Fire trucked Siezed under 172

http://www.sootoday.com/content/news/fu ... mber=35149

They sieze fire trucks and not police cruisers?

Emergency vehicles are exempt under the regulations.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/e ... 0455_e.htm

(2) Despite sections 2 and 3, "race", "contest" and "stunt" do not include any activity required for the lawful operation of motor vehicles described in subsections 62 (15.1) or 128 (13) of the Act, or the lawful operation of an emergency vehicle as defined in subsection 144 (1) of the Act. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 4 (2).

Although the driver wasnt in route to a call he can only be convicted under s. 128, which does not provide for a vehicle impoundment.

The cops are out of control. Totally clueless...and corrupt.

How many cops are getting kickbacks from the towing and storage companies?

The cop controls which towing company will tow vehicles at accidents and possibly impoundments. . If you show up with a tow truck and are capable of towing the vehicle but were not called by the cop, the cop can charge you and you're facing a fine and six months in jail for each subsequent offence.

Tow truck services

171. (1) No person shall make or convey an offer of services of a tow truck while that person is within 200 metres of,

(a) the scene of an accident or apparent accident; or

(b) a vehicle involved in an accident,

on the Kings Highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 171 (1).

Idem

(2) No person shall park or stop a tow truck on the Kings Highway within 200 metres of,

(a) the scene of an accident or apparent accident; or

(b) a vehicle involved in an accident,

if there is a sufficient number of tow trucks already at the scene to deal with all vehicles that apparently require the services of a tow truck. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 171 (2).

Idem

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who is at the scene of the accident at the request of a police officer, an officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act, a person engaged in highway maintenance or a person involved in the accident. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 171 (3).

Offence

(4) Every person who contravenes any provision in this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable,

(a) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $1,000; and

(b) for each subsequent offence, to a fine of not less than $400 and not more than $2,000, or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 171 (4).

lawmen wrote:

Emergency vehicles are exempt under the regulations.

Wish that were true! We have 2 of our officers charged with this offence while in cruisers, only reason the vehicle was not towed....well actually they were towed....on a flatbed!

The cars weren't impounded for 7 days though, right?

hwybear wrote:

lawmen wrote:

Emergency vehicles are exempt under the regulations.

Wish that were true! We have 2 of our officers charged with this offence while in cruisers, only reason the vehicle was not towed....well actually they were towed....on a flatbed!

that's inaccurate

1 officer was charged after his cruiser crashed into 2 horses, killing the horses, totalling the cruiser and injuring the officer.....so yeah, the car wasn't siezed....the officer was charged after an investigation and did not have his license suspended

the other officer was charged for simply driving like a maniac while not on a call.....his car was fine (not damaged) and was not siezed, and he never recieved a license suspension either

my understanding in both scenarios is that citizen/witness complaints were the inspiration for the charges......these officers were not charged by other willing officers trying to get some gold star for busting their brothers roadside

so the officers' scenarios are nothing like the FireTruck deal.....far from it...they weren't pulled over by another officer roadside and left walking, which is apparently what happened to the FireFighter

while I think many opposed to 172 would love to see on-duty cops busting other on-duty cops for driving infractions while not on a call....we're not going to see that......nope, if a copper has issues with his/her driving, I'm sure it would be addressed internally as it should

as it should have been dealt internally with this FireFighter.....pretty simple IMO.....copper clocks him, rings up the Fire Chief, allows the return of the vehicle to the Fire Dept and let's the driver deal with his penalty

I cannot see this tactic going over well between the Fire Dept and the OPP in that region...doesn't seem like a great relationship builder.....assuming the Fire Dept has a somewhat limited # of emergency vehicles, so losing one for a week could impair their ability to do their job properly, and ironically their job is to "save lives"

anyhoo....another retarded blow to this ill-thought farce

PetitionGuy wrote:

my understanding in both scenarios is that citizen/witness complaints were the inspiration for the charges.

Both to my understanding were internal investigations.

I saw the newspapers, but also heard through the grapevine about 50th person hand (more than 2nd hand) what happened......so what if anything is truthful on all that? Only the officers involved directly know what happened or did not. I can not comment on anything more as this is done by our senior command staff.

Cops investigating cops is total Hogwash, though.

There should be a citizen panel that investigates cops complaints for any reason with appeals to the court.

as it should have been dealt internally with this FireFighter.....pretty simple IMO.....copper clocks him, rings up the Fire Chief, allows the return of the vehicle to the Fire Dept and let's the driver deal with his penalty

In this instance I agree. However, what is the charge???????????

Reflections wrote:

as it should have been dealt internally with this FireFighter.....pretty simple IMO.....copper clocks him, rings up the Fire Chief, allows the return of the vehicle to the Fire Dept and let's the driver deal with his penalty

In this instance I agree. However, what is the charge???????????

take your pick

Careless Driving plus a nice big speeding ticket would make a nice pair IMO......and Careless upon conviction carries the same 6-point penalty so the Insurance Co's take it just as serious as a 172 conviction

no upfront BS and the driver is still in serious *EDIT*