Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 10-25-2008, 02:25 PM
Soreneck Racing's Avatar
Soreneck Racing Soreneck Racing is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 171
Default Tree Guy?

Hey Tree Guy;

I think that you may be standing on the wrong side of the facts when you say a peace officer can not break the law to enforce it. There are provisions in the highway traffic act that allow for a member to do his duty in a safe manner. I have looked at it before and I know that there are provisions for a peace officer to "break the law" in the performance of their duties.

In addition, municipalities may set regulations that govern things-like parking.

So I would be pretty careful if I used that argument in court . . .
__________________
Soreneck Racing

"It is not the shirt on the man, but rather the man in the shirt"
  #32  
Old 10-25-2008, 02:53 PM
Dylan's Avatar
Dylan Dylan is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 51
Default Good Point....

Soreneck is absolutely correct. Although it's a novel concept, that would have no bearing whatsoever as a defense.

The contracted firms who carry-out photo radar in the province of Alberta are Sworn Peace Officers, under the Peace Officer Act. It's this legal status that allows them to issue tickets under the Traffic Safety Act.

http://www.solgps.alberta.ca/program...s/default.aspx

Peace Officers and Police Officers often have the ability to do things in the course of their duties that normal civilians cannot. Be it, carrying certain weapons, speeding to get to the scene of an incident, , having emergency lights on their vehicles, shooting suspects or even parking on the wrong side of the roadway - they are afforded many special privileges, exemptions and permissions as part of their appointments.
__________________
Aequitas / Veritas

-Dylan
  #33  
Old 10-25-2008, 06:48 PM
bruceba bruceba is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,803
Default

.

Last edited by bruceba; 01-16-2009 at 10:30 AM.
  #34  
Old 10-25-2008, 07:52 PM
surface2feather's Avatar
surface2feather surface2feather is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Red Deer, AB
Posts: 606
Default photo radar

I know a guy who got 4 in one day. He kept going by the screen that said your speed trying to see how fast he could get it up to... unfortunately it was a photo radar...
__________________
Don't get any gum in your hair.
  #35  
Old 10-25-2008, 08:43 PM
twofifty twofifty is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: S.E. British Columbia
Posts: 4,579
Default

Sometimes a guy shows up in court either to contest the charge or to plead extenuating circumstances. I usually got a fair hearing, and won a few cases.

The easy ones are when you show up all prepared but the officer who issued the ticket (i.e. the Crown's witness) does not...so you ask the judge to dismiss the charge as you took time off work and are ready to proceed while the Crown is not. There is justice after all, at least when it comes to traffic tickets.

One case where I was entirely innocent was thrown out when the officer contradicted himself while I cross-examined him. He suddenly changed part of his story in an attempt to salvage the case, and so placed himself in two places at once. During summation, I reminded the judge of this contradiction. The looks he and his buddies gave me were not at all friendly, even though the judge did not charge their buddy with contempt or perjury. I was just plain not guilty, and they were peeved at having been caught playing games. Bottom line is that some people will lie on the stand, and police officers are people too.

As to your situation, a case can sometimes be built (as pointed out by others here) on the basis that the equipment was not properly operated or calibrated. I almost won a case once because I obtained a copy of that particular radar's operating manual from the RCMP library in Ottawa. This unit was very fussy over power supply, variations of which induced +/- fluctuations in the speed readout, so I questioned the officer over his setup procedure. He bravely admitted that he had not gone through all the checks. The judge asked me how much of my speeding I attributed to this mistake...I got greedy and said 'all of it' instead of the 1 or 2 mph that would have got me under the cutoff for license points. Judge found me guilty as charged. Ooops, I'd prepared but failed to fully think my case through to a possible victory. ;-)

All this to say that you need to research, know you material, have a plan and a backup plan, and know what priority outcome(s) you want. Or pray that the officer does not show so you can move to have the case dismissed.

Good luck.
  #36  
Old 10-25-2008, 10:17 PM
TreeGuy's Avatar
TreeGuy TreeGuy is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 11,576
Default

Hey Sore Neck, thanks for the clarification on my very vauge and generalized statement.

My advice/question to Scott was a unique and very site specific one that my buddy argued an won with. I thought the same situation may apply, but unfortunately it did not.

Anyway, thanks for doing what you do for a living and go Jimmy Johnson!

Tree
  #37  
Old 10-26-2008, 10:34 PM
AB2506's Avatar
AB2506 AB2506 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary AB
Posts: 2,702
Default Good Luck

When I've been in court, I've never seen anyone beat a multanova ticket in Calgary.
  #38  
Old 12-19-2008, 08:45 PM
beansgunsghandi beansgunsghandi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canadian Rockies
Posts: 456
Default How do they know who was driving the vehicle?

Thanks for this thread, and the forum in general, good stuff.

Here's a question for the legally minded: How do "they" know who was driving the vehicle? I recently received a picture of my truck going 65 in a 50. Too fast for sure! The thing is, I don't drive that fast in that place, too many people around (I do drive fast in other places). I suspect it was my wife driving, but I can't prove it was her. It's certainly not clear who was driving in the photo as all you can see is the back of my truck.

So, if I don't know who was driving then how can anyone else? And without proof of who was driving then how can the government ask that person to pay a fine? Our charter of rights and freedoms in section 11 says that we have the right, "to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal."

How is a photo radar ticket proof of anything except that my truck drove by a photo radar location? It certainly doesn't prove that I or my wife was driving it...

Thoughts? The above is the defense I plan to use in court, so I'd appreciate it if anyone had an opinion on it.
  #39  
Old 12-19-2008, 08:55 PM
Eyeswideshut
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You will lose,
  #40  
Old 12-19-2008, 09:12 PM
beansgunsghandi beansgunsghandi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canadian Rockies
Posts: 456
Default Why

Why am I going to lose, Eyes? I'm open to that idea, but looks like you left your sentence unfin...
  #41  
Old 12-19-2008, 09:24 PM
Eyeswideshut
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No I didn't leave it unfinished, the point is, its your truck, your responsibility. I know it sucks, its all a money making scheme and its something we have to live with.

I don't know what else to say apart from,.. your truck, picture of it speeding showing license plate,. you pay fine..
  #42  
Old 12-19-2008, 09:27 PM
Jamie Jamie is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,384
Default

Beans.. The best you MAY do is to bargin down the fine a bit.

Good luck
Jamie
  #43  
Old 12-19-2008, 09:28 PM
Vindalbakken Vindalbakken is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,790
Default

You are not getting the ticket, your truck is. As the registered owner of said truck you will need to pay the fine on its behalf, since it is incapable of doing so on its own. If, as the registered owner of the truck you do not know who you should recoup your money from......
  #44  
Old 12-19-2008, 09:36 PM
beansgunsghandi beansgunsghandi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canadian Rockies
Posts: 456
Default Why?

Eyes, you say, "your truck, picture of it speeding showing license plate,. you pay fine.."

If my wife were to have received a "normal" ticket would I also have to pay the fine? No. So how is this different? Or if you're on a long trip and let a friend drive your truck and he gets pulled over--do you pay the fine even though you're sitting in the passenger seat? No. Ownership does not equal paying the fine unless you're also actually driving. The charter clearly says the court has to prove me guilty. Clearly just owning my truck is not proof that I was driving it, given that my wife also drives it. I occasionally lend my truck to a friend I work with (he lends me other stuff I need). It could also reasonably have been him. And it could have been me (I don't think so). I don't think the court has proven that it was me, and therefore I'm not guilty...

Again, I'm open to the idea that I may lose, I'd just like to hear a line of reasoning or some legal precedent or something that explains why I would lose. "Because you will" is not much of a reason, although it may be true.
  #45  
Old 12-19-2008, 09:46 PM
Jamie Jamie is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,384
Default

Beans.. Its been tried before.. Thats why you only get a fine, not demerits.. Your not inventing the wheel here.

But there is one sure way of getting around these things...

Dont speed..

Jamie
  #46  
Old 12-19-2008, 09:52 PM
beansgunsghandi beansgunsghandi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canadian Rockies
Posts: 456
Default thanks

Thanks Vindalbakken, that makes sense. Indeed, I have never witnessed a truck moving without a driver. Actually I have, but not for long, and it resulted in one dead vehicle.

So I'm being charged as the owner of the vehicle and not the driver. But this is equally sticky to me; I own the vehicle, but isn't whomever is driving it responsible for what it does? A truck can't get a ticket on its own obviously, so there had to be someone driving it. This is a bit like saying that because you own property all criminal acts committed on your property are your fault. In some cases the law does read like that as I understand it (grow ops for example), but not in many other cases. Which puts us right back where we started from, no? Better to have this discussion here than with my wife, as great as she is.
  #47  
Old 12-19-2008, 10:01 PM
beansgunsghandi beansgunsghandi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canadian Rockies
Posts: 456
Default Agreed

I agree Jamie, not speeding works well for not getting tickets. And when I get pulled over I man up and pay the fine, and treat the officer with full respect. The last time I got a ticket I was asked how fast I was going, and told the officer exactly how fast I was going. I haven't received a ticket in a very long time.

So the argument has been tried--does anyone know why it failed? This just seems fundamentally wrong to me. It's the principle of the thing. I just spent ten minutes searching to see if mobile photo radar reduces accidents or speeds; the "fixed" photo radar seems to, but this seems like a revenue grab garbed in "public safety."
  #48  
Old 12-19-2008, 10:20 PM
Ishpah Ishpah is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the other side of the mountain
Posts: 478
Default

Grizz Adams wrote, ".........And don't make the mistake of admitting there's a possibility you were speeding.............."

This is the best advice that you're going to get, remember it. Be adamant about it.
  #49  
Old 12-19-2008, 10:54 PM
Jester Jester is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,384
Default

Let us know if you get out of paying this ticket because I think that you would be the first to do so.
  #50  
Old 12-19-2008, 11:06 PM
beansgunsghandi beansgunsghandi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canadian Rockies
Posts: 456
Default Goodnight

I'll post up after the court date, and do some more research between now and then. Right now I've got to go and research how the wood stove is going and call it a night. Good night.
  #51  
Old 12-19-2008, 11:13 PM
beansgunsghandi beansgunsghandi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canadian Rockies
Posts: 456
Default Not quite good night

Found this on: http://www.canadiandriver.com/legal/photoradar.htm

"In this case the ticket was for $100. Mr. Stead has reportedly spent about $120,000 fighting against this ticket. This is a man who stands up for what he believes is right.

The argument that he made was that the photo radar law is unconstitutional because it forces people to prove they are not guilty of an offense. In Canada we have a principle of law whereby everyone is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. With photo radar there's a presumption that the owner of the car was the one who was speeding. The ticket is then issued in the name of the registered owner of the license plate. Obviously the owner of the car is not always the one who is driving it. This means that the owner is sent a ticket and must fight in court to prove that it wasn't him.

One of the rights guaranteed by the Charter of Rights is this right to be presumed innocent. Another of the rights guaranteed by the Charter is the right to a quick trial and the right to be able to mount a valid defense.

The lawyer argued that all of these rights are violated by a system whereby the owner of the car is sent a ticket several weeks after allegedly committing the offense and is forced to try and remember what may have happened many days ago including who might have been driving the car at that time. The lawyer argued that this made it too difficult for anybody caught by this machine to properly defend himself.

Although this does seem to make sense on the face of it, several courts in British Columbia have disagreed. In fact this case went all the way to the British Columbia Court of Appeal who unanimously rejected Mr. Steads argument and ruled that the law allowing photo radar was absolutely legal and constitutional. His battle lasted from 1996 to 2001 when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear his case.

Notwithstanding that court judgment, photo radar was so hated by the citizens of British Columbia that some say it helped to bring down the government. The elimination of photo radar was a key promise that was kept by the party that won. While the court case may have proved it was legal, photo radar was abolished in British Columbia in 2002."

I don't have $100,000 to fight a ticket. Now, really, good night.
  #52  
Old 12-19-2008, 11:19 PM
rem338win's Avatar
rem338win rem338win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cowtown, agian
Posts: 2,812
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theduke View Post
u can get them reduced i got 5 in one week this month and took them to go get reduced the justice thought i was ******ed
Ouch!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
I love fighting tickets. Granted it's time away from work, but it can be entertaining, even if you don't win all the time. If you go to court, they'll have to provide the person, who issued you the ticket and you can ask him all kinds of embarrasing questions. You don't have to prove your innocence, just raise "reasonable doubt" and that can be really easy sometimes. And don't make the mistake of admitting there's a possibility you were speeding.
I'm going to court in Feb. to fight two tickets issued to me by one of our new Sherriffs. The tickets were issued in July and I had them set two different trial dates. Worst can happen is that I still have to pay the tickets, nothing major, but I've had 6 month's grace and the buggar that wrote me the tickets, will have to spend two days in court. As it is, I feell I have a good chance of beating both.
Grizz
Oh that "buggar" must be such a horrible person for doing his job, eh? Too bad you set two court dates so they make double the over time, huh? Oh, and if you are found guilty they do normally apply the surcharge on top of the fine. And thank you for wasting my tax dollars. You are a frighteningly pleasant individual, and I hope you passed these great ethics onto your little ...children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by redneck posse View Post
a few years ago my buddy had one thrown out because the operator didn't have his photo radar sign out for warning people. don't know if there still have to put them out or not
(cough) BS (cough). Sorry man, that would be like the an undercover officer having to wear a sign on his back saying "Undercover Officer". But hey, if you want to wipe before you poop, that is your business...


Quote:
Originally Posted by beansgunsghandi View Post
Thanks for this thread, and the forum in general, good stuff.

Here's a question for the legally minded: How do "they" know who was driving the vehicle? I recently received a picture of my truck going 65 in a 50. Too fast for sure! The thing is, I don't drive that fast in that place, too many people around (I do drive fast in other places). I suspect it was my wife driving, but I can't prove it was her. It's certainly not clear who was driving in the photo as all you can see is the back of my truck.

So, if I don't know who was driving then how can anyone else? And without proof of who was driving then how can the government ask that person to pay a fine? Our charter of rights and freedoms in section 11 says that we have the right, "to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal."

How is a photo radar ticket proof of anything except that my truck drove by a photo radar location? It certainly doesn't prove that I or my wife was driving it...

Thoughts? The above is the defense I plan to use in court, so I'd appreciate it if anyone had an opinion on it.
160(1) If a vehicle is involved in an offence referred to in section
157 or a bylaw, the owner of that vehicle is guilty of an offence.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the owner of the vehicle
satisfies the court that, at the time that the vehicle was involved in
an offence referred to in section 157 or a bylaw,
(a) in the case of a vehicle that was in motion,
(i) the owner of the vehicle was not driving the vehicle,
and
(ii) no other person was driving the vehicle with the
owner's expressed or implied consent,
and
(b) in the case of a vehicle that was parked,
(i) the owner did not park the vehicle, and
(ii) no other person parked the vehicle with the owner's
expressed or implied consent.
(3) An owner who is guilty of an offence under this section is not
liable to imprisonment in respect of that offence or in respect of a
default of a fine imposed in respect of that offence.



This was googled and is the current legislation in place in Alberta (the Traffic Safety Act). It basically says that the registered owner is responsibly for his vehicle at all times unless he can prove that it was being used by someone else at the time that did not have permission, and then that person will likely be receiving criminal charges.

Last edited by lilsundance; 12-19-2008 at 11:36 PM.
  #53  
Old 12-19-2008, 11:21 PM
rem338win's Avatar
rem338win rem338win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cowtown, agian
Posts: 2,812
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceba View Post
Everyone knows I like to take pictures. Well I'm driving along following a guy doing about 105 klicks and as you can see from the picture I can not pass the guy because of the double solid and blind hill coming up. I see a couple guys coming upon us a a pretty good clip. As they both pull out to pass I grab my camera, flip it on and only get the last of the 2 guys passing.The little car in front of the truck was the first to go by. I just took the pictures in to the RC's and swore a statement. Now I gotta go to court because they guy is fighting the ticket. LOL chump you put to many people at risk so I'll be there. Nice picture with out the blurring I did you can pull the picture up big enough to read the date sticker.
I like how you really brought out the "douche" in that picture. He'll have fun with that one in court. An alarm clock sure would help some of these @ssh@ts quit being in such a fricken' rush.
  #54  
Old 12-19-2008, 11:21 PM
Jester Jester is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beansgunsghandi View Post

"In this case the ticket was for $100. Mr. Stead has reportedly spent about $120,000 fighting against this ticket. This is a man who stands up for what he believes is right."
This is a fool if you ask me..
  #55  
Old 12-20-2008, 12:18 AM
longshot270 longshot270 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 332
Default

I breezed through some posts, so if I am giving redundant info. sorry. My wife got a speeding ticket in our car, registered to me. So I thought no problem to get that thrown out, as I was at work, but if you read the ticket(assuming all photo tickets look the same) you are being fined as the owner of the vehicle speeding, and not for speeding yourself. Therefore I never went to court as I figured it was a losing situation. Carefully read the ticket and I'll think you'll see whats up.
  #56  
Old 12-20-2008, 12:57 AM
BBJTKLE&FISHINGADVENTURES BBJTKLE&FISHINGADVENTURES is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Fort Saskatchewan Ab
Posts: 8,926
Default

Ive said it before and ill say it again. If you don't want the tickets , and stop wasting the time in trying to beat the system . Not gonna happen , They'Ve thought it up a bit better then that .Now quit your sniveling and go pay the ticket like a man and stop using excuses. If you don't like them DONT SPEED simple enough.
  #57  
Old 12-20-2008, 01:09 AM
CNP's Avatar
CNP CNP is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: WMU 303
Posts: 8,480
Default

Photo radar has been around for decades in NA and Europe. The whole premise of it resides on who owns (or rented) the vehicle. At no time does photo radar provide evidence of who is driving and they could care less. Thats how it works everywhere..........this isn't new by any means. I got a photo radar ticket in the mail from the Netherlands. Got zapped driving in a rented car (Hertz). Hertz mailed the ticket to my home in Winnipeg. I chose to pay it because I was travelling to the Netherlands frequently during those days.
  #58  
Old 12-20-2008, 11:58 AM
beansgunsghandi beansgunsghandi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canadian Rockies
Posts: 456
Default Yes and No

I agree that the basis of the crown's argument is based on the idea that it's the vehicle and not the driver they are ticketing. The supreme court of Canada refused to hear the appeal, which is pretty much the same thing as saying it is groundless, at least in the context it was offered to the court. I'm no lawyer but that's what I got out of reading the case. So, yes, there is a precedent and you're likely to ultimately lose unless you have a different argument to present.

Now, I think that's wrong. Some say that's sniveling. If no one sniveled about lousy law then we'd still have all kinds of ridiculous laws on the books. It is our duty as citizens to speak up when we think something is wrong. The money to me is not all that important, I spend more on other things with equal utility (none). It's the principle that you're being charged for an offense even though you may have been nowhere near the scene of the "crime." That's just wrong even if there is precedent legally.

And to those who want idiotic drivers to slow down, well, I agree. But photo radar doesn't give the driver demerits so what's the point? If you can drive very fast in a big pickup truck (burning gas like mad) then another $100 ticket isn't likely to mean much... And if the emphasis is on photo radar instead of a real traffic officer making busts then there may be fewer officers out on the road to see people like the guy in the pickup pulling his bonehead move. Photo radar is nothing but a revenue grab, and I object to that just as I would to most any new tax that doesn't produce some clear benefit.

I think photo radar is also wrong because there is very little to no evidence that mobile photo radar stations actually slow anyone down. At least when an officer pulls someone over everybody sees it, slows down, and remembers that the police want people to go slower. Not so with photo radar; everybody hauls ass past the place, might get a ticket weeks later but likely not, and even if they do get a ticket they know the photo radar position won't likely be there next time they are through. The "fixed" cameras in Europe are a different story.

As I said earlier, if I get a ticket from a "real" officer I'm polite, clear, and pay it if it's legit. If I choose to speed or don't pay attention then I'm in the wrong. Photo radar is different, and I'll keep "sniveling" about it. BC had photo radar thrown out of the province, if enough people "snivel" then perhaps Alberta can get the job done too. I'm incensed enough to even write a letter to my MLA.
  #59  
Old 12-20-2008, 12:39 PM
Eyeswideshut
 
Posts: n/a
Default

  #60  
Old 12-20-2008, 03:29 PM
Tony_S's Avatar
Tony_S Tony_S is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 223
Default

I always get a good laugh out of the "photo radar is a cash cow" topics, as It never ceases to amaze me how some people can complicate such a simple concept...

If you don't want to get a speeding ticket, photo radar or otherwise....DON'T SPEED!
The "cow" will go hungry....


Call me simple....

Tony
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.