HTA 172 is still unconstitutional -- anyone had issues with standing on pegs?

[griff2]

This is not and never has been about the "freedom" to do such things

True. It has to do with raising the price of doing such things in not only Ontario but most other provinces too, to the point where "pay for play" becomes less attractive for those who might otherwise be willing to risk being caught.

The measures may seem extreme, but they are aimed only at the extreme end of the driving violation scale, and the average driver will never find themselves caught in HTA172 just as the average driver will not find themselves ensnared in similar administrative measures aimed at those who drink and drive, or who drive while prohibited.

 

[TwistedKestrel]

True. It has to do with raising the price of doing such things in not only Ontario but most other provinces too, to the point where "pay for play" becomes less attractive for those who might otherwise be willing to risk being caught.

If this was what it was about, the (hopefully discretionary) license suspension & vehicle impoundment could be rolled into the $2-10K fine on conviction. You could scale the fine on income, even.

The measures may seem extreme, but they are aimed only at the extreme end of the driving violation scale, and the average driver will never find themselves caught in HTA172 just as the average driver will not find themselves ensnared in similar administrative measures aimed at those who drink and drive, or who drive while prohibited.

I refer you to the first post in the thread

 

[unfaZed]

Note to oneself - do not travel at 50+ over the limit or brake-check other traffic. Neither should be particularly difficult assuming reasonable maturity and self-discipline.

I've been reading your posts - you just don't get it, and you never will.

Nobody is making enough money that they should be given the responsibility and/or ability to seize property AT WILL with no consequences.

If a LEO makes a 172 vehicle seizure and impoundment, and that person is found to be innocent - at a bare minimum they should be refunded all costs incurred...in an ideal scenario the officer would be fired or forced to personally repay that money.

Neither of those things happen now.




The mistaken idea that we should be setting draconian laws and just allowing the police to "enforce" as they see fit - is basically creating a judge dredd type situation here in Ontario. I don't have the time of day - or a brake pedal if nobody is watching and you're crossing the street, for people that think creating a police state is acceptable.


Quite simply? go have sex with yourself and your insane views.




The impounding and fine should happen after conviction - that is why the act violates our charter rights...even if the people in the SCC chose to erode those rights by ignoring that simple fact.

 

[griff2]

The impounding and fine should happen after conviction - that is why the act violates our charter rights...even if the people in the SCC chose to erode those rights by ignoring that simple fact.

There is no fine before conviction and the highest Court in the land has consistently ruled on more than one occasion that administrative sanctions under provincial regulatory powers do not constitute a penal penalty and as such do not violate our Charter rights.

 

[griff2]

If this was what it was about, the (hopefully discretionary) license suspension & vehicle impoundment could be rolled into the $2-10K fine on conviction. You could scale the fine on income, even.



I refer you to the first post in the thread

The same can be argued about similar 90-day automatic pretrial licenses suspensions or 45-day automatic vehicle impounds faced by those accused of driving impaired or driving while prohibited. Nobody seems to concerned about those. Why should they feel particularly concerned by similar sanctions for other extreme driving?

The first post in the thread refers to "being innocent". If that is referring to those being found guilty of or pleading guilty to lesser offences, that is hardly the same as being innocent.

The threshold for being snagged under HTA172 is sufficiently high that it should be a simple matter for most to stay well below from the sharp edge of the threshold. It hasn't altered my driving or riding, nor has it altered the riding or driving of most other people I know. If it frightens some, then good, it's doing what it is intended to.

 

[Neil_V]

There is no fine before conviction and the highest Court in the land has consistently ruled on more than one occasion that administrative sanctions under provincial regulatory powers do not constitute a penal penalty and as such do not violate our Charter rights.

Surely you can see the duplicity in that.. surely...

 

[Neil_V]

The same can be argued about similar 90-day automatic pretrial licenses suspensions or 45-day automatic vehicle impounds faced by those accused of driving impaired or driving while prohibited. Nobody seems to concerned about those. Why should they feel particularly concerned by similar sanctions for other extreme driving?

The first post in the thread refers to "being innocent". If that is referring to those being found guilty of or pleading guilty to lesser offences, that is hardly the same as being innocent.

The threshold for being snagged under HTA172 is sufficiently high that it should be a simple matter for most to stay well below from the sharp edge of the threshold. It hasn't altered my driving or riding, nor has it altered the riding or driving of most other people I know. If it frightens some, then good, it's doing what it is intended to.

Impaired with a failed test and/or not having a valid license or driving while excluded are all cut and dry....

Conversely, did you:

spin your tires on purpose;
stand on the pegs to showboat;
lift your front/rear wheel came up on purpose;
you brake checked someone;
jump that light;

and on and on...... all quite subjective. Big difference.

Don't forget the sanctions where thought up and sold to catch aggressive street racers.... which is not actually happening.

 

[griff2]

Impaired with a failed test and/or not having a valid license or driving while excluded are all cut and dry....

Conversely, did you:

spin your tires on purpose;
stand on the pegs to showboat;
lift your front/rear wheel came up on purpose;
you brake checked someone;
jump that light;

and on and on...... all quite subjective. Big difference.

Don't forget the sanctions where thought up and sold to catch aggressive street racers.... which is not actually happening.

Most of the things you pointed out above can be easily seen as blatantly intentional acts when they are in fact intentional. Full-on burnouts with or without accompanying brake-stand, drifting, high-up wheelies, stoppies for no good reason, obvious brake-checks for no good reason are no-brainers. 50-over with a direct laser/radar/pacing is a no-brainer, as is jumping a light to squeak a left-turn ahead of oncoming traffic. Standing on pegs is another one where intent is made clear by other factors in how you are operating at that moment.

Sanctions were brought up to and sold to address overly-aggressive driving in general, not just "traditional" street racing. There was a string of serious GTA-area crashes in the months and short years ahead of HTA172. Not all of them involved two or more vehicles racing each other on the street. There were just as many that involved only one vehicle travelling stupid or at excessive speed.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Note to oneself - do not travel at 50+ over the limit or brake-check other traffic. Neither should be particularly difficult assuming reasonable maturity and self-discipline.

Note to others: Do not assume that every charge is righteous; cf Dennis Mahoney-Bruer.

 

[griff2]

Note to others: Do not assume that every charge is righteous; cf Dennis Mahoney-Bruer.

Mahoney-Bruer, who was not convicted? Does that mean the charges against him were not righteous?

 

[yodude]

note to anyone, innocent until proven guilty, some folks remember the good ol' days, when fundamentals like due process meant something & was mostly a given

 

[griff2]

note to anyone, innocent until proven guilty, some folks remember the good ol' days, when fundamentals like due process, was mostly a given

Due process has always had room to get real expensive and inconvenient for an accused. Pretrial custody for some, cost of bail and severe bail restrictions, curfews, driving restrictions for those accused of driving-related crimes, being barred from your usual place of employment or other places, legal fees and so on are all costs incurred by those who are "innocent until proven guilty"

Even for those eventually found "not guilty", this is not the same as a finding of innocence by the court. It is only a finding of inadequate evidence to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasoable doubt. For most accused found "not guilty", and except for the very worst cases of wrongful conviction (think Morin, Milgaard, Marshal and the like), there is seldom every any compensation or cost reimbursement for the experience.

 

[yodude]

no doubt, in the end, you can win & all it really amounts to is a better than nothing deal,

but, still way better than losing or settling for less

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Mahoney-Bruer, who was not convicted? Does that mean the charges against him were not righteous?

I suggest you read the decision.

 

[griff2]

I suggest you read the decision.

I have. No smoking gun, radar, laser, or otherwise.

[131] Ultimately, I am left in the position where I am unable to believe Mahoney-Bruer’s testimony. I am particularly troubled by the non-production of any of the dash pad notes that the accused said he used to transcribe onto his officer’s notes. As a result, I am left with only Mahoney-Bruer’s uncorroborated recollection of what those dash pad notes contained and his having transcribed those contents to complete his officer’s notes for the subject notice/summons.

[132] I am also, however, unable to reject Mahoney-Bruer’s evidence of what he described as the “perfect storm” of events culminating in these charges. The accused was able to produce two notes from his police vest that supported his testimony. In addition, Inspector Graham confirmed that Mahoney-Bruer was engaged in real estate studies at the time of these allegations lending support to the accused’s narrative. Mahoney-Bruer did not raise the speed of the Breznica Notice by the necessary 5 kilometres to meet the racing threshold contrary to the Crown’s argument on motivation. Mahoney-Bruer accurately completed the laser use log on May 10th noting the he did not use laser that day and on May 11th when he did use the laser, which log supported his explanation for the events resulting in these charges. The Crown offered no evidence or anything else to explain the obvious inconsistency between the argument that Mahoney-Bruer intentionally falsified the Notice/Summons and the fact that he accurately completed the use log.


[133] In conclusion, the totality of the evidence, including that tendered by Mahoney-Bruer leaves me with a reasonable doubt as to whether he had the requisite intent for the charged offences. As such and following the analysis in W.D., I must and do acquit Mahoney-Bruer of all charges.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

In summary the judge effectively said, "I know what you did and you know what you did, but reasonable doubt means I cannot convict you." This speaks volumes. [131] is rather telling, as is the section which precedes it:

[129] Mahoney-Bruer starts out stating any error on the documents was a mistake and later in the interview appears, at least, to acknowledge some of the offences. Mahoney-Bruer’s uncertainty during the interview persists to the point of his call to Donnelly in the early morning hours immediately following the interview requesting that the investigators undertake further efforts to confirm the accused’s use of radar and pacing for the subject offences.

Then there are the judge's closing statements from the bench, which can be found in this article, which I allude to in my statement at the beginning of this post:

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/12/11/opp_officer_acquitted_on_breach_of_trust_charges.html

In this case "not guilty" is not "innocent."

 

[Neil_V]

Most of the things you pointed out above can be easily seen as blatantly intentional acts when they are in fact intentional. Full-on burnouts with or without accompanying brake-stand, drifting, high-up wheelies, stoppies for no good reason, obvious brake-checks for no good reason are no-brainers. 50-over with a direct laser/radar/pacing is a no-brainer, as is jumping a light to squeak a left-turn ahead of oncoming traffic. Standing on pegs is another one where intent is made clear by other factors in how you are operating at that moment.

Sanctions were brought up to and sold to address overly-aggressive driving in general, not just "traditional" street racing. There was a string of serious GTA-area crashes in the months and short years ahead of HTA172. Not all of them involved two or more vehicles racing each other on the street. There were just as many that involved only one vehicle travelling stupid or at excessive speed.

The point was, in the case of DUI or driving while excluded, there is no subjectivity. Saying that, I can support administrative measures. In matters where administrative measures come down to your word vs an officers are to easily abused. Mr Stonewalls, as mentioned, is a prime example.

As for the second part, I think if you went back to when the law was being pushed through, you'll see the push focused almost exclusively on the import street racers making headlines at the time

 

[Neil_V]

Due process has always had room to get real expensive and inconvenient for an accused. Pretrial custody for some, cost of bail and severe bail restrictions, curfews, driving restrictions for those accused of driving-related crimes, being barred from your usual place of employment or other places, legal fees and so on are all costs incurred by those who are "innocent until proven guilty"

Even for those eventually found "not guilty", this is not the same as a finding of innocence by the court. It is only a finding of inadequate evidence to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasoable doubt. For most accused found "not guilty", and except for the very worst cases of wrongful conviction (think Morin, Milgaard, Marshal and the like), there is seldom every any compensation or cost reimbursement for the experience.

Apples to oranges.. In your examples, there is still much process. An officer, or team of officers must build a case to present to the crown who in turn decide whether or not to pursue the matter... s.172, the officer uses his judgement alone.

 

[griff2]

The point was, in the case of DUI or driving while excluded, there is no subjectivity. Saying that, I can support administrative measures. In matters where administrative measures come down to your word vs an officers are to easily abused. Mr Stonewalls, as mentioned, is a prime example.

As for the second part, I think if you went back to when the law was being pushed through, you'll see the push focused almost exclusively on the import street racers making headlines at the time

Radar/laser/pacing is not subjective. It is a number just like any breath test number, so are you now also saying you are ok with administrative measures for 50+ over the limit as the degree of speeding is not determined subjectively?

Part 2, the media focus may have been on street racers and a couple of serious crashes in particular, but the legislative focus was far broader from the outset and that legislative process had its beginnings much earlier than the height of the media focus on street racing..

 

[griff2]

In summary the judge effectively said, "I know what you did and you know what you did, but reasonable doubt means I cannot convict you." This speaks volumes. [131] is rather telling, as is the section which precedes it:

[129] Mahoney-Bruer starts out stating any error on the documents was a mistake and later in the interview appears, at least, to acknowledge some of the offences. Mahoney-Bruer’s uncertainty during the interview persists to the point of his call to Donnelly in the early morning hours immediately following the interview requesting that the investigators undertake further efforts to confirm the accused’s use of radar and pacing for the subject offences.

Then there are the judge's closing statements from the bench, which can be found in this article, which I allude to in my statement at the beginning of this post:

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/12/11/opp_officer_acquitted_on_breach_of_trust_charges.html

In this case "not guilty" is not "innocent."

Except that the judge did NOT know what Mahoney-Bruer did. There was only strong suspicion. Had the judge known, then there would not have been sufficient doubt in the judge's mind to preclude conviction.