My wife was pulled over for speeding the other day, and the officer was parked with half the car on the road and half the car on the curb.

Is there any requirement for the officer to park their car legally when doing a speed trap? Or at least in a safe location?

**EDIT** Also, cop said he did not need to show the speed on the gun, and have seen conflicting reports on that from what I have looked up. Any confirmation on that would be great as well.

Thanks

Where the officer was parked has no impact on whether the offence of speeding can be proven in court. The answer to your second question is here: http://www.simonborys.ca/2010/04/does-a ... the-radar/

Thanks, I had been told that a cop had to be parked legally in order to execute a speed trap. Just could not find any verification (for now obvious reasons).

It doesn't make sense to me that an officer can commit an illegal act (illegally parking) to catch you committing one, but that's another discussion altogether!

It is not illegal as in most municipalities it is written into their bylaws that an emergency vehicle is exempt from bylaws during the execution of their duties.

OPS

Touche!

And the phrase "execution of duties" is broad enough that it would be virtually impossible to argue.

Thanks for the clarification guys!

Well catching Speeders would CLEARLY be execution of their duties...

So would catching drug dealers, but seeking them and trying to buy drugs is entrapment and illegal, isn't it?

LindMich wrote:

So would catching drug dealers, but seeking them and trying to buy drugs is entrapment and illegal, isn't it?

No

Entrapment is when the police induce someone to commit a crime who would not normally commit said crime.

Asking someone who is a drug dealer to sell them drugs is not entrapment.

Going out to a random stranger who is not a drug dealer and induce them to sell them drugs and then arrest them for drug dealing would be entrapment

Catching speeders is far from entrapment.

ops

I think you misunderstood, my point wasn't that speed traps are entrapment, but that there ARE limits on what officers can do while in the "execution of their duties".

My understanding is that with drugs and prostitution for example, the undercover officer cannot give someone the opportunity to commit a crime by offering them drugs, asking for drugs or offering sex to them. They can, however, pose as a non-officer and have someone approach them and commit a crime.

Asking someone for drugs is entrapment, as it is providing the opportunity to commit a crime. Entrapment isn't based on who would or wouldn't normally commit a crime, as all people are innocent until proven guilty.

I think you're misunderstanding entrapment. Without going into all the legal nuances of it, it is NOT entrapment per say to provide someone with the opportunity to commit a crime. For example, when an undercover officer approaches someone they have a suspicion is selling drugs and tries to buy from them, that is NOT entrapment, even though they've "provided" that person with the opportunity to commit a crime. The presumption of innocence does not operate here in the same way as it does in court.

Entrapment does very much depend on the person being provided with the opportunity to commit a crime and the manner in which that opportunity is provided. Approaching someone where there is no independently existing suspicion (i.e. cold calling a phone number to buy drugs) may be considered entrapment. As might providing the opportunity in a manner that leaves them feeling that they really had no other choice than to comply and commit the crime.

None of these considerations exist with a simple "speed trap".

I have something to say about this.I was driving down EC ROW expressway in Windsor last year when on a pitch dark stretch during a misty night a passing car and i came upon fully marked black and white OPP cruiser parked on the right shoulder doing radar with the drivers side wheels on the yellow line and all his lights off.He could not be seen by either car until we were on top of him.Reflexes took over and I swerved within my lane causing the passing car to swerve on to the left shoulder into the ditch and back up onto the road.The cop knew what he did and didn't come after us.

Farther down the road we both pulled into the Tim Horton's and proceeded to call OPP detachment and had at it,we threatened to go to the news paper,someone could have been killed that night.Neither of us were speeding I was doing 80kmh and the other car could not have been doing more than 90kmph in a 100kmph zone.

This is dangerous,careless and ignorant behavior for the police to engauge in and the OPP officer at the detachment agreed.I have since seen another/same OPP cruiser in the same spot doing same thing and again reported it,five minutes later on the return trip he was gone and I have not seen a police car there since.A year later I'm still mad about it.I missed the cruiser by a foot and almost caused the other car to crash.I honestly though I was going to have a heart attack and was shaking all the way home.

I fail to see the relevance in slowing down and changing lanes if some officers don't bother to do the right thing and protect themselves the people they pull over and other motorists by creating a needlessly dangerous situation by parking on the road just to hand out a fine.Why not follow the car until there is room to stop before lighting them up or do radar from a safe place OFF the roadway?