O.P.P criuser impounded under 172

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/510889

OPP officer charged for stunt driving at 165 km/h

February 10, 2009

By John Burman

Hamilton Spectator

Brantford – The OPP have charged one of their own with stunt driving.

The OPP said today an OPP intelligence officer has been charged with speeding after getting caught speeding 65 km over the limit.

Brant County OPP clocked the unmarked cruiser doing 165 km/h in a 100 zone on Highway 403 Jan. 31.

Detective Constable Heidi Fischer, who has been with the OPP four years, was on duty at the time.

But OPP Inspector Dave Ross said today an investigation found that the officer was not within the lawful execution of her duties at the time. Ross is the deputy director, of the OPP corporate communications bureau.

Ross did not say what time of day the car was stopped or if there was any other traffic on the highway.

Fischer is posted to the provincial operations intelligence bureau at OPP general headquarters in Orillia.

The officers drivers licence was suspended for the required 7 days and the OPP unmarked vehicle was impounded for 7 days.

Fischer is charged with driving 50 km/h or more over the posted speed limit, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act.

She will appear in Brantford provincial court March 24.

Section 172 of the Highway Traffic Act covering high speeds is a law OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino has championed in a highly publicized bid to crack down on "stunt driving" in the province.

Dam punk street-racers!!

Wow, I thought I'd never see a cruiser impounded with a Racing charge. Apparently there are limits to "lawful execution of duties", not just whenever cop's on a shift.

This incident is funny and stupid at the same time. I guess Fantino wasn't kidding when he said they'd seize their own cruisers. I wonder which tow truck company got the call to impound the vehicle, and are the taxpayers going to be hit with the impound fee or is the officer paying out of her pocket?

Meh, it's gonna be us taxpayers most likely, but the police station might exercise early release under 172.(9), but that would make a cop a thief of public property:lol:.

Cop will likely be charged with Racing and pay his own fine, but not impound I don't think.

um, that's HER own fine......

Apparently the OPP has serious problems with Street Racers within it's ranks, 3 officers charged so far, and the total frontline for the OPP is?

Anyone know what impound lot this cruiser would have been taken too?

An address would be nice.

HAHA, that police car was NOT impounded!

M0J0 wrote:

HAHA, that police car was NOT impounded!

It was not a cruiser, it was unmarked!

They most certainly did impound the car in question, they just did'nt mention it until today that there is now 2 definitions for the word impoundment!

March 24th is the Damn Street Racers day in court, I would bet the farm on the verdict, and to be honest I hope she does get off!

This law is a joke!

The law is a joke.

Not that i care but it shows how fast even the police drive. Other cops to have been charged with this law.

This one really gets peoples attention. Not only was she speeding like mad, she didnt even have her lights on, was not on call or to an emergency and out of her zone?

May i ask what was she doing exactly? Why would an officer be way out of zone anyways while supposed to be on shift.

Maybee its one thing for an officer to speed for legitimate purposes. Perhaps even to get to an accident or catch someone or make a court time.

But i think its really un acceptable that the people who enforce these laws and write tickets to us for hundreds of dollars would speed like this while not even on call and to top that not even her own patrol region!!!!

Mind you she like all other thousands of people who have been screwed over by this law should not have the car impounded. The other officer is not the judge, jury, and executioner at the side of the road.

She like all the other thousands who have been screwed have been charged guilty without a fair trial. That is wrong and will always be.

M0J0 wrote:

HAHA, that police car was NOT impounded!

Correct.

The car is/was being held at a "police facility" for unknown "security reasons". So, much for Fantino's claim of parity(or just following the law) after the OPP messed up the previous two HTA 172 charges against OPP officers.

Anyone know the fee schedule for the fantasyland OPP run "impound facility"(the way HTA 172 states)?

Ross(Insp. Dave Ross) said the cruiser is impounded in a police facility rather than a public pound for security reasons.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009 ... 6-sun.html

And again Fantino reminds us that

Fantino wrote:

... since the law was passed, the number of fatal accidents on OPP-patrolled highways dropped by 130 last year from 2007.

He fails to remember $1.40 gasoline i summer of '08 VS $0.95 gas in '07, and the fact that road fatalities were reduced continent-wide, mostly (99%) due to the fact of expensive gas...

racer wrote:

And again Fantino reminds us that

Fantino wrote:

... since the law was passed, the number of fatal accidents on OPP-patrolled highways dropped by 130 last year from 2007.

He fails to remember $1.40 gasoline i summer of '08 VS $0.95 gas in '07, and the fact that road fatalities were reduced continent-wide, mostly (99%) due to the fact of expensive gas...

Wrong Mister Moderater:

Julian's law spread fear across Western Hemisphere, who would'nt be scared with a threat of your property being stolen and left naked on the side of the road, the price of petrol has nothing to do with the reduction of fatal accidents!

M0J0 wrote:

Julian's law spread fear across Western Hemisphere

Holy Cr@p! Somebody who thinks Julian's grasp is even bigger than his ego. I never thought I'd see that day! Run citizens of Tokyo, Fantzilla is coming!!!

Fantzilla!

Is the court date still March 24th.

Im hoping they throw the book at this unethical officer.

Do as you expect others to do, not what you can get away with by abusing your authority.

I hope they give her the full deal. 10 000 $ fine stuck with the charges and the whole works.

The province has already screwed over by now i assume some close to 15 000 people i hope they add her to that list aswell.

I can't wait till the day someone catches Fantino for getting a speeding ticket. Maybee we could get the whole ohta crew out to start a parade infront of the court house?

I can't wait till his day is done with the OPP. It looks as if that boy has run into trouble. To many scandals and lies. That latest one where he was trying to evict another officer as a witness in some case with a dispute of a fellow officer and his wife.

Toronto didn't like Fantino and neither did The province of Ontario.

The way they treat this officer, who was OUT OF PATROL AREA, DRIVING 65 OVER, in an UNMARKED CAR, NOT ON CALL, with NO LIGHTS. Should be punished just as all the other thousands who have been screwed over by this stunt driving law. She deserves more for thinking she can abuse her power as an officer.

Is there any way will be able to find out how this happens in court? If she was convicted of this would she lose her job? Does she work for a Highway safety division?

As much as I admit to having a streak of schadenfreude after hearing the OPP officer got the car impounded, for the court proceeding I think that she should get the same treatment as anyone else who was caught going 165 under this stupid law. The reason being that she is likely facing a Disciplinary Hearing in addition to the HTA charges.

The public holds police officers to a higher standard than just about anyone else. When they don't meet it, there is a tremendous sense of disappointment and in many cases, anger. In this case, so many motorists have had their cars seized by the very agency that she represents that it is more than understandable that they're howling for blood when she committed the same act. That said, she's going to get hammered not only by the courts, but probably by charges under the Police Services Act as well. She made a very bad decision and will pay dearly for it. I think that's more than sufficient. Maybe either in the Provincial Offences Court or the Disciplinary Hearing she can explain just what in the heck she was thinking.

She's a Detective-Constable and not part of the Highway Safety Division.

Oh okay so she was a detective-constable not on call and happened to get pulled over by a highway safety division officer doing speed enforcement then the officer called in to see if she was on call or on duty, then decided to give her the ticket?

Interesting though you rarely hear of other officers fining others. Is it still scheduled for march 24th?

I find around the GTA the highway safety division guys seem to go pretty fast to. It really bugs me when i see the officers who are supposed to enforce laws disobey them.

Today on the QEW i saw an officer who was upset the left lane wasnt moving fast enough so he pulls over into the right lane to gun it past some trucks and didnt even have his lights on. He just wanted to go a bit faster than all the ones going 115. Sure he could have needed to do it for many reasons. But it annoys me and others. That officer knows your not supposed to pass on the right as the HTA says.

He should know they are the ones that enforce the HTA. A couple weeks ago i watched a highway safety division officer on 2 lane highway with a posted limit of 90. She was going 105-120 the whole time as everyone else followed her. She had no lights on and appeared to be driving back towards her detachment.

I mean i don't know what to say. She wasnt doing anything dangerous. Just how does she feel when she gives someone a ticket for doing the same thing she just did?

tdrive2 wrote:

...

That officer knows your not supposed to pass on the right as the HTA says.

...

What? Section 150 specifically says you can.

But can't you get a ticket for passing on the right aswell?

That whole section is very confusing. The HTA is quite confusing sometimes. If not i believe that 172 defines racing as changing lanes faster then the flow of traffic to advance over the natural or normal flow of traffic.

So this can be interpreted many ways.

Regardless this is the problem with alot of this. It's generally understood you pass on the left and move to the right to let others pass.

Im not worried about what he did. What worries me is all the other cars that saw that. They think its normal behavior now. Now they to think he if they wont move out of the way i can just weave to the right around the trucks to pass him.

Which of course if people do this it becomes dangerous.

You cant post a limit of 100 km/h but if the police themselves don't believe in it and drive it how can you expect the public to do the same?

Not that I know of. Which section would that be in violation of?

It might draw the attention of an officer who then tickets you for speeding.

The part of s. 172 you referenced states, "...repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity to other vehicles so as to advance through the ordinary flow of traffic while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed."

So it would be an unsafe lane change anyways, but repeatedly doing so in order to speed will get you charged under s. 172 instead of s. 154.

You mentioned passing to the right of trucks - does that mean some trucks were travelling in the centre lane while the right lane was clear? Or were there trucks in the right lane and the officer passed them on the shoulder? In the latter case, it would be "passing off roadway" (s. 150 (2)) but I'm pretty sure an officer can do so if on a call, lights or not.

By all means to get to an emergency what ever way is the fastest way is the best way. The faster he gets there could mean a live saved.

But an officer just driving or going somewhere not on call so to say or at the end of a shift has no more priority then other traffic on the road.

No he was in the left lane then went in the middle behind a truck got annoyed both were to slow so he just floored it into the right lane (3 lane highway on qew) to pass them all.

No lights or anything. I mean it wasn't dangerous or anything. But if he does it sets a bad example. Can you imagine if everyone who wanted to go faster did this? What a mess.

These people tailgate. There is a ton of them. The tailgating is one thing. Boy oh boy look out when all these people give up on getting that left lane hog out of the way they just start swerving lanes to pass them.

But when an officer does this it sets a bad example. Just as officers driving 20-30 over the MAXIMUM posted speed limit.

I realize alot of the HTA doesn't apply to an officer on call or lights on or w.e. They need to attend an emergency or crash on the road. So be it.

But i am not talking about that. I am referring to just driving. Going for a break. Just patrol. Going to Tim hortons to get 12 dozen boston cream you get the idea...

What he did was uncalled for it was mid day traffic no construction or traffic jam. In that situation if he was on emergency the lights would have worked alot better.

One thing i must agree with what hwybear said before was late at night or with really light traffic sometimes its better to leave your lights off because when you race up behind them they might just move over as opposed to seeing a cop and slaming on the breaks....

How can you tell when they are not on a call?

Squishy wrote:

Or were there trucks in the right lane and the officer passed them on the shoulder? In the latter case, it would be "passing off roadway" (s. 150 (2)) but I'm pretty sure an officer can do so if on a call, lights or not.

For anyone, Sect 150 does not apply either on a "paved" shoulder! Fail to drive in a marked lane does...FYI

tdrive2 wrote:

Is the court date still March 24th.

Im hoping they throw the book at this unethical officer.

Do as you expect others to do, not what you can get away with by abusing your authority.

I hope they give her the full deal. 10 000 $ fine stuck with the charges and the whole works.

I hope she gets off 100%, just like Const. Lloyd Tapp!

I never read anything else about the other "Damn Street Racer" Const. Michael Deyell.

I know Drivers Ed still teaches kids not to pass on the right, but it's actually quite legal and necessary due to left-lane slugs. I think passing on the right is illegal on the German Autobahn though (could be wrong).

It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside when I see a marked cruiser driving at "sensible" speed. It shows me that some out there realize the speed limit is just a number on a sign and doesn't necessarily make it the most practical speed to drive at all times.

Passing on the right is illegal in Germany because hogging the left lane is both illegal and immoral over there. Drivers are taught proper lane discipline in Europe. Over here, hogging the left lane may be illegal, but it's not considered immoral and it's definitely not being enforced.

It seems as though most European countries engineer their road, traffic and safety systems to try to keep the traffic moving. Blocking the passing lane is the antithesis of keeping traffic moving. Here in North America, traffic systems and driver education is focused on trying to make traffic stop as often as possible and, when it does move, to try to make it move as slowly as possible. This, I think, is why hogging the left lane is not viewed with tremendous disdain on this side of the Atlantic.

I really wonder why the left lane hogs make the effort to cross so many lanes of traffic, particularly in Toronto, to get into that lane. I really would like to get inside their heads and figure out what they're thinking, because there is absolutely no logical reason to be there unless you're overtaking other vehicles, or traffic is stop-and-go.