Cop busted under street racing law

[htc***]

They did not mention about impound his car.

http://autos.sympatico.ca/automotive-news/3459/cop-busted-under-street-racing-law

[gretzky]

wow...i hope he gets the same punishment as i would if i were to go 50 over

[Skippy]

I would hope he gets the same punishment. but lets not kid ourselves here, he wont.

[towelsnap]

I'm just shocked he was actually charged... just saying "if you know someone and they work with you" more than likely you'd let it slide... he must have been the outkast of the force hahah

[Burner]

Considering that he already circumvented the roadside penalties, he's already received preferential treatment.

[rustysoap]

Not the first time this happens. There was an OPP officer last year who was charged for going 165 on the highway....WHILE DRIVING AN OPP CRUISER!!! She was speeding on the highway, no lights/sirens, and another OPP officer saw her, got her to pull over, license was suspended, OPP car impounded....

http://www.thestar.com/article/585301

[MPS]

this is jokes

[Burner]

Not the first time this happens. There was an OPP officer last year who was charged for going 165 on the highway....WHILE DRIVING AN OPP CRUISER!!! She was speeding on the highway, no lights/sirens, and another OPP officer saw her, got her to pull over, license was suspended, OPP car impounded....

http://www.thestar.com/article/585301

It's actually happened several times all over the province.

[SilentJay]

Most likely staged events to appease public furor. Those cops probably drew the shortest straw at a pub, and were made public scapegoats... Meanwhile, it probably meant a few weeks of being a desk-jockey, or worse yet, paid vacation.

It's not the first time the OPP has been deceptive to the public.

[lancesir]

charging him is different than convicting him...

[crystal8484]

Not the first time this happens. There was an OPP officer last year who was charged for going 165 on the highway....WHILE DRIVING AN OPP CRUISER!!! She was speeding on the highway, no lights/sirens, and another OPP officer saw her, got her to pull over, license was suspended, OPP car impounded....

http://www.thestar.com/article/585301

I'll say it now... OPP are... a different breed...:chuckle hahahahahha

[MAZDA Kitten]

It's actually happened several times all over the province.

Were any of them charged? The article states that "This makes Givelas the first police officer to be charged under the province's street racing law"

Hmmmmm

[Burner]

Yeah they were all charged. Here's one of them:

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/02/13/ontario-police-officer-charged-with-street-racing-in-unmarked-po/

There's been a bunch but I don't feel like digging them up. They usually don't get much press. Just a little blurb in the paper that most people will never see. I'm on GTAM every day and someone usually posts it up in the law section when a cop gets caught for this.

[slam525i]

charging him is different than convicting him...

No it isn't. Not under the "street racing law". And that's precisely the problem for all of us.

[mazdaskit]

hes just gonna get a slap on the wrist but if it was one of us are car would get crushed

[Malcolm991]

Nice to see that happen to a cop that thinks he is above the law! The other cop giving the ticket must have a bug up his ass!

[Burner]

Nice to see that happen to a cop that thinks he is above the law! The other cop giving the ticket must have a bug up his ass!

You should see some of the stuff I've read on the blueline forums. When the first cop was pulled over for it, they were all talking bad about the charging officer.

One of them even went so far to say that in his department, if they catch each other doing 50 over they buy pizza for everyone back at the station.

[jaimie08mazda3]

Were any of them charged? The article states that "This makes Givelas the first police officer to be charged under the province's street racing law"

Hmmmmm

I call BS! Or possibly they flash their badges in their personal cars and cops are like okay peace. WHICH IS A PISS OFF!

[shu5892001]

yea i am surprised that he is charged... lol i thought he could just get away with it using his "connections" lol

[jaimie08mazda3]

That is why he is the "Only" Cop to get this law... because I guarantee you that about 44324230984 cops have been pulled over but have not been charged because they are police and they need their licence for their job. blah blah blah. This guy won't get shit because he is a cop. Just wait and see.

[Burner]

He's not the only one...

Follow the link in rustysoap's post. That's not only other one either. There have been several officers charged under this law.

[mazdilla]

They did not mention about impound his car.

http://autos.sympatico.ca/automotive-news/3459/cop-busted-under-street-racing-law

Why are they showing two tuner cars and a classic camaro in the associated pic in the article? That's a far cry from the SUV he was driving.

That's twisting the story to the point of inferring that 'all' street racers drive tuners and classic muscle cars (Guilt by association???), but heaven forbid it would or could be a judge, cop, Minister, or even a mother of 4 in a minivan.

That's the BS in this story.

[Burner]

Here's a couple more I dug up really quick.

http://www.thestar.com/gta/crime/article/681398

http://thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/605722

[laksman91]

whatever happened to removing that law?

[rustysoap]

I'll probably get flamed for this, but, I really don't see what the problem everyone has with that law is. just don't go 50 over and if you drink, don't drive. It's not that hard or that big a deal.

As for the poster who asked what happened to removing the law, as far as i know, some lady was fighting it in court because it was unconstitutional. One court agreed, but then it was appealed to a higher court who said it was not unconstitutional, so it stuck. That's as far as I know though, I may be missing some information regarding that.

[Dan Da Man]

The good old days of policing are over, if you think policing is like in the movies where the popo never get charged for doing wrong, or they just get a warning, your wrong.

Police are held to a higher standard, period.

If i person is charged for a serious crime they go through criminal court. if its an officer its PSA Police Service Act charges, and Criminal code. they go through both. In PSA they can lose their jobs, lose pay, demotion, all kinds of things. And thats on top of whatever Criminal court will give them.

For all of you that say it will be a slap on the wrist, how do you figure? he has to make a first appearance for his summons and then it goes form their just like you and me, the judge or crown isnt going to say.. well its okay officer, just don't do it next time.

Yeah I'm sure cops get let off tickets sometimes, but have we all been given tickets EVERY TIME we have been pulled over? (if you have your probably an jackass) Have none of us been cautioned by the police? "hey you were going a little fast.. slow down sir/maim.. have a nice day".

Police have discretion and that goes for anybody that gets stopped.. cops included.. they are people too.

[Burner]

I'll probably get flamed for this, but, I really don't see what the problem everyone has with that law is. just don't go 50 over and if you drink, don't drive. It's not that hard or that big a deal.

As for the poster who asked what happened to removing the law, as far as i know, some lady was fighting it in court because it was unconstitutional. One court agreed, but then it was appealed to a higher court who said it was not unconstitutional, so it stuck. That's as far as I know though, I may be missing some information regarding that.

I'm not going to flame you because you simply seem uninformed. As most of the public is.

This law basically gives police the power to remove your license and have your vehicle impounded by a private company at your expense, whenever they want. For whatever they want. The 50 or over is what everyones reads. That's only one part of the law.

[rustysoap]

I don't see anything on there that says they can suspend and impound for whatever reason they want. However, I noticed that there are no clear definitions to what would consider a stunt, as I'm sure not many of us are driving our cars off a ramp and over 5 tractor trailers on the highway. Also doesn't clarify what constitutes a "race". If it's just the poor wording that has officers interpreting this law in their own way, I could see how that would anger most people.

On a side-note....I'd like to know who the dumbass is that caused S. 173 to even be in the books (scroll all the way down)

***C&P http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#BK255***
Racing, stunts, etc., prohibited

172. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Offence

(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her driver’s licence may be suspended,

(a) on a first conviction under this section, for not more than two years; or

(b) on a subsequent conviction under this section, for not more than 10 years. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Determining subsequent conviction

(3) In determining whether a conviction is a subsequent conviction for the purposes of subsection (2), the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences or whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

10-year limitation

(4) A conviction that is more than 10 years after the previous conviction is deemed to be a first conviction for the purpose of subsection (2). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Police to require surrender of licence, detention of vehicle

(5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall,

(a) request that the person surrender his or her driver’s licence; and

(b) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (b). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Administrative seven-day licence suspension

(6) Upon a request being made under clause (5) (a), the person to whom the request is made shall forthwith surrender his or her driver’s licence to the police officer and, whether or not the person is unable or fails to surrender the licence to the police officer, his or her driver’s licence is suspended for a period of seven days from the time the request is made. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Administrative seven-day vehicle impoundment

(7) Upon a motor vehicle being detained under clause (5) (b), the motor vehicle shall, at the cost of and risk to its owner,

(a) be removed to an impound facility as directed by a police officer; and

(b) be impounded for seven days from the time it was detained under clause (5) (b). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Release of vehicle

(8) Subject to subsection (15), the motor vehicle shall be released to its owner from the impound facility upon the expiry of the period of impoundment. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Early release of vehicle

(9) Despite the detention or impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section, a police officer may release the motor vehicle to its owner before it is impounded under subsection (7) or, subject to subsection (15), may direct the operator of the impound facility where the motor vehicle is impounded to release the motor vehicle to its owner before the expiry of the seven days if the officer is satisfied that the motor vehicle was stolen at the time that it was driven on a highway in contravention of subsection (1). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Duty of officer re licence suspension

(10) Every officer who asks for the surrender of a person’s driver’s licence under this section shall keep a record of the licence received with the name and address of the person and the date and time of the suspension and shall, as soon as practicable after receiving the licence, provide the person with a notice of suspension showing the time from which the suspension takes effect and the period of time for which the licence is suspended. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Duty of officer re impoundment

(11) Every officer who detains a motor vehicle under this section shall prepare a notice identifying the motor vehicle that is to be impounded under subsection (7), the name and address of the driver and the date and time of the impoundment and shall, as soon as practicable after the impoundment of the motor vehicle, provide the driver with a copy of the notice showing the time from which the impoundment takes effect, the period of time for which the motor vehicle is impounded and the place where the vehicle may be recovered. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Same

(12) A police officer shall provide a copy of the notice prepared under subsection (11) to the owner of the motor vehicle by delivering it personally or by mail to the address of the owner shown on the permit for the motor vehicle or to the latest address for the owner appearing on the records of the Ministry. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

No appeal or hearing

(13) There is no appeal from, or right to be heard before, a vehicle detention, driver’s licence suspension or vehicle impoundment under subsection (5), (6) or (7), but this subsection does not affect the taking of any proceeding in court. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Lien for storage costs

(14) The costs incurred by the person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under this section are a lien on the motor vehicle that may be enforced under the Repair and Storage Liens Act. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Costs to be paid before release of vehicle

(15) The person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under subsection (7) is not required to release the motor vehicle until the removal and impound costs for the vehicle have been paid. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Owner may recover losses from driver

(16) The owner of a motor vehicle that is impounded under this section may bring an action against the driver of the motor vehicle at the time the vehicle was detained under clause (5) (b) to recover any costs or other losses incurred by the owner in connection with the impoundment. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Offence

(17) Every person who obstructs or interferes with a police officer in the performance of his or her duties under this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Intent of suspension and impoundment

(18) The suspension of a driver’s licence and the impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section are intended to promote compliance with this Act and to thereby safeguard the public and do not constitute an alternative to any proceeding or penalty arising from the same circumstances or around the same time. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Impoundment concurrent with other administrative impoundments

(18.1) The impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section runs concurrently with an impoundment, if any, of the same motor vehicle under section 41.4, 48.4, 55.1, 55.2 or 82.1. 2009, c. 5, s. 51 (1).

(19) Repealed: 2008, c. 17, s. 43.

Regulations

(20) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

(a) requiring police officers to keep records with respect to licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments under this section for a specified period of time and to report specified information with respect to licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments to the Registrar and governing such records and reports;

(b) exempting any class of persons or class or type of vehicles from any provision or requirement of this section or of any regulation made under this section, prescribing conditions for any such exemptions and prescribing different requirements for different classes of persons or different classes or types of vehicles;

(c) defining the terms “race”, “contest” and “stunt” for the purposes of this section. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Definition

(21) In this section,

“driver’s licence” includes a driver’s licence issued by another jurisdiction. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Same

(22) In this section and in section 172.1,

“motor vehicle” includes a street car, a motorized snow vehicle, a farm tractor, a self-propelled implement of husbandry and a road-building machine. 2009, c. 5, s. 51 (2).

Nitrous oxide fuel systems prohibited

172.1 (1) No person shall drive or permit to be driven on a highway a motor vehicle manufactured or modified after its manufacture such that nitrous oxide may be delivered into the fuel mixture unless,

(a) the part of the fuel system that may connect to a canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide can be clearly seen by looking at the interior or exterior of the motor vehicle;

(b) there is no canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel connected to that part; and

(c) if the part of the fuel system that may connect to a canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide is located inside the passenger compartment, there is no canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide in the passenger compartment. 2007, c. 13, s. 22.

Same

(2) No person shall drive or permit to be driven on a highway a motor vehicle manufactured or modified after its manufacture such that nitrous oxide may be delivered into the fuel mixture unless,

(a) the part of the fuel system that may connect to a canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide is completely disconnected from the part of the system that connects to the engine;

(b) the disconnection can be clearly seen by looking at the interior or exterior of the motor vehicle; and

(c) the disconnected parts cannot be reconnected from inside the passenger compartment. 2007, c. 13, s. 22.

Offence

(3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. 2007, c. 13, s. 22.

Horse racing on highway

173. No person shall race or drive furiously any horse or other animal on a highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 173.

[Thrizzl3]

this law is being taken down as it is against the charter of rights.

[Burner]

That's the problem. There is no clear definition of stunting. So, if I take off from a light on my motorcycle quickly, and the front tire lifts a little bit (which is very easy to do) I could lose my bike and license for a week with no recourse. I'll also be facing jail time. Ridiculous.

My major problem with this law has always been the upfront penalty. You're guilty until proven innocent.

[rustysoap]

this law is being taken down as it is against the charter of rights.
The law was deemed unconstitutional last fall by the Ontario Court of Justice on the basis that the offender can't present a defence against the charge. The ruling was appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, who decided that it's NOT unconstitutional because the driver can bring a defence of due diligence. It's being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, so depending on what they decide, the law isn't being repealed any time soon.


**C&P Thestar.com**
TORONTO - Ontario's controversial street racing law was upheld Thursday in a judgment that largely turned on whether the possibility of jail time for offenders makes it unconstitutional.

Jane Raham, 62, was acquitted of the stunt driving charge last fall. She was clocked going 131 kilometres an hour in an 80 km zone in April 2008 - a 51-kilometre an hour difference that saw her charged under the street racing law.

The lower court found the law unconstitutional because it can impose jail time - up to six months - even though the speeder can't defend against the charges.

On Thursday the Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed, ruling there is a defence open to drivers charged under the law.

The debate over the jail-time provision in the law had one expert questioning why the province just doesn't remove it.

It's more of a threat than an actual penalty, said Toronto criminal lawyer James Morton, who added he couldn't find any cases of someone being sent to jail for stunt driving.

"It's used so rarely that the legislation wouldn't really lose any teeth if you simply removed it."

Transportation Minister Kathleen Wynne said she was "very happy" that the Appeal Court had confirmed the law. She wouldn't say if the province would consider dropping the possible jail terms to make the law more palatable for the courts.

"I'm not going to comment on those specifics," Wynne said in an interview.

"What we know is that the Court of Appeal held that the motorist could commit the offence of stunt driving simply by speeding in excess of 50 kilometres an hour."

The Appeal Court, in quashing the lower court's decision, ordered a new trial for Raham, who lives in Oakville, Ont.

"Fairness dictates that the respondent should have a new trial at which she will have the opportunity to advance a due diligence defence if so advised," the three-judge panel wrote in its decision.

A due diligence defence amounts to a claim that the defendant took all reasonable care to avoid committing the offence.

The lower court interpreted the stunt driving law to be an absolute liability offence, under which no defence can be raised.

The Appeal Court disagreed Thursday, ruling it is a strict liability offence under which the due diligence defence can be brought.

The law also calls for fines ranging from $2,000 to $10,000, the seizure of the vehicle and a licence suspension of up to two years after a first conviction.

Raham has 60 days to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, and Morton thinks leave to appeal "probably would be granted" by the high court.

"There's a good shot that the Supreme Court would consider this case," he said.

The stunt driving law was declared unconstitutional by another judge in a separate case last fall.

A Newmarket judge dismissed stunt driving charges against Alexandra Drutz, an 18-year-old woman charged with going 157 kilometres per hour on Highway 407 north of Toronto.

Justice Peter West ruled, as did the lower court in Raham's case, that having a potential penalty of up to six months violates the Charter of Rights because the law does not allow the accused to present a defence.