No Squishy it was proposed with the title STREET RACING to sell it to the public! O.P.P Constable Tapp was charged under HTA 172, minus the impoundment of the police vehicle and found innocent AFTER his day in court! Did the Officer that laid the charges make a mistake or did she lie? Or did Constable Tapp lie or did he misread his speedo? Will one of them make the same mistake when they pull over the next DAMN STREET RACER? I wrote Julian Fantino letter asking him the same questions, to my surprise I never recieved any response, maybe he's just to busy excersing his right to Due Process with his own legal battles. Maybe you can get response from him! Commissioner Fantino, 3rd floor, 777 Memorial Avenue, Orillia, Ontario, L3V 7V3.
Squishy wrote:
Looks like the proposal for 172 was purely to address racing, not speeding/stunting. Maybe the media shouldn't get the blame - but it's stupid how people want to argue semantics. Trying to argue that, "There was only one car! How can that be RACING?!" as if that would get the charge thrown out.
Is it dangerous to do any of the actions classified as stunting or racing by the HTA? Yes it is. So don't do it and no one will have to worry about the consequences. With all the media coverage this has gotten, I'd say 90%, if not 100%, of the province's drivers know of 172. If someone knows the consequences but chooses to break that law anyways, they deserve what they get.
No Squishy it was proposed with the title STREET RACING to sell it to the public!
O.P.P Constable Tapp was charged under HTA 172, minus the impoundment of the police vehicle and found innocent AFTER his day in court!
Did the Officer that laid the charges make a mistake or did she lie?
Or did Constable Tapp lie or did he misread his speedo?
Will one of them make the same mistake when they pull over the next DAMN STREET RACER?
I wrote Julian Fantino letter asking him the same questions, to my surprise I never recieved any response, maybe he's just to busy excersing his right to Due Process with his own legal battles.
And that's the problem with people disregarding this law just because they don't agree with it. If you continue to violate 172, then a lot more valid cases will make it to court. The lies/mistakes will get lost in all the cases that do result in a conviction. If people stayed within the law and then pointed out, "Hey, most of these 172 tickets don't result in convictions," then it's a lot more likely that 172 will be rewritten. Same with the speed limits. Just disregarding it and speeding isn't going to solve the problem. If everyone drove at the limit, then we would know whether or not 100 km/h is appropriate. I have been on heavily patrolled interstates where the majority of drivers are under or at the speed limit of 60 - they don't seem to have a problem with it.
And that's the problem with people disregarding this law just because they don't agree with it. If you continue to violate 172, then a lot more valid cases will make it to court. The lies/mistakes will get lost in all the cases that do result in a conviction. If people stayed within the law and then pointed out, "Hey, most of these 172 tickets don't result in convictions," then it's a lot more likely that 172 will be rewritten. Same with the speed limits. Just disregarding it and speeding isn't going to solve the problem. If everyone drove at the limit, then we would know whether or not 100 km/h is appropriate. I have been on heavily patrolled interstates where the majority of drivers are under or at the speed limit of 60 - they don't seem to have a problem with it.
The thing that's being disregard is the CANADIAN CHARTER of RIGHTS YOU"RE GUILTY until proven innocent! And even after being found INNOCENT, you're STILL on the HOOK FOR all FEES! No sense in beating a dead horse!
The thing that's being disregard is the CANADIAN CHARTER of RIGHTS
YOU"RE GUILTY until proven innocent!
And even after being found INNOCENT, you're STILL on the HOOK FOR all FEES!
Sgt. Dave Woodford
The accused will have to pay $150 to have his licence re-instated. That fee on top of the cost of towing and impounding the vehicle means the driver will be out about $1,000 before he even gets to court, Woodford said.
I agree that the roadside suspension and impoundment are too harsh and probably do violate our Charter (not a lawyer so I can't be 100% sure) - the way 172 is set up, it seems to assume that officers don't make mistakes and never let personal feelings influence things. But violating 172 anyways and then trying to get the cases dismissed is the wrong way to protest it, in my opinion. As the law is already in the books, you should be held to it until it is repealed and should suffer the consequences if you knowingly violate that law. After re-reading the last bit of this thread, I'm not even sure we're debating the same thing. I'm saying that what 172 tries to stop is a good thing, regardless of the methods used to stop it. I think you're saying that 172 is unconsitutional and thus should be changed - which I don't necessarily disagree with; but we should still have stiff penalties associated with stunting and racing that are imposed by a court.
I agree that the roadside suspension and impoundment are too harsh and probably do violate our Charter (not a lawyer so I can't be 100% sure) - the way 172 is set up, it seems to assume that officers don't make mistakes and never let personal feelings influence things. But violating 172 anyways and then trying to get the cases dismissed is the wrong way to protest it, in my opinion. As the law is already in the books, you should be held to it until it is repealed and should suffer the consequences if you knowingly violate that law.
After re-reading the last bit of this thread, I'm not even sure we're debating the same thing. I'm saying that what 172 tries to stop is a good thing, regardless of the methods used to stop it. I think you're saying that 172 is unconsitutional and thus should be changed - which I don't necessarily disagree with; but we should still have stiff penalties associated with stunting and racing that are imposed by a court.
What if your neighbour had the fire and the fire department knock down your house???? This law is too much power and not enough control.. I'm all for getting people like these off the streets, making an end run around the Charter is not how it needs to be done. The law makers knew this was in violation of the Charter when they implemented it.......hhhhmmmm, doing something illegal even though you know it's wrong.....sound familiar
And for the time that that policy is in place, I would make damn sure my kitchen didn't catch fire.
What if your neighbour had the fire and the fire department knock down your house????
This law is too much power and not enough control..
I'm all for getting people like these off the streets, making an end run around the Charter is not how it needs to be done. The law makers knew this was in violation of the Charter when they implemented it.......hhhhmmmm, doing something illegal even though you know it's wrong.....sound familiar
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
Are you saying that the end justifies the means, in your opinion? And how many people who have kitchen fires actually meant for their kitchen to catch fire? In 2006, the government of Canada made street racing a criminal offence. This was long before Bill 203 came into effect, bringing the mandatory impoundment with it. There were already many laws in place that offered options to police and the Crown, some of them featuring jail sentences and permanent seizure of the vehicle after a conviction. It was all constitutionally valid. It offered recourse and options for the accused, while section 172 does not. What happens in three or four years when this law is found to be unconstitutional? All of the innocent get a big cheque and apology, which is good. What's bad is that all of the guilty will also get a big cheque and apology and will be free to continue to drive like maniacs, because to pay compensation, how do you think the government is going to come up with the money?
Squishy wrote:
regardless of the methods used to stop it.
Are you saying that the end justifies the means, in your opinion?
Squishy wrote:
I would make damn sure my kitchen didn't catch fire.
And how many people who have kitchen fires actually meant for their kitchen to catch fire?
In 2006, the government of Canada made street racing a criminal offence. This was long before Bill 203 came into effect, bringing the mandatory impoundment with it. There were already many laws in place that offered options to police and the Crown, some of them featuring jail sentences and permanent seizure of the vehicle after a conviction. It was all constitutionally valid. It offered recourse and options for the accused, while section 172 does not.
What happens in three or four years when this law is found to be unconstitutional? All of the innocent get a big cheque and apology, which is good. What's bad is that all of the guilty will also get a big cheque and apology and will be free to continue to drive like maniacs, because to pay compensation, how do you think the government is going to come up with the money?
Sorry about that, I hope you drink decaf or half decaf! Squishy: Did you spin the tires under acceleration this winter on any of the vehicles in your garage? Radar Identified: Do you think McGuinty cares who's going to pay for it, thankfully he won't be around and he knows it! Look at how he is relieving the burden that Mike Harris did when he downloaded costs to the City of Toronto! Now he says the government will start uploading costs again, it will only take 10 years for it to be where it was before, leaving the burden for the next guy. The Ban Man ain't stupid, he just thinks everyone else is![/quote]
hwybear wrote:
you owe me a laptop....I just sprayed my keyboard with mocha
Sorry about that, I hope you drink decaf or half decaf!
Squishy:
Did you spin the tires under acceleration this winter on any of the vehicles in your garage?
Radar Identified: Do you think McGuinty cares who's going to pay for it, thankfully he won't be around and he knows it!
Look at how he is relieving the burden that Mike Harris did when he downloaded costs to the City of Toronto!
Now he says the government will start uploading costs again, it will only take 10 years for it to be where it was before, leaving the burden for the next guy.
The Ban Man ain't stupid, he just thinks everyone else is![/quote]
Are you saying that the end justifies the means, in your opinion? No, I'm saying that just because a law can be deemed unconstitutional does not mean that the purpose of the law is no longer valid. With that statement, I am referring to those who insist on going 50 over because they feel 172 should not be enforceable. And yes, I have spun my tires this winter, but not intentionally. The act requires intent to fall under the definition of stunting. Obviously, this can be misinterpreted by an officer as intentionally spinning tires if I keep it up for too long (e.g., getting out of deep snow), but we have to put some degree of trust in our officers. We pay them to make these kind of judgement calls - some of them will make mistakes and some of them are dicks, but all of the officers I have come into contact with have been reasonable with good attitudes.
Radar Identified wrote:
Squishy wrote:
regardless of the methods used to stop it.
Are you saying that the end justifies the means, in your opinion?
No, I'm saying that just because a law can be deemed unconstitutional does not mean that the purpose of the law is no longer valid. With that statement, I am referring to those who insist on going 50 over because they feel 172 should not be enforceable.
And yes, I have spun my tires this winter, but not intentionally. The act requires intent to fall under the definition of stunting. Obviously, this can be misinterpreted by an officer as intentionally spinning tires if I keep it up for too long (e.g., getting out of deep snow), but we have to put some degree of trust in our officers. We pay them to make these kind of judgement calls - some of them will make mistakes and some of them are dicks, but all of the officers I have come into contact with have been reasonable with good attitudes.
That even happens to me with all lights activated, drivers just aimlessly pull out in front of me....happens on the 401, happens on 2 lane hwys from people on cross roads......and I'm nowhere near 250.
Radar Identified wrote:
Sure you can blame others for "getting in his way," but any driver with half a brain would not drive faster than a speed that would enable him or her to reasonably react to other drivers on the road and their stupidity. At 250, that is not possible.
That even happens to me with all lights activated, drivers just aimlessly pull out in front of me....happens on the 401, happens on 2 lane hwys from people on cross roads......and I'm nowhere near 250.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
How would you like it if you had a grease fire in the kitchen and the fire department knocked down the entire house? Fires out though......... I have to yet see the fire department save anything but a concrete foundation.....so that example doesn't work :lol:
Reflections wrote:
regardless of the methods used to stop it.
How would you like it if you had a grease fire in the kitchen and the fire department knocked down the entire house?
Fires out though.........
I have to yet see the fire department save anything but a concrete foundation.....so that example doesn't work
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
If compensation is ordered to people who had their cars towed under 172, they'll likely either hit the police budget or something else that Ontarians can't afford to have diminished in order to pay. And depending on how quickly the challenges to this law go through the courts, he could very well still be Premier when the bill comes due. Okay, thank you for clarifying. That said, I don't think too many people are driving more than 50 km/h over the speed limit just because they feel the law is not valid. Many of them were just speedy drivers before the law came into effect, and they continue to be so. However, when 172 is struck down, all of the acts that are stunt driving/racing would still be illegal and have some serious consequences. The other thing is that 172 may actually be letting some real idiots off lightly. Consider this for a moment... and hwybear can correct me if I'm wrong here... Let's say the guy going 250 km/h got arrested for Dangerous Driving instead of being charged under section 172. Crown has to show cause for the charge, so it goes before a Justice. The Justice goes :shock: and orders his licence suspended until disposition of the case. After he gets convicted, I believe that they could've ordered him to forfeit his car. I'd rather have people caught doing such insane things face those sorts of consequences, the difference being the evidence needs to be presented in court before the heavy penalties come into play. Which illustrates my point, the guy was going too fast to react to anything, and I doubt he'd been given any sort of high-speed pursuit/driver training that would've been on the same sort of level that you've got.
M0J0 wrote:
Do you think McGuinty cares who's going to pay for it, thankfully he won't be around and he knows it!
If compensation is ordered to people who had their cars towed under 172, they'll likely either hit the police budget or something else that Ontarians can't afford to have diminished in order to pay. And depending on how quickly the challenges to this law go through the courts, he could very well still be Premier when the bill comes due.
Squishy wrote:
No, I'm saying that just because a law can be deemed unconstitutional does not mean that the purpose of the law is no longer valid. With that statement, I am referring to those who insist on going 50 over because they feel 172 should not be enforceable.
Okay, thank you for clarifying. That said, I don't think too many people are driving more than 50 km/h over the speed limit just because they feel the law is not valid. Many of them were just speedy drivers before the law came into effect, and they continue to be so. However, when 172 is struck down, all of the acts that are stunt driving/racing would still be illegal and have some serious consequences.
The other thing is that 172 may actually be letting some real idiots off lightly. Consider this for a moment... and hwybear can correct me if I'm wrong here... Let's say the guy going 250 km/h got arrested for Dangerous Driving instead of being charged under section 172. Crown has to show cause for the charge, so it goes before a Justice. The Justice goes and orders his licence suspended until disposition of the case. After he gets convicted, I believe that they could've ordered him to forfeit his car. I'd rather have people caught doing such insane things face those sorts of consequences, the difference being the evidence needs to be presented in court before the heavy penalties come into play.
hwybear wrote:
That even happens to me with all lights activated, drivers just aimlessly pull out in front of me....happens on the 401, happens on 2 lane hwys from people on cross roads.....
Which illustrates my point, the guy was going too fast to react to anything, and I doubt he'd been given any sort of high-speed pursuit/driver training that would've been on the same sort of level that you've got.
I agree, but I have met several people with the exact attitude I described. I guess they would be "borderline" in their habits about whether or not to break that law - give them a law that they deem reasonable, and they will follow it; make a law with the same prohibitions but "unreasonable" penalties, and they will disregard it as if it doesn't exist. I know one person who follows the majority of traffic laws, but won't recognize mall stop signs because they are not enforceable under the HTA. Otherwise, he knows the HTA and follows it better than anyone else I know.
Radar Identified wrote:
Okay, thank you for clarifying. That said, I don't think too many people are driving more than 50 km/h over the speed limit just because they feel the law is not valid. Many of them were just speedy drivers before the law came into effect, and they continue to be so. However, when 172 is struck down, all of the acts that are stunt driving/racing would still be illegal and have some serious consequences.
I agree, but I have met several people with the exact attitude I described. I guess they would be "borderline" in their habits about whether or not to break that law - give them a law that they deem reasonable, and they will follow it; make a law with the same prohibitions but "unreasonable" penalties, and they will disregard it as if it doesn't exist. I know one person who follows the majority of traffic laws, but won't recognize mall stop signs because they are not enforceable under the HTA. Otherwise, he knows the HTA and follows it better than anyone else I know.
One more Skiing death in Ontario this year and it will be the same number of deaths used by Cannsfield to sell the Street Racing law to the public! Who would've thought ski resorts could have produced so much carnage, when they're only open for 4-5 months a year!
One more Skiing death in Ontario this year and it will be the same number of deaths used by Cannsfield to sell the Street Racing law to the public!
Who would've thought ski resorts could have produced so much carnage, when they're only open for 4-5 months a year!
The act requires nothing, all is needed is the police officer and his word. The Government put trust in the Police, not me! Who in the hell would trust any officer from Peel Region, tell me you would, I need a laugh!
Squishy wrote:
And yes, I have spun my tires this winter, but not intentionally. The act requires intent to fall under the definition of stunting. Obviously, this can be misinterpreted by an officer as intentionally spinning tires if I keep it up for too long (e.g., getting out of deep snow), but we have to put some degree of trust in our officers. We pay them to make these kind of judgement calls - some of them will make mistakes and some of them are dicks, but all of the officers I have come into contact with have been reasonable with good attitudes.
The act requires nothing, all is needed is the police officer and his word.
The Government put trust in the Police, not me!
Who in the hell would trust any officer from Peel Region, tell me you would, I need a laugh!
I have seen the "lose traction" one used as a stunt...mind you it was a good one..... guy turns from one road to another, hammers the gas spinning around the corner, loses control, goes over the curb, across the lawn and into a house (and not the garage :wink: )
I have seen the "lose traction" one used as a stunt...mind you it was a good one.....
guy turns from one road to another, hammers the gas spinning around the corner, loses control, goes over the curb, across the lawn and into a house (and not the garage )
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
WOW :shock: Do you remember the vehicle involved? My cousin did something similar - turning right on a red, and the car behind didn't like how long he was stopped. Honked at cousin, cousin overreacted and gave it too much gas. His 4Runner did a few circles, hopped a grass median, and ended up on someone's lawn. He had two worn tires in the back, but two good tires in the front (he thought the 4Runner was FWD).
WOW
Do you remember the vehicle involved? My cousin did something similar - turning right on a red, and the car behind didn't like how long he was stopped. Honked at cousin, cousin overreacted and gave it too much gas. His 4Runner did a few circles, hopped a grass median, and ended up on someone's lawn. He had two worn tires in the back, but two good tires in the front (he thought the 4Runner was FWD).
no traffic lighst involved.....turning from a thru road onto a sideroad, both roads paved. Was a pickup, plus a little village, so 3-4 witnesses watched it from a convenience store.
no traffic lighst involved.....turning from a thru road onto a sideroad, both roads paved. Was a pickup, plus a little village, so 3-4 witnesses watched it from a convenience store.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Fascination with police lights? It was last month, just after a police officer was shot and the same weekend the battery of this cruiser died in the middle of the train tracks. Thankfully no one was hurt, N is for Neutral and P in this instance would be for PUSH it!
Squishy wrote:
That looks recent, I see blue lights.
Fascination with police lights?
It was last month, just after a police officer was shot and the same weekend the battery of this cruiser died in the middle of the train tracks.
Thankfully no one was hurt, N is for Neutral and P in this instance would be for PUSH it!
I will be going to trial for my red light camera offence.
I'll be arguing two issues, centered on the fact that there are two essential elements of 144(18) - a) a vehicle approaching the intersection shall stop; and b) the vehicle shall not proceed until green. Both essential elements must be contravened beyond a reasonable doubt to be an offence.
1) My ticket says I (being the owner) am "charged…
I know that the RIDE program has been covered extensively in these great forums, but I have a question about the stop itself:
I recently was stopped for a RIDE Program and the officer asked me to roll the window down all of the way (I had it at half and could easily communicate with them). I told them that I could hear them just fine and they insisted I roll it down all of the way. Again I told…
Not sure the right place for this so if it needs to be moved please do so.
I was stopped today for 15 over the speed limit, I gave all the documents to the officer and he said he could not accept a photocopy of my ownership only the original I had a photo copy front and back and I had my plate sticker number with it.
he gave me a ticket for HWY ACT Section 7(5)(a) he said only the original would…
Hey! I'm from Sudbury Ontario. Hope that general talk is fine for this subject
I am very serious about looking for exact ruling about underfacing lighting
Section 14 clearly states:
Red and blue lights to the front restricted
(14.1) In addition to the lighting requirements in this Part, a police department vehicle may carry lamps that cast red and blue lights, but no other motor vehicle shall carry…
i was driving my dad's car when i was caught by the red light camera in Brampton. My dad would've to take time off work to go ask for a trial and then go to one.
Can i represent him? if yes, what do i need to do?
I was pulled over and told I went through a red light during a right turn. I learned through a friend who is a police constable that the one who pulled me over is new to the job (under a year, and possibly even the first month or two of real duty).
I was given a ticket for $180. I have some questions:
(1) Is this offense automatically associated with 3 demerit points? I see no mention of them on…
I got a ticket for 'Disobey Stop Sign' in November of 2013 (in York Region), requested disclosure and went to court in August of 2014. At my first appearance, I did not plea but requested an ajournment to to consult legal advice. The JOP set the next appearance in September.
I contacted a paralegal about my options. He told me that on my next appearance, if the police officer did not show, the…
I had a trial and found guilty, but the trial seemed to go wrong since the beginning.
The JP asked me if i am intending to take the stand- I said NO.
I asked how to submit my evidence-documents and photos.
JP said-i have to take the stand if i want to submit evidence.(Now i am finding this is wrong-i could introduce my evidence during cross examination and my defense would be much stronger)
Ottawa, Canada (AHN) - Beginning Tuesday, or April Fool's Day 2008, fines on Quebec drivers caught overspeeding will be doubled. It is not only the money penalty that will go up, but also demerit points.
The new law, Bill 42, is similar to Ontario's street racing rule. It stipulates fines for motorists who drive at over 40 km/h at under 60 km/h zones, speed at 50 km/h at 60 to 90 km/h areas and…
Make big trucks go slower and the roads will become safer.
Obvious, isn't it? It's also obvious when you look out the window that the world is flat.
Last Monday, truckers in Ontario tried to mount a convoy to Queen's Park to show their opposition to electronic speed limiters. These devices, electronic chips in trucks' engine management systems, restrict speeds…
I was out on a four lane highway around Orangeville Ontario and I noticed a school bus coming south (I was going north). I kept my eyes on the bus in case it was going to stop. As I approached it, it was slowing down a little, but no lights, and especially no arm with the STOP sign. As I was just about to pass the bus, I still did not see the lights, nor did I see the STOP sign.
Hey everyone first off I'd like to say great website, I have been reading and it is very useful
I'm posting today as I'd like to get some feedback on my situation and have a couple of questions. Please excuse the vagueness in some areas - I don't want my case to be identifiable given the small town.
So I was driving up north and was pulled over by an OPP SUV for doing 31 over. Cop drove past me,…
Driving on a 80km/hr highway the car ahead hits the brakes and slows to 55, l slow down right behind him no reason to slow down traffic was moving between 80 and 90. I notice the driver is on the phone and looking through papers on the passenger seat. He begins to start to go a opp officer drives by doing 80 plus in oncoming lane turns around and says l was following to close. Told him what was…
My son was making a right turn at the intersection he had a green so slowed down looked and proceeded into the turn. It was pouring rain and the was a big pool of water as he got arround the curb. He tried to keep the car going sharp right however it slid into the car making a left turn. the lane he was turning into is very narrow and at a very busy corner. He paniced and left the scene only…
I had an collision the other day. I was turing left and ran into a car going straight in the opposite direction. The insurance company has already determined that I'm at fault, since I made the left turn. But I'm wondering whether I should go on trail and at least I might get rid of the ticket. The ticket was under 142(1)
I was told that if I go on court, both the guy I hit and the officer who…
question for a friend of mine.....says she got a 3 day suspension for giving a A on a roadside. Thing is she wasnt driving. She is a g2 driver and the car was parked in a parking lot, she just ran out to get something and turned the car on. Can a 3 day be issued if you arent driving on a highway - (I've read for impaired it doesnt matter, but 3 day isnt criminal)? And is there any way to…
I can't find the category for this post so I'm posting it here.
Two questions...
1. Are golf carts considered a 'vehicle' under the Highway traffic act? I know carts can't drive across roads or on roads but if you try to bring one from the USA into Canada they are considered a 'vehicle'.
2. If you are on private property are you allowed to carry 'opened' alcohol in your golf cart? I know golf…
I got pulled over (along with about 10 other cars) for going through a road closed sign. I had just pulled out of a parking lot pretty much right beside the road closed sign, and with about 4 cars behind me there wasn't much I could do but go through, so I think I have a good chance of fighting it. However, on my ticket under the Signature of issuing Provincial Offences Officer, it's left…
I was driving westbound on Hwy. 8 earlier this month in North Dumfries Township, approaching the Cambridge city limits. The weather was clear and the roads were dry. I noticed a vehicle on the shoulder on my side of the road, pointing towards me. This didn't concern me right away, as it is a rural area and I sometimes see vehicles doing mail delivery. The vehicle then started accelerating and…
I was pulled over yesterday in a community safety zone and told I was doing 84 in a 50. When i passed the officer I looked at my odometer and I was only doing 64. I was given a summons on the spot to appear in court at the end of June. Do I have any chance in this if it comes down to his word over mine. I was in the car alone but have travelled these same roads every day, twice a day for 6 years…
who is at fault when :a) a passenger opens door and jumps out of vehicle onto the road with traffic. b) he gets hit by a car travelling in the adjoining lane. c) traffic lights were green. d) pedestrian crossing was further up and indicated "no crossing" light e) the vehicle that he exited from leaves the scene as soon as accident occurred. f) no charges have been laid after police filed report…
and orders his licence suspended until disposition of the case. After he gets convicted, I believe that they could've ordered him to forfeit his car. I'd rather have people caught doing such insane things face those sorts of consequences, the difference being the evidence needs to be presented in court before the heavy penalties come into play.
)
