that, or I see someone knock someone else out and report that. A police officer does not have to observe an offense personally to lay a charge; the report from the original complainant simply forms the basis of the investigation.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 5,944
- Points
- 1,160
Brihard said:
Interesting.
So the uniformed MP would be able to write a ticket due to the testimony of the other MP? What if the driver were to argue that it wasn't true,would the court side with the testimony of the off duty MP since he's an officer?
Doubtful.
It would be your word vs. his word, without any form of actual evidence to base a decision on. Tossed.
Again, I doubt a crown prosecutor would even waste their time with it. If they did, it would probably be because they didn't bother to look at it until the morning of trial, in which case they would probably just toss it.
Sometimes a phone call from a lawyer is all it takes for the crown to look at a file and say "Yeah, your right. It's gone."
It would be your word vs. his word, without any form of actual evidence to base a decision on. Tossed.
Again, I doubt a crown prosecutor would even waste their time with it. If they did, it would probably be because they didn't bother to look at it until the morning of trial, in which case they would probably just toss it.
Sometimes a phone call from a lawyer is all it takes for the crown to look at a file and say "Yeah, your right. It's gone."
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
I've had successful convictions based on my visual observations alone without supporting evidence. It's how you articulate it (ie tracking history) and your credability in court. Remember the days when dash cams were rare..?
But for you to be off duty and give a statement regarding a traffic offence is pretty chicken crap. One it's a waste of time (unless it's blatantly dangerous driving), and two if I was the officer receiving the complaint I would point out that you need a life.
But for you to be off duty and give a statement regarding a traffic offence is pretty chicken crap. One it's a waste of time (unless it's blatantly dangerous driving), and two if I was the officer receiving the complaint I would point out that you need a life.
The word of a witness is actual evidence. I've had plenty of convictions for various offences based on witness evidence. That said, as Inspir said, it would be a chicken crap move for an off duty officer to pull in most circumstances, at least for a 'rules of the road' offense. We won't normally call in off duty for traffic stuff unless it's criminal- impaired, or blatant dangerous operation.
mariomike said:
I did it once in Oromocto on a late Friday night. Was a sh@t show. Seen a driver drinking a beer in the MCDs drive through, got his plate, called it in, Operator asks direction of travel, it's in town so I follow guy to his PMQ, give them the PMQ address. Operator says RCMP will contact me in few minutes. 2 days later on Monday, constable calls me, I go give statement, constable telling me it's my word versus his and Crown not likely to charge. That was the last time I called 911 for drunk driver.
- Reaction score
- 1,385
- Points
- 1,260
The CBC story that went with the pic I posted said, "911 calls would be instantly transferred to Ottawa police, and a call would be dispatched immediately."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/call-911-about-drunk-drivers-ottawa-police-1.903008
I don't know about out of town, but where I worked, calls got "stacked" aka "Call management".
The only real sure thing was that the firemen came when you pulled down the handle on that red box.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/call-911-about-drunk-drivers-ottawa-police-1.903008
I don't know about out of town, but where I worked, calls got "stacked" aka "Call management".
The only real sure thing was that the firemen came when you pulled down the handle on that red box.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Lightguns said:
I think the problem lies in the fact that the person made it home and was not still on the road. Even if the police had gone to their home, the person could have denied it, saying that they were drinking at home. You could have just been considered an irate neighbour or someone else with some sort of grudge. Had they been able to actually catch the drunk driver driving on a roadway, then it would have been a cut and dried case of impaired driving.
Yup. I love doing impaireds, and I'm fairly good at them. Driver continuity is key. If they make it home, there's extremely little chance of a conviction. Certainly not for over .80. Potentially for straight impaired if you have excellent driving evidence and solid evidence (video, bar receipts) of consumption. But it's exceptionally rare.
Realize that when you call in for somthing, any number of other things could be happening elsewhere that command police attention. We're always doing triage.
Realize that when you call in for somthing, any number of other things could be happening elsewhere that command police attention. We're always doing triage.
- Reaction score
- 1,385
- Points
- 1,260
George Wallace said:
I bet a lot of people reach for a bottle the minute they get home from work. Or better yet, the wife is waiting at the door with a Martini when she hears the car pull into the driveway. "Honey I'm home!" Maybe that was just in the old movies?
I would say I was familiar with the 9-1-1 system. Even before there was a 9-1-1. But, I have never had occasion to use it myself.
So, if you ever want to "drop a dime",
How to report an impaired driver
http://www.wheels.ca/guides/how-to-report-an-impaired-driver/
One of the things was that when one of our off-duty members should have dialled 9-1-1 ( or the old seven-digit emergency number that came before it ), they would instead call an un-taped "back line" unofficial number in Communications that everyone was familiar with for "off the record" conversations about calls.
This was common practice, perhaps still is, but frowned upon. Because that was one of many ways that calls could get "botched" or dropped with no recording.
