Topic: Stunt driving law deemed Unconstitutional

[vdk]

Speeding is an absolute liability offence which cannot should not result in prison time as you cannot defend yourself against it.

Of course, you could choose to stay within 50 km / hr of the posted limit.  Naaah - that would mean you were taking responsibility for your own actions - can't have that! 

Jaeger

You can have that in court. Not on the side of the road. I don't think cops go through law school.

[Jaeger]

Speeding is an absolute liability offence which cannot should not result in prison time as you cannot defend yourself against it.

Of course, you could choose to stay within 50 km / hr of the posted limit.  Naaah - that would mean you were taking responsibility for your own actions - can't have that! 

Jaeger

You can have that in court. Not on the side of the road. I don't think cops go through law school.

Doesn't take a law degree to comprehend the digital readout on a radar gun.

Jaeger

[vdk]

Speeding is an absolute liability offence which cannot should not result in prison time as you cannot defend yourself against it.

Of course, you could choose to stay within 50 km / hr of the posted limit.  Naaah - that would mean you were taking responsibility for your own actions - can't have that! 

Jaeger

You can have that in court. Not on the side of the road. I don't think cops go through law school.

Doesn't take a law degree to comprehend the digital readout on a radar gun.

Jaeger

Innocent until proven guilty. Basic stuff. I want my day in court before they take my car away.

[Bubba]

Speeding is an absolute liability offence which cannot should not result in prison time as you cannot defend yourself against it.

Of course, you could choose to stay within 50 km / hr of the posted limit.  Naaah - that would mean you were taking responsibility for your own actions - can't have that! 

Jaeger

You can have that in court. Not on the side of the road. I don't think cops go through law school.

Doesn't take a law degree to comprehend the digital readout on a radar gun.

Jaeger

Innocent until proven guilty. Basic stuff. I want my day in court before they take my car away.

Bank robbers are innocent until proven guilty even if there is a video tape showing them robbing the bank.  Why don't drivers get the same courtesy?

[RunsinLight]

You mean you want the opportunity to look stupid before they take your car? 

[rrocket]

Speed-related fatalities, according to Fantino, are down almost 42 per cent from the same time last year, proof that the tough laws work.

But in more than 1,000 street-racing cases that have gone to trial so far, almost half the drivers have pleaded down to a lesser charge that carries no roadside suspension.[/color]

Depend on what you mean by stuck
With most of the case PLEADING down maybe the judges figure the person will not do it again and thinks lose their car for a week is already enough punishment
It would be nice to see an up to date list

That's absolutely, 100% a lie.  Some here may recall when I wrote a letter to several newspapers about this street racing law.  During my research phase, I called the OPP and sent them a letter asking how they determined what the root causes of accidents were and was told, flat out, that they do NOT keep such statistics.  They were also unaware how many actual deaths were caused by streetracing.

FWIW, if you were doing 5km/h over the limit during the time of accident, that would also get lumped in to "excessive speed".  

[vdk]

You mean you want the opportunity to look stupid before they take your car? 

I mean I want my right to defend myself in court before they decide to take anything away.

[Jaeger]

Speeding is an absolute liability offence which cannot should not result in prison time as you cannot defend yourself against it.

Of course, you could choose to stay within 50 km / hr of the posted limit.  Naaah - that would mean you were taking responsibility for your own actions - can't have that! 

Jaeger

You can have that in court. Not on the side of the road. I don't think cops go through law school.

Doesn't take a law degree to comprehend the digital readout on a radar gun.

Jaeger

Innocent until proven guilty. Basic stuff. I want my day in court before they take my car away.

I guess police shouldn't ever be able to arrest anyone and hold them in custody pending a court appearance, right?  They're all innocent, after all.  Why should they be "punished" by being placed in custody before they are even convicted?  Happens all the time, and with good reason.  It's called protecting the public.

I have no problem with them taking the car away from lunatics doing 250 on the 427.  Giving that guy a ticket and sending him back in his car to drive around until hi scourt case seems like a phenominally bad idea.

Jaeger

[Jaeger]

Speeding is an absolute liability offence which cannot should not result in prison time as you cannot defend yourself against it.

Of course, you could choose to stay within 50 km / hr of the posted limit.  Naaah - that would mean you were taking responsibility for your own actions - can't have that! 

Jaeger

You can have that in court. Not on the side of the road. I don't think cops go through law school.

Doesn't take a law degree to comprehend the digital readout on a radar gun.

Jaeger

Innocent until proven guilty. Basic stuff. I want my day in court before they take my car away.

Bank robbers are innocent until proven guilty even if there is a video tape showing them robbing the bank.  Why don't drivers get the same courtesy?

Bank robbers are generally held in custody - i.e. jail - until trial.  At least with the driver, only his car is impounded.

Jaeger

[tpl]

Bank robbery is a Criminal Code offence speeding is not.

If you are stopped for speeding you have committed the offence but there is no reason to believe that you will continue to do so so you should be sent on your way with the ticket ( which may be a serious one for 50 over)

If you are stopped for impaired then you must be stopped from driving at that instant as by definition if you start off again you'll still be impaired. E.g. there is every reason to believe that you will continue to offend.

I would repeal that law if it were my choice AND the new law concerning 50 mg/l of alcohol ( I'd go back to the old one of the  12 hour suspension).   I know the police would object and MADD would go beserk... too bad. I'd also provoke the police by raising the expressway and 2 laner speed limits by 20 km/hr.  But then I'll never be in any position to repeal a law so you can allstart breathing again.

[Triple Bob]

Speeding is an absolute liability offence which cannot should not result in prison time as you cannot defend yourself against it.

Of course, you could choose to stay within 50 km / hr of the posted limit.  Naaah - that would mean you were taking responsibility for your own actions - can't have that! 

Jaeger

You can have that in court. Not on the side of the road. I don't think cops go through law school.

Doesn't take a law degree to comprehend the digital readout on a radar gun.

Jaeger

Innocent until proven guilty. Basic stuff. I want my day in court before they take my car away.

I guess police shouldn't ever be able to arrest anyone and hold them in custody pending a court appearance, right?  They're all innocent, after all.  Why should they be "punished" by being placed in custody before they are even convicted?  Happens all the time, and with good reason.  It's called protecting the public.

I have no problem with them taking the car away from lunatics doing 250 on the 427.  Giving that guy a ticket and sending him back in his car to drive around until hi scourt case seems like a phenominally bad idea.

Jaeger

You make the strangest arguments Jaeger... 

[RunsinLight]

At least someone uses their brain here.

I have no problem with them taking the car away from lunatics doing 250 on the 427.  Giving that guy a ticket and sending him back in his car to drive around until hi scourt case seems like a phenominally bad idea.
Jaeger

[blur911]

Speeding is an absolute liability offence which cannot should not result in prison time as you cannot defend yourself against it.

Of course, you could choose to stay within 50 km / hr of the posted limit.  Naaah - that would mean you were taking responsibility for your own actions - can't have that! 

Jaeger

You can have that in court. Not on the side of the road. I don't think cops go through law school.

Doesn't take a law degree to comprehend the digital readout on a radar gun.

Jaeger

Innocent until proven guilty. Basic stuff. I want my day in court before they take my car away.

I guess police shouldn't ever be able to arrest anyone and hold them in custody pending a court appearance, right?  They're all innocent, after all.  Why should they be "punished" by being placed in custody before they are even convicted?  Happens all the time, and with good reason.  It's called protecting the public.

I have no problem with them taking the car away from lunatics doing 250 on the 427.  Giving that guy a ticket and sending him back in his car to drive around until hi scourt case seems like a phenominally bad idea.

Jaeger

This didn't seem like a very good solution either.  Taking this guys car only made him steal another and run  from the cops.  I wonder if the owner of the stolen car had to pay impound fees too?



 

Stunt Driving Charge, Stolen Vehicle and Fleeing From Police

 (Drummond North Elmsley, ON)  On Saturday the 29th of August, 2009 at 11:40 p.m. Lanark County OPP were conducting radar enforcement on Highway #7 at the 7th Concession in Drummond North Elmsley Township and Cst. B. Boyce observed a vehicle travelling westbound a high rate of speed and clocked the vehicle on radar at 160 km/h in an 80 km/h zone.

A traffic stop was conducted on the vehicle, a 1997 Chevrolet Lumina and the driver, identified as 18 year old Jordan MAHERAL of Kanata had his vehicle impounded and his driver’s license suspended for seven days, was charged under the Highway Traffic Act for Adult Race A Motor Vehicle and issued a summons for Perth Provincial Offences court for the 22nd of September, 2009. 

On Sunday the 30th of August, 2009 at 8:15 a.m. Highway Safety Division officer, Cst. J. Leaver was patrolling Highway #7 in Drummond North Elmsley Township and observed an eastbound vehicle speeding, clocked it a 113 km/h in an 80 km/h zone and proceeded to execute a traffic stop.

The suspect vehicle, did not stop, continued east bound and in the area of Drummond Concession #12, the accused driver crossed the centreline, travelled eastbound in the westbound lane, braked suddenly and veered onto the west bound shoulder of the Highway.

As the vehicle was still moving the two occupants leapt out the driver’s side door, fled on foot northbound into a field and the unoccupied vehicle came to rest in the ditch.  The officer proceeded after the accused and after a brief foot pursuit, the accused was caught and placed under arrest.  The passenger was not located.

This accused was identified as Jordan MAHERAL, the same male whom police had charged just hours earlier with Stunt Driving.  The vehicle being driven by MAHERAL, a 1994 Buick Century, was determined to have been stolen from a residence on Morrison Road in North Frontenac Township.

As a result of this incident, the 18 year old accused, Jordan MAHERAL, is charged under the Criminal Code with one count each of Flight From Police Officer, Dangerous Operation – Motor Vehicle, Obstruct/Resist Arrest, Possession Property Obtained By Crime Under $5000.00 and was released from custody on an Officer In Charge Undertaking with strict conditions and a Promise To Appear in Perth Provincial court for the 5th of October, 2009.
Additionally, at the time of arrest an odour of alcohol was detected coming from the accused and he had alcohol with him.  The accused was subsequently issued a 72-Hour Drivers License Suspension for registering a warn on the roadside screening device and was issued Provincial Offence Notices under the Highway Traffic Act for Class G2 license holder with Blood Alcohol Above Zero and under the Liquor License Act for Person Under 19 Years Having Liquor.

[vdk]

At least someone uses their brain here.

I have no problem with them taking the car away from lunatics doing 250 on the 427.  Giving that guy a ticket and sending him back in his car to drive around until hi scourt case seems like a phenominally bad idea.
Jaeger

So then he has nothing to lose by trying to run away from the police. Great idea! Bikers do it all the time.

[RunsinLight]

I can think of one. For ever 30 seconds of fleeing the fine goes up $20,000

[rrocket]

So then he has nothing to lose by trying to run away from the police. Great idea! Bikers do it all the time.

We would never do such a thing!!   

[vdk]

I can think of one. For ever 30 seconds of fleeing the fine goes up $20,000

Then he shall drive faster! Schnell schnell!

[DockMan]

Stunt driving law loses 2nd challenge
COURTS
By BRETT CLARKSON, SUN MEDIA
Last Updated: 24th November 2009, 3:34am

http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2009/11/24/11899216-sun.html

Thank God for level headed, non-political judges. 

Judge Peter West ruled the law isn't constitutional because a person charged can't mount a defence even though the violation carries a possible penalty of six months in jail. He released his decision last week.

Full Text:

TORONTO -- For a second time, a provincial court has put up a stop sign on the province's stunt-driving law.
A Newmarket judge threw out the stunt-driving charge against an 18-year-old woman accused by police of driving 157 km/h on Hwy. 407, near Pine Valley Dr., in March 2008.
Alexandra Drutz had initially pleaded not guilty to the charge, laid under section 172 of the Highway Traffic Act.
Judge Peter West ruled the law isn't constitutional because a person charged can't mount a defence even though the violation carries a possible penalty of six months in jail. He
released his decision last week.
In September, Judge G.J. Griffin of the Napanee provincial court overturned the conviction of Oakville's Jane Raham, 62, who was clocked at more than 50 km/h over the limit. Griffin
found the conviction unconstitutional.
The province has appealed Griffin's decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. A decision is expected in January.
Attorney General Chris Bentley yesterday called the law an important safety initiative and said it will continue to be enforced.
"The law was brought in to save lives," said Bentley.
Bentley said he would study West's ruling before deciding whether to appeal it, but added he's not planning to make any changes until the Court of Appeal rules on the Raham case.
The law gives cops the power to impound an accused speeder's car -- on the spot -- for seven days and sets fines between $2,000 and $10,000.
Vincenzo Rondinelli, a lawyer in the Drutz case, said despite worthy motivations behind the law, it is flawed.
"Obviously it came on the heels of some very horrific types of crashes on our highways," Rondinelli said. "No one is going to doubt that is a problem and we all want to fight it.
"It just has to be done in a way that meets the constitutional parameters we have in Canada," he said.
Rondinelli and lawyer Paul Cooper successfully argued the potential jail term, while remote, is an infringement of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the law doesn't permit
the accused to mount a defence or give reasons for why they might have been speeding.
The stunt-driving law targets drivers travelling at 50 km/h above the posted speed limit.
Rondinelli said drivers shouldn't assume they can now speed without being facing a harsh penalty. The judge's ruling doesn't yet change anything and police will continue to enforce
the law.

[safristi]

I can think of one. For ever 30 seconds of fleeing the fine goes up $20,000

Then he shall drive faster! Schnell schnell!

  use SCHNELL V_POWER MIT NITROGEN.......................clears the escape-ways.... ................

[tenpenny]

Judge Peter West ruled the law isn't constitutional because a person charged can't mount a defence even though the violation carries a possible penalty of six months in jail. He released his decision last week.

That's it in a nutshell.  You can't have a law that carries a penalty of six months in jail, with no option to mount a defence.  That's stupid.  This is still Canada.