I wasn't running from the cops!!

[MassNutrition]

I know this is a motorcycle forum, and most threads posted here SHOULD be motorcycle related, but I'm hoping that some fellow riders can give me some good LEGAL advice. Considering what could happen (losing my licence and getting my insurance cancelled on my bike), I may not be able to ride this summer.

So here's my story: I wasn't wearing my sealtbelt, plain and simple. I drove by a police "blitz" and was APPARENTLY signalled by an officer to pull over. I kept driving, because I didn't KNOW it was a blitz... I thought it was an accident (seeing by the number of cops there and other pulled over cars).

Moments later, not far up the road (approx 300m... AGAIN, I wasn't trying to get away) he came flying up behind me, with 2 other cars in pursuit, and all 3 cars blocked me in. He was p****d! I told him the truth. I told him I didn't see him "signal me" to pull over. YES, I was guilty of not wearing a seatbelt, so why would I NOT pull over? I would be DREAMING if I thought I could get away, or have this cop not chase me down. I tried to explain all this.

Instead, I was nailed with 2 summons: a) for disobeying the request of an officer... Section 216(2) and b) for not wearing a seatbelt... Section 106(2). My court date is in March.

I've heard numerous scenerios... I could be charged $1000 to $10,000 (OMG!!!) or see jail time, and lose 7 points, etc. So, seeing that those 7 points and 3 points for a sealtbelt could cause me to lose my licence, I'm freaking. I need my licence for work...

What should I do? Should I retain a lawyer? Call X-copper? Any advice and/or opinions are welcomed! Thanks in advance.

[FiReSTaRT]

If you are going to call a paralegal service, call Redline. Considering the seriousness of the charge, I'd look into getting an actual lawyer. In any case it's going to cost ya, but still less than getting convicted.

[Rob MacLennan]

Agreed; contract with a traffic lawyer.

[slowbird]

x 100

Get a lawyer....hopefully you can get the first charge dropped and just plead guilty to the seatbelt one.

Be sure to write down everything that happened while it's semi-fresh in your mind so you can tell the lawyer exactly what happened.

[BusaBob]

you'd think the first charge is excessive. especially since you were stopped only 300m away. Not unless you swerved around the officer and accelerated away

similar thing happened to me: speeding blitz on 407, OPP flagging over lots of cars. I didn't realize they were flagging me too and just kept going my merry way. one of the officers caught up to me a km later and they were quite understanding

[Gary]

Emilio - You tell the judge the cop was waving you through an accident scene, "in your opinion".
If you didn't "flee" i.e. take off speeding, I don't think you'll have anything to worry about, except the fine for no seatbelt.

In the future, wear the damn thing. It only gives "the girls" something to harass you about. There's too many unmarked cars, and sneaky spot checks in this town to be driving around without a belt on.

[taxnatural]

no seatbelt is only 1point lost

[turbodish]

no seatbelt is only 1point lost

No, it's 2 points and the least of his worries.

[FiReSTaRT]

By the way, with competent legal representation, that charge won't stick. For running they have to prove both actus reus (guilty act - that you ran from them) and mens rea (guilty mind - that you meant to commit the act). You have a reasonable explanation and based on your story it doesn't look like you were ramming the cruisers to get away. Also no seatbelt is not such a serious charge that would tempt most reasonable people into running from the cops, so your lawyer shouldn't be working too hard to beat the rap for you.

[Sher]

Also try Malcolm Higgins - he got me out of a really tight spot from speeding where it could've been my license when I only had my G2 a few summers back - 4168367172 or 416 742 7474. My Manager had referred me to him, who also got off on a pretty suffocating charge, i think his website's www.tickettalk.ca

[turbodish]

The OP should try to strike a deal with the Crown for a guilty plea on the seat belt charge in exchange for dropping the HTA 216 fail to stop charge.

If the Crown balks at that, there is a chance that they might be willing to trade the HTA 216 fail to stop charge for an HTA 134.(1) fail to obey directions of a police officer conviction. The latter costs only 3 demerit points and about $120 in fine and victim surcharges.

And if that doesn't work, you'll need to pay a lawyer to try to do the same on your behalf.

Suggestions by some here that the charge won't stick are irresponsible. We've heard only one side of the story here.

The story on the other side could be quite different and a judge could easily be persuaded that the accused showed obvious guilty intent in not stopping at what they would argue was a clearly marked police stop being manned by clearly uniformed police officers giving clear indications to the driver that he was to pull over and stop.

[MassNutrition]

Thanks for the responses so far guys. Keep them coming...

I feel better already. Like I said, I wasn't trying to flee, avoid, swerve, or speed to get away from this guy... I just plain ol' didn't see him. I'm not concerned about the seatbelt fine. I'm guilty of that, and will pay out what I deserve. It's the other charge I'm worried about...

Keep the advice coming. I'd like to hear more opinions/advice. Thanks!

[thumpit]

Thanks for the responses so far guys. Keep them coming...

I feel better already. Like I said, I wasn't trying to flee, avoid, swerve, or speed to get away from this guy... I just plain ol' didn't see him. I'm not concerned about the seatbelt fine. I'm guilty of that, and will pay out what I deserve. It's the other charge I'm worried about...

Keep the advice coming. I'd like to hear more opinions/advice. Thanks!

There are times when saying that you "didn't see him" can really work against you because they can then suggest that you were not paying due attention to your surroundings in the operation of a motor vehicle. (careless)

So if you really did think he was waving you on, then you stick with that. During cross you could trip up and you're screwed if you do. Get one thing in your head. (hopefully the truth, cuz it will be easier then)

[BusaBob]

There are times when saying that you "didn't see him" can really work against you because they can then suggest that you were not paying due attention to your surroundings in the operation of a motor vehicle. (careless)

So if you really did think he was waving you on, then you stick with that. During cross you could trip up and you're screwed if you do. Get one thing in your head. (hopefully the truth, cuz it will be easier then)

careless as an HTA charge is a lot more than momentary inattention. such a charge if laid in this situation can be easily tossed. redline has outlined this on their website.

[Tyrell]

Problem I see is this "blitz" you say you drove through.

I think you were mistaken and never saw any police blitz or police activity at all.

basically till death, you never saw any police officers and other police vehicles or lights any other response than that and you are guilty!


Just some HTA info below....


Power of police officer to stop vehicle 216. (1) A police officer, in the lawful execution of his or her duties and responsibilities, may require the driver of a motor vehicle to stop and the driver of a motor vehicle, when signalled or requested to stop by a police officer who is readily identifiable as such, shall immediately come to a safe stop. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 216 (1).
Offence
(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable, subject to subsection (3),
(a) to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $10,000;
(b) to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months; or
(c) to both a fine and imprisonment. 1999, c. 13, s. 1 (1).
Escape by flight
(3) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (2) and the court is satisfied on the evidence that the person wilfully continued to avoid police when a police officer gave pursuit,
(a) the person is liable to a fine of not less than $5,000 and not more than $25,000, instead of the fine described in clause (2) (a);
(b) the court shall make an order imprisoning the person for a term of not less than 14 days and not more than six months, instead of the term described in clause (2) (b); and
(c) the court shall make an order suspending the person’s driver’s licence,
(i) for a period of five years, unless subclause (ii) applies, or
(ii) for a period of not less than 10 years, if the court is satisfied on the evidence that the person’s conduct or the pursuit resulted in the death of or bodily harm to any person. 1999, c. 13, s. 1 (1).
Lifetime suspension
(4) An order under subclause (3) (c) (ii) may suspend the person’s driver’s licence for the remainder of the person’s life. 1999, c. 13, s. 1 (1).
Suspension in addition
(4.1) Except in the case of a suspension for the remainder of the person’s life, a suspension under clause (3) (c) is in addition to any other period for which the person’s licence is suspended and is consecutive to that period. 1999, c. 13, s. 1 (1).
Notice of suspension
(4.2) Subject to subsection (4.3), in a proceeding for a contravention of subsection (1) in which it is alleged that the person wilfully continued to avoid police when a police officer gave pursuit, the clerk or registrar of the court, before the court accepts the plea of the defendant, shall orally give a notice to the person to the following effect:
“The Highway Traffic Act provides that upon conviction of the offence with which you are charged, in the circumstances indicated therein, your driver’s licence shall be suspended for five years”.
1999, c. 13, s. 1 (1).
Same: death or bodily harm
(4.3) In a proceeding for a contravention of subsection (1) in which it is alleged that the person wilfully continued to avoid police when a police officer gave pursuit and that the person’s conduct or the pursuit resulted in the death of or bodily harm to any person, the clerk or registrar of the court, before the court accepts the plea of the defendant, shall orally give a notice to the person to the following effect:
“The Highway Traffic Act provides that upon conviction of the offence with which you are charged, in the circumstances indicated therein, your driver’s licence shall be suspended for not less than 10 years and that it may be suspended for the remainder of your life”.
1999, c. 13, s. 1 (1).
Idem
(5) The suspension of a driver’s licence under this section shall not be held to be invalid by reason of failure to give the notice provided for in subsection (4.2) or (4.3). R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 216 (5); 1999, c. 13, s. 1 (2).
Appeal of suspension
(6) An appeal may be taken from an order under clause (3) (c) or a decision to not make the order in the same manner as from a conviction or an acquittal under subsection (2). R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 216 (6); 1999, c. 13, s. 1 (3).
Stay of order on appeal
(7) Where an appeal is taken from an order under subsection (6), the court being appealed to may direct that the order being applied from shall be stayed pending the final disposition of the appeal or until otherwise ordered by that court. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 216 (7); 1999, c. 13, s. 1 (4).


Section 216(1) is an absolute liabilty offence while s. 216(3) is a mens rea offence.

Section 216(2) articulates a person "is guilty," which indictates the offence is commited by the mere actus reus.

Section 216(3) articulates the word "willfully," which signifies a mens rea offence.

blah blah blah

[MassNutrition]

Problem I see is this "blitz" you say you drove through.

I think you were mistaken and never saw any police blitz or police activity at all.

basically till death, you never saw any police officers and other police vehicles or lights any other response than that and you are guilty!


Just some HTA info below....


Power of police officer to stop vehicle 216. (1) A police officer, in the lawful execution of his or her duties and responsibilities, may require the driver of a motor vehicle to stop and the driver of a motor vehicle, when signalled or requested to stop by a police officer who is readily identifiable as such, shall immediately come to a safe stop. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 216 (1).
Offence
(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable, subject to subsection (3),
(a) to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $10,000;
(b) to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months; or
(c) to both a fine and imprisonment. 1999, c. 13, s. 1 (1).
Escape by flight
(3) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (2) and the court is satisfied on the evidence that the person wilfully continued to avoid police when a police officer gave pursuit,
(a) the person is liable to a fine of not less than $5,000 and not more than $25,000, instead of the fine described in clause (2) (a);
(b) the court shall make an order imprisoning the person for a term of not less than 14 days and not more than six months, instead of the term described in clause (2) (b); and
(c) the court shall make an order suspending the person’s driver’s licence,
(i) for a period of five years, unless subclause (ii) applies, or
(ii) for a period of not less than 10 years, if the court is satisfied on the evidence that the person’s conduct or the pursuit resulted in the death of or bodily harm to any person. 1999, c. 13, s. 1 (1).
Lifetime suspension
(4) An order under subclause (3) (c) (ii) may suspend the person’s driver’s licence for the remainder of the person’s life. 1999, c. 13, s. 1 (1).
Suspension in addition
(4.1) Except in the case of a suspension for the remainder of the person’s life, a suspension under clause (3) (c) is in addition to any other period for which the person’s licence is suspended and is consecutive to that period. 1999, c. 13, s. 1 (1).
Notice of suspension
(4.2) Subject to subsection (4.3), in a proceeding for a contravention of subsection (1) in which it is alleged that the person wilfully continued to avoid police when a police officer gave pursuit, the clerk or registrar of the court, before the court accepts the plea of the defendant, shall orally give a notice to the person to the following effect:
“The Highway Traffic Act provides that upon conviction of the offence with which you are charged, in the circumstances indicated therein, your driver’s licence shall be suspended for five years”.
1999, c. 13, s. 1 (1).
Same: death or bodily harm
(4.3) In a proceeding for a contravention of subsection (1) in which it is alleged that the person wilfully continued to avoid police when a police officer gave pursuit and that the person’s conduct or the pursuit resulted in the death of or bodily harm to any person, the clerk or registrar of the court, before the court accepts the plea of the defendant, shall orally give a notice to the person to the following effect:
“The Highway Traffic Act provides that upon conviction of the offence with which you are charged, in the circumstances indicated therein, your driver’s licence shall be suspended for not less than 10 years and that it may be suspended for the remainder of your life”.
1999, c. 13, s. 1 (1).
Idem
(5) The suspension of a driver’s licence under this section shall not be held to be invalid by reason of failure to give the notice provided for in subsection (4.2) or (4.3). R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 216 (5); 1999, c. 13, s. 1 (2).
Appeal of suspension
(6) An appeal may be taken from an order under clause (3) (c) or a decision to not make the order in the same manner as from a conviction or an acquittal under subsection (2). R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 216 (6); 1999, c. 13, s. 1 (3).
Stay of order on appeal
(7) Where an appeal is taken from an order under subsection (6), the court being appealed to may direct that the order being applied from shall be stayed pending the final disposition of the appeal or until otherwise ordered by that court. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 216 (7); 1999, c. 13, s. 1 (4).


Section 216(1) is an absolute liabilty offence while s. 216(3) is a mens rea offence.

Section 216(2) articulates a person "is guilty," which indictates the offence is commited by the mere actus reus.

Section 216(3) articulates the word "willfully," which signifies a mens rea offence.

blah blah blah

It was subsection (2)... and thanks for pointing out the $1000 to $10,000 fine again... I was already told and I'm still freaking out LOL.

I called the dudes at Redline. They asked for a DETAILED report of the event, and what the cop was wearing, and what his actions were. Because I stated he was wearing a black fur hat, black gloves, and black jacket, we NEVER made eye contact... because of his DARK SUNGLASSES. If he DID signal someone, I wouldn't even know if it was me or not. It's gonna get tossed...


...court date is March 15th. I'll keep you guys updated.

[BusaBob]

Section 216(1) is an absolute liabilty offence while s. 216(3) is a mens rea offence.

for the sake of argument, is 216(1) truly an absolute liability offence?

216. (1) A police officer, in the lawful execution of his or her duties and responsibilities, may require the driver of a motor vehicle to stop and the driver of a motor vehicle, when signalled or requested to stop by a police officer who is readily identifiable as such, shall immediately come to a safe stop. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 216 (1).

it suggests that the officer must have been identified as one. If one did not see the officer (within reason), one could not have identified them, and as such could not be found guilty, no?

[raginduck]

It was subsection (2)... and thanks for pointing out the $1000 to $10,000 fine again... I was already told and I'm still freaking out LOL.

I called the dudes at Redline. They asked for a DETAILED report of the event, and what the cop was wearing, and what his actions were. Because I stated he was wearing a black fur hat, black gloves, and black jacket, we NEVER made eye contact... because of his DARK SUNGLASSES. If he DID signal someone, I wouldn't even know if it was me or not. It's gonna get tossed...


...court date is March 15th. I'll keep you guys updated.

Just for the sake of argument...

If you didn't see the cop, as you claim... How do you know he was wearing dark sunglasses?

It won't help you to talk about your case on here. Ask a lawyer... and I'd bet they'd tell you to shut up about it!

[CruisnGrrl]

Just for the sake of argument...

If you didn't see the cop, as you claim... How do you know he was wearing dark sunglasses?

It won't help you to talk about your case on here. Ask a lawyer... and I'd bet they'd tell you to shut up about it!

After he was stopped... he saw the cop.

[Rob MacLennan]

It was subsection (2)... and thanks for pointing out the $1000 to $10,000 fine again... I was already told and I'm still freaking out LOL.

I called the dudes at Redline. They asked for a DETAILED report of the event, and what the cop was wearing, and what his actions were. Because I stated he was wearing a black fur hat, black gloves, and black jacket, we NEVER made eye contact... because of his DARK SUNGLASSES. If he DID signal someone, I wouldn't even know if it was me or not. It's gonna get tossed...


...court date is March 15th. I'll keep you guys updated.

When you were eventually pulled over, were you wearing your seat belt then?