Speed measuring warning devices

[Elena P.]

Does it mean, if a motorcyclist have such device mounted not on the bike, but on his/her body (battery powered, in the arm's pocket,...) this can not be applied and he/she can not be personally searched by an officer when he/she steps out of the motorcycle on a traffic stop?

Speed measuring warning devices
79. (1) In this section,
“speed measuring warning device” means any device or equipment designed or intended for use in a motor vehicle to warn the driver of the presence of speed measuring equipment in the vicinity and includes any device or equipment designed or intended for use in a motor vehicle to interfere with the effective operation of speed measuring equipment. 1996, c. 33, s. 12.
Speed measuring warning device prohibited
(2) No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle that is equipped with or that carries or contains a speed measuring warning device. 1996, c. 33, s. 12.
Powers of police officer
(3) A police officer may at any time, without a warrant, stop, enter and search a motor vehicle that he or she has reasonable grounds to believe is equipped with or carries or contains a speed measuring warning device contrary to subsection (2) and may seize and take away any speed measuring warning device found in or upon the motor vehicle. 1996, c. 33, s. 12.

[newbieracer]

As far as I know, On a motorcycle, is in a vehicle in the laws eyes.

So.... No.

[Andrew978]

if they get a radar detector detector signal (ie probably cause) and they can't find it on the bike, they'll just hold you there (or at the station) till they can get a warrant to search your body if they feel like it

[Andrew978]

As far as I know, On a motorcycle, is in a vehicle in the laws eyes.

So.... No.

I think she's referring to Subsection 3 that pertains to the officer being able to search the vehicle without a warrant. you are not part of the vehicle and I believe they require a warrant to be able to search your person

[Snobike Mike]

i was not aware of subsection 2 which clearly states you can't possess a detecter in your car.

I guess we should go on a bender to nail US visitors who have detectors.

[Snobike Mike]

Does it mean, if a motorcyclist have such device mounted not on the bike, but on his/her body (battery powered, in the arm's pocket,...) this can not be applied and he/she can not be personally searched by an officer when he/she steps out of the motorcycle on a traffic stop?

based on subsection 2, since the bike would have been "carrying" the detector you're already beat.

[Smokeandapancake]

if they get a radar detector detector signal (ie probably cause) and they can't find it on the bike, they'll just hold you there (or at the station) till they can get a warrant to search your body if they feel like it

Good luck finding a JP that would issue a warrant.

[Rob MacLennan]

Or the officer could search you in order to determine that you aren't carrying a weapon, for his own safety, and just happen to find the detector.

[mat2312]

Or the officer could search you in order to determine that you aren't carrying a weapon, for his own safety, and just happen to find the detector.

I thought you weren't allowed to be searched unless you were being arrested. That would constitute an unlawful search and any evidence he found would be invalid.


By that logic everytime an officer wanted to search someone without a warrant he could claim he's just searching for weapons.


Just buy a STI and avoid all this.

[Snobike Mike]

Just buy a STI and avoid all this.

Yes but if they see it they can nail you with subsection 2.

could still be worth the risk.

[Brian]

Yes, a warrant would be required before they could search you for the radar detector, but such a warrant would never be granted on the basis of Section 79 of the H.T.A. alone. The officer has no right to search your person, and the person is under no obligation whatsoever to submit to a search. Section 79 of the HTA provides no power to search a person, nor does it provide a power of arrest. Further, the section is not included among offences for which arrest without warrant may be made under section 217. Thus, from the judgement in R. v. Dunne ([1992] O.J. No. 1884 (Prov. Div.)):

(bolded for emphasis)
"[T]he refusal on the part of the defendant to deliver, from his person, what the officer believed was such a device, cannot constitute in law the offence of obstructing the officer in the lawful execution of his duty. The defendant here had a common law right to remain silent and had no obligation to assist the officer in establishing the commission of an offence."

See also R. v. Arseneau ([1988] O.J. No. 2525 (Prov. Div.))
R. v. Dunne ([1992] O.J. No. 1884 (Prov. Div.))
R. v. Lavin (1992), 76 C.C.C. (3d) 279 (Que. C.A.)

However, I should remind anyone who is thinking of being difficult that the officer can do plenty of things at the scene to make your life difficult, and leave it up to you to go to court and deal with the consequences.

[newbieracer]

However, I should remind anyone who is thinking of being difficult that the officer can do plenty of things at the scene to make your life difficult, and leave it up to you to go to court and deal with the consequences.

Hi do you have a radar detector?
-No
Can I search you?
-No
well I coulda sworn I saw you going 50 over. Still dont have a radar detector?
-aww damn.

among the easyer things they could do.

[Smokeandapancake]

Yes, a warrant would be required before they could search you for the radar detector, but such a warrant would never be granted on the basis of Section 79 of the H.T.A. alone. The officer has no right to search your person, and the person is under no obligation whatsoever to submit to a search. Section 79 of the HTA provides no power to search a person, nor does it provide a power of arrest. Further, the section is not included among offences for which arrest without warrant may be made under section 217. Thus, from the judgement in R. v. Dunne ([1992] O.J. No. 1884 (Prov. Div.)):

(bolded for emphasis)
"[T]he refusal on the part of the defendant to deliver, from his person, what the officer believed was such a device, cannot constitute in law the offence of obstructing the officer in the lawful execution of his duty. The defendant here had a common law right to remain silent and had no obligation to assist the officer in establishing the commission of an offence."

See also R. v. Arseneau ([1988] O.J. No. 2525 (Prov. Div.))
R. v. Dunne ([1992] O.J. No. 1884 (Prov. Div.))
R. v. Lavin (1992), 76 C.C.C. (3d) 279 (Que. C.A.)

However, I should remind anyone who is thinking of being difficult that the officer can do plenty of things at the scene to make your life difficult, and leave it up to you to go to court and deal with the consequences.

Great post.

[alkaline nine]

A trumpted up speeding charge would likley give him probable cause to search you, as they are not required to show you their radar reading.