I hope this isn't considered necro-posting around here. I had something similar happen to me a few weeks ago with the same section 182(2) infraction.

I was in the Napanee area on the 401. Came upon an OPP cruiser in the left lane who couldn't seem to maintain a steady speed, travelling anywhere from 90 up to 110, but who refused to change lanes or allow anyone to pass him. Myself and a growing que of cars were stuck behind this guy because anytime anyone wanted to pass when he was slowing down to 100 or less, he'd turn on his emergency lights and prevent the pass. I saw him do this at least 5 times over a span of 15min. We were going slow enough that transports had started catching us and the road ahead was pretty much clear of traffic since we were travelling slower than the normal flow of traffic.

I passed the cop when he again slowed from 110 and I decided not to follow suit. I passed him in the right lane going 110 and when I got ahead of him, he pretty much instantly pulled in behind me and lit me up.

I'm already planning to fight this in court. He gave me a long winded speech about pulling me over for my safety, accusing me of being the type of driver that gets involved in accidents, and then concluding his diatribe by giving me some advice about passing cops and how "other officers" don't like being passed. WTF?

What I'd like to know is if his use of the emergency lights and his driving behaviour gives me grounds to file a complaint with the OPP? I think what this guy did was disgusting and an abuse of his position.

No point resurrecting an old thread that is not general discussion of current issues. Much of what has been said in the topic you have originally posted this applies, but i'd rather split the thread while it's early. Every ticket is different.

As to your ticket, wait a bit, and request a disclosure. I guess you have already filed that you will dispute the charge.

steb6s wrote:

What I'd like to know is if his use of the emergency lights and his driving behaviour gives me grounds to file a complaint with the OPP? I think what this guy did was disgusting and an abuse of his position.

Sound like the cop should be charged with 132 (unnecessary slow driving) and "interfering with flow of traffic". Must be a new cop on a power trip, no?

In the disclosure request, also ask for the officer's driving and disciplinary record. If he has a history of this sort of behaviour it weakens his credibility on the witness stand.

Radar Identified wrote:

In the disclosure request, also ask for the officer's driving and disciplinary record. If he has a history of this sort of behaviour it weakens his credibility on the witness stand.

Try to get a warrant for that one!!

racer wrote:

steb6s wrote:

What I'd like to know is if his use of the emergency lights and his driving behaviour gives me grounds to file a complaint with the OPP? I think what this guy did was disgusting and an abuse of his position.

Sound like the cop should be charged with 132 (unnecessary slow driving) and "interfering with flow of traffic". Must be a new cop on a power trip, no?

Unnecesary slow driving is driving below the MAXIMUM posted speed limit. Interfering with flow of traffic is not a charge. That section is intended for "interfere with traffic" ie parked on a live lane.

Sounds to me like her was performing a "stunt" and should have his license yanked for a week!

Definition, "stunt"

8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,

Bookm wrote:

Sounds to me like her was performing a "stunt" and should have his license yanked for a week!

Definition, "stunt"

8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,

I smell a winner

Bookm wrote:

Sounds to me like her was performing a "stunt" and should have his license yanked for a week!

Definition, "stunt"

8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,

Do not see that meeting the complete definition....the part of "endanger", which there is no danger.

This is meant for 2 lane highways where Bookm is trying to pass Reflections, and Reflections keeps accelerating, preventing Bookm from passing successfully and then returning to the lane, thus endangering his life with the oncoming traffic.

But it doesn't say that. Surely you're not suggesting this section of the Act isn't worded clearly enough

Bookm wrote:

Surely you're not suggesting this section of the Act isn't worded clearly enough

gov't law making at its best

Definition, "stunt"

8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

Lack of consideration for others.......hhhhmmmmmmm

The cop probably wasn't a rookie since he looked to be in his mid-30's/early 40's. He was definitely power tripping. The traffic stop itself took nearly 30minutes and the guy asked me rhetorically at the beginning of the stop, mid-way through, and at the end when he was giving me my ticket how much time I had lost being pulled over.

I have a question about my ticket. On the ticket itself it doesn't state what sign I was disobeying. It only says "disobey sign". That's it. That's got to give me something to work with, right?

On the ticket itself it doesn't state what sign I was disobeying. It only says "disobey sign".

Yes, sort of. I'm guessing he didn't say which sign it was, either. The disclosure request will be key, in that you will get the officer's notes and be able to form a defence from there, among other things. Ask for an explanation and clarification of the charge. He did write the offence location down, right?

Lack of consideration for others.......

Yep. Stunt driving. Cruiser should've been impounded, but you and I both know how likely that is...

I'm with Bear on this one. Doesn't meet the definition of stunt. The way it's written you must drive at a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed and cause any of the following:

• lack or attention

• lack of consideration

• endangerment

There was no (excessive) speeding. Doesn't meet "the stunt" requirement.