"Ticket not on docket"

[OpenGambit]

This isn't a discussion about whether I was wrong or not. I'm pretty sure anyone who has ever been on two wheels has done something "wrong". Innocent or guilty, the impound fee is non refundable and cops have the power to put that on you whether it will stick in court or not. That's the problem.

From a guy that just suggested that you wouldn't stop for the cops next time, I am pretty sure you deserved it. You got lucky but nothing here suggests to me that your charge was improper.

[OpenGambit]

This may be the case, where Criminal Code charges are concerned, but it's very unusual for Highway Traffic Act charges. The only other cases, that immediately comes to mind, are where operation with alcohol is concerned or the vehicle is unfit for operation. The behaviours, that are codified within HTA O. Reg 455/07, are all things that used to result in a ticket, a lecture, and being sent on your way. You had your day in court, before being punished. Extreme variants, of the same behaviour, were under Criminal Code sanction.

I don't believe that morally repugnant and dangerous behaviour is restricted to the Criminal Code. There are offences under other laws that have huge impact which are not in the criminal code.. The various securities acts of the provinces come to mind.

I am not saying that HTA 172 doesn't reach further than it should, but The general point is that punishment before trial is common in ours, and every other common law system and ppl shouldn't treat it like its some huge constitutional violation when it is not.

[Rob MacLennan]

I don't believe that morally repugnant and dangerous behaviour is restricted to the Criminal Code. There are offences under other laws that have huge impact which are not in the criminal code.. The various securities acts of the provinces come to mind.

I am not saying that HTA 172 doesn't reach further than it should, but The general point is that punishment before trial is common in ours, and every other common law system and ppl shouldn't treat it like its some huge constitutional violation when it is not.

And that's the point of contention, where this law is concerned; whether the benefit to the public outweighs the detriment to the subject, as is the requirement for such sanction, where there is no perceived ongoing danger or impairment of the subject.

[OpenGambit]

And that's the point of contention, where this law is concerned; whether the benefit to the public outweighs the detriment to the subject, as is the requirement for such sanction, where there is no perceived ongoing danger or impairment of the subject.

Maybe, but I am by no means convinced that this was the case in the instance above. Laws are not right or wrong in the hypothetical, there must always be a plaintiff.

[Rob MacLennan]

Maybe, but I am by no means convinced that this was the case in the instance above. Laws are not right or wrong in the hypothetical, there must always be a plaintiff.

The law should also not be used as a blunt object. Unfortunately this seems to be the intended purpose of HTA 172.

For whatever reason, The Crown did not pursue this charge. It could have been for any of a number of reasons but, if it was because there was no reasonable chance of conviction, then the charge should never likely have been laid in the first place as it was. Certainly this is speculation, on my part, which is why I've made conditional statements. I'm not saying that the OP is innocent of this charge, but I am saying that he's not guilty, knowing that you understand the difference (which many here don't).

You'll also note that I removed the posts, in which baseless accusations were being made

[OpenGambit]

Well I think we can agree ( putting aside the facts of this post) is that the issue lies in the definition of stunt driving.

There is nothing constitutionally wrong with having, broadly speaking, punishment before trial.

What I see is 3 essential categories .

(non-HTA 172 behaviour) (HTA 172 behaviour that is of a low degree of culpability) (obvious 172 behaviour)

The first one is just... regular driving... like going 20 over.. if you get charged for stunt driving. thats just straight up abuse, but this potential abuse is not limited to HTA 172 and is behaviour akin to a cop arresting you then putting cocaine in your pocket. It is not exclusive to 172. People on this forum like to pretend this happens in 90% of 172 cases but i have never seen anything to suggest that its true.

the 3rd one is easy, and its straight up street racing/drag racing, hat racing, doing donuts. I have no problem with ppl that take that behaviour onto the streets getting slapped.

The issue is always going to be that kinda middle area where omg the guy filtered, yes its illegal yes people have been convicted, but in my view, its just not that culpable to deserve 172.

In my view there are 2 solutions, a legislative and a judical one

first. I would want to see the definition of stunt driving narrowed, and potentially add in a "dangerous" requirement.
I would also like to see a judicial decision similar to the driving on the shoulder decision where the court said you can't just prove the offence, you have to also show that it was dangerous. (was it driving in an unmarked lane?) I forget the decision off the top of my head. I think that would give law enforcement far better guidance in terms of what is actually an offence and what is not.


I definately would not want to see a "recourse" kind of idea for being found not guilty.. from a public policy perspective that would be ridiculous. It would almost necessarily come with the reverse... If you had to pay court fees when you are found guilty.. that little crappy speeding ticket you got for 10 over is going to triple in price.. It would also bankrupt anyone that had to go through a prolonged trial.
I also think that the monetary consideration would be an improper concern for law enforcement, they are funded in general by tax dollars and thats enough.

(I note that a huge part of 172 being enacted is the cost of charging dangerous driving.) I also assure you that it is way way way more expensive to be charged with dangerous driving. I have read on this board before that some ppl "would rather be charged with dangerous driving" and I can only say that they have no idea what they are talking about.

[Rob MacLennan]

I think that we are largely in agreement, and have thought so for a while from your previous posts, but I differ in that I don't think HTA 172 is necessary at all. If behaviour can be classified as "dangerous", then it falls under the purview of The Criminal Code's dangerous operation of a vehicle definitions. It can and should be dealt with in that way. The standard of justice should not be diminished, simply because pursuing things in the right and proper way is 'hard.' It should be hard, as the onus is on The State.

I would prefer if we kept things separate. Recently we've had far too much of this "law and order" politicized pandering, by politicians, that tries to create issues where none exist and then make political capital from them. A vanishingly small number of heavily publicized actual street racing incidents, resulting in deaths, became the springboard for legislation against such. These incidents were dealt with using the criminal justice system, indicating that additional legislation was unnecessary. The legislation, that was eventually passed, dealt with classical street racing in the most peripheral of ways, but effectively raised penalties for lesser offences to the levels of lesser Criminal Code offences.

As an example we have the recent changes in law that turn what is intended as a 'warning', into a very real punishment. This change carries an incredible amount of political capital, but in no way addresses the issue of 'career drunks', who are the real issue, and who routinely drive when they're multiples above the legal limit. These are the people, who always seem to be getting into spectacular collisions resulting in deaths. Even so a case can be made that someone who is at or above the warning BAC level is an ongoing danger to the public, so some sort of immediate sanction can be reasoned. I would much prefer that the legal limit be changed, rather than creating so many convolutions in law, but whatever. It's at least quantifiable. The vast majority of charges, under HTA 172, are anything but quantifiable. As such, and because such behaviour doesn't represent an ONGOING danger to the public, guilt and sanction should be determined in court rather than on the roadside.

So charge bad drivers under the Criminal Code, or give them a ticket and see them in court, but don't try to find an easy way around the very foundations of our legal system

[OpenGambit]

I definately see your point. And yes I think we we largly agree.

The thing I see is this.

Pre-trial consequences (and by that I mean detention + roadside suspensions) .. I believe are justified, legal and consitutional in cases where the offender is likely to reoffend and/or continue to pose a danger to the public. (bascially we are talking like the type of language found in bail hearings)

Now with regards to drunk driving. We are in agreement.

With regards to 172. I do see situations where people do continue to pose a threat and are at a high risk to reoffend. Without naming names, there are many people on this very board that generally espouse a flagrant disregard for the law and the safety of others, and currently a dangerous driving charge does not have a remedy for that until conviction which could be a year or more away. Certainly pre-trial custody is too extreme for dangerous driving.

I believe that in line with what was said above about risk to reoffend, our laws have a responsibility to remove ongoing dangerous from society. 172 gives law enforcement the ability to remove such dangers. So there is a niche that 172 fills which I argue is a good tool in the arsenal of law enforcement. The unfortunate aspect is that the net is cast far wider than necessary. Thats why I would like to see the tightening of the stunt driving definition to be the solution, not the removal of 172 which i believe is the only way that law enforcement can adequately remove a driver from the road who is a ongoing danger but is not intoxicated.

[Rob MacLennan]

I definately see your point. And yes I think we we largly agree.

The thing I see is this.

Pre-trial consequences (and by that I mean detention + roadside suspensions) .. I believe are justified, legal and consitutional in cases where the offender is likely to reoffend and/or continue to pose a danger to the public. (bascially we are talking like the type of language found in bail hearings)

Now with regards to drunk driving. We are in agreement.

With regards to 172. I do see situations where people do continue to pose a threat and are at a high risk to reoffend. Without naming names, there are many people on this very board that generally espouse a flagrant disregard for the law and the safety of others, and currently a dangerous driving charge does not have a remedy for that until conviction which could be a year or more away. Certainly pre-trial custody is too extreme for dangerous driving.

I believe that in line with what was said above about risk to reoffend, our laws have a responsibility to remove ongoing dangerous from society. 172 gives law enforcement the ability to remove such dangers. So there is a niche that 172 fills which I argue is a good tool in the arsenal of law enforcement. The unfortunate aspect is that the net is cast far wider than necessary. Thats why I would like to see the tightening of the stunt driving definition to be the solution, not the removal of 172 which i believe is the only way that law enforcement can adequately remove a driver from the road who is a ongoing danger but is not intoxicated.

Then perhaps the current consequences under HTA 172 should kick in after someone has already demonstrated that sort of behaviour, and been convicted, on a previous occasion because being pulled over for a single incident doesn't qualify, to my mind, as showing a 'propensity' (again, bail hearing language).

[OpenGambit]

That sounds reasonable.

Are you talking about 172 having a "may" impound if the officer reasonably believes, based on the offence/driving record of the accused, that he is likely to reoffend ?

[Rob MacLennan]

That sounds reasonable.

Are you talking about 172 having a "may" impound if the officer reasonably believes, based on the offence/driving record of the accused, that he is likely to reoffend ?

Exactly. From my understanding of Charter case law, that would be a reasonable accommodation. If someone has a history of similar offences (convictions, not charges), say over the last 10 years (a timeframe that seems to come up fairly frequently in law), then giving an officer the option of impounding for a one week period would be reasonable.

[OpenGambit]

Exactly. From my understanding of Charter case law, that would be a reasonable accommodation. If someone has a history of similar offences, say over the last 10 years (a timeframe that seems to come up fairly frequently in law), then giving an officer the option of impounding for a one week period would be reasonable.

Yeah I think that would be much preferred law. I actually think mandatory penalties in general are ridiculous. The reason that the judiciary fights so hard against mandatory minimums all the time is because it takes away their leeway on the sympathetic cases that are techinically illegal. it doesn't make it any "harsher" on the real criminals to have mandatory minimums. This tough on crime based on mandatory minimums is just showboating crap.

[Rob MacLennan]

Yeah I think that would be much preferred law. I actually think mandatory penalties in general are ridiculous. The reason that the judiciary fights so hard against mandatory minimums all the time is because it takes away their leeway on the sympathetic cases that are techinically illegal. it doesn't make it any "harsher" on the real criminals to have mandatory minimums. This tough on crime based on mandatory minimums is just showboating crap.

I agree completely. In fact one debate in which I had my butt neatly handed to me, on a platter, was when I was trying to support the concept of mandatory minimum sentences to a defence lawyer acquaintance. When I'm shown to be patently wrong, I tend to change my opinion. At this point I laugh, every time that I hear some 'conservative' politician start to yell about 'mandatory minimum sentences' in order to stop 'activist judges' from giving 'hugs to thugs.' I have to laugh or I'll cry, over how many people buy that talking point (like I once did).

[GayManLoveIsOK]

What the hell is this.

The guy admits he was doing something wrong and everyone jumps out of the woodwork like they charged him for racing when he was going 20 under the limit.
There is nothing in this thread that suggests he was innocent.

if he admits he was doing something wrong, then why wasn't he charged, he was in court, they dismissed the ticket, he's out all that money...you can't have cops going around, impounding vehicles, knowing it will cost you money and then tossing the ticket in court knowing that you don't have enough evidence, there has to be some accountability...well, actually there shouldn't, because then i would be showing my support for this crap law...

[OpenGambit]

if he admits he was doing something wrong, then why wasn't he charged, he was in court, they dismissed the ticket, he's out all that money...you can't have cops going around, impounding vehicles, knowing it will cost you money and then tossing the ticket in court knowing that you don't have enough evidence, there has to be some accountability...well, actually there shouldn't, because then i would be showing my support for this crap law...

He admits to doing something wrong.
His ticket was not dismissed. And even if it were, that doesnt' make the OP innocent because he admitted it. Confessions are golden.
Any charge by a cop of a similar degree of seriousness or above costs you money before trial
There is as much accountability in HTA 172 than there is in the provincial drunk driving laws and just about anything under the criminal code.

Next.

[turbodish]

This may be the case, where Criminal Code charges are concerned, but it's very unusual for Highway Traffic Act charges. The only other cases, that immediately comes to mind, are where operation with alcohol is concerned or the vehicle is unfit for operation. The behaviours, that are codified within HTA O. Reg 455/07, are all things that used to result in a ticket, a lecture, and being sent on your way. You had your day in court, before being punished. Extreme variants, of the same behaviour, were under Criminal Code sanction.

There are many many provincial laws where you can be administratively penalized before you get your day in court, starting with illegal fishing or hunting where nobody is hurt or even threatened, but where you can still lose your car, your boat, atv, fishing and hunting gear on the spot. Same goes for illegal tobacco offences, and plenty more if you want to go look them up. At least with HTA172, the offences being dealt with are those extreme driving behavours that pose direct threat of bodily injury and/or severe financial harm to other road users.

[bushati]

Offensive content removed.

[OpenGambit]

Offensive content removed.

^ what a shame. I would have liked to read that.

[Baggsy]

Exactly. From my understanding of Charter case law, that would be a reasonable accommodation. If someone has a history of similar offences (convictions, not charges), say over the last 10 years (a timeframe that seems to come up fairly frequently in law), then giving an officer the option of impounding for a one week period would be reasonable.

Wouldn't they start complaining about being profiled and being convicted based upon their past rather than whether or not they are guilty then?

I don't think that there is a perfect solution to the issue, but tightening the descriptions of offenses might be a start.
Also, if something should be an offense, but not to such a severe degree, they should either *** or get off the pot. i.e. if lane splitting/sharing/filtering should not be done, then they should say it outright, rather than relying on stopping someone eight times to get the message across.

[OpenGambit]

Wouldn't they start complaining about being profiled and being convicted based upon their past rather than whether or not they are guilty then?

ppl complain about a lot of things. but the complaint has to have merit. There would be no merit to this complaint, considering that criminal courts employ this type of reasoning every day for bail hearings.