Links to AI-013

Hi,

Looking for some help, if anyone could point to a link/etc ... to the current OPP Policy manual specifically AI-013? I have found links to the Brantford, York Regional PSB web sites, but for some reason the OPP.ca does not seem to have this information.

I would request as disclosure, but my trial is this Thursday. I believe that when we were ticketed for speeding the officer was outside of his re-qualification period.

Any help or comments would be appreciated?

Thanks

R

AI-013 is a Provincial document, not a specific police agency standard.

The Provincial standard for re-qualification of an operator is 36 months. 60 months for an Instructor.

At this moment I have never seen a current copy of the Provincial Standard AI-013 online. They are all the old standard.

York Regional Police Standard Policy Manual currently online (updated 15/08/2013) and Brantford currently posted AI-013 states 24 months re-certification. How do you know the current standard is 36 months? The case R. v. Araujo (2008) states under examination the OPP std is 24 months.

I have asked for clarification to the OPP policy manual as disclosure, but they will not provide, and the OPP will not provide without a FOI request. If the above (Brandtford and York) use 24 months would/could it not be safe to assume the OPP are held to the same high standard - vs. a relaxed 36 month?

I can't even find a provincial mandate on the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services to substantiate a relaxation in the standard?

My main strategy for defence is that the Officer is outside his window to re-certify based on 24 months. If is it 36 months... how can I verify/where is the evidence?

Any thoughts/help would greatly be appreciated.

Decatur wrote:

AI-013 is a Provincial document, not a specific police agency standard.

The Provincial standard for re-qualification of an operator is 36 months. 60 months for an Instructor.

At this moment I have never seen a current copy of the Provincial Standard AI-013 online. They are all the old standard.

Just saw this re-reading the post... In R. v. Araujo (2008) - there is a coss exam of the OPP Officer that indicates he is an instructor as well - but still maintains the 24 month training requirement.

Is there a link to the provincial site that anyone can provide to help clear this up?

I was able to read it at this link. Page 2 says 24 months. replace x with tt.

hxxp://www.docstoc.com/docs/66799986/Ontario-A ... or-Devices

It takes a minute or two to load and you have to join to download it.

Cheers

Viper1

Thanks Viper.

I think your reference is 2004. I have found a 2011 copy and things have significantly changed since the 2004 revision !!!

The 2011 version differentiates - Operator, Instructor, & Master Trainer.

Refresher training for all speed measuring devices is 36 months for an Operator, and 60 months for an Instructor.

This is very different than you 2004 copy as well as the Policy Manuals that are present on many PSB web sites ( e.g. York Region and Brantford).

Is there any chance the OPP are operating at the level of York Region (i.e. 24 months with no differentiation between Operator and Instructor)? If not, I suspect the best option now would be to discuss a plea at the pre-trial review? Would it be worth discussing with the Prosecution my question about the 24 month certification in an attempt to see if they know something I don't? Is there any risk in doing so? If I say my suspicion is 24 months and they are outside of their certification period - would the prosecution correct my facts for the record?

Here is the Ottawa one.

hxxp://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/opsb/2012/06-25/item3.htm

Cheers

Viper1

Looks like if it is not amended 2004 stands.

It is for police safety.

Hope that helps.

Cheers

Viper1

The Provincial Standard is now 36 months. The 2004 version was replaced in 2011. All police agencies in Ontario follow this standard. Some PSB sites may not have updated to reflect these recent changes. As far as I'm aware, the only way to get a true copy of the standard is to do the FOI request through the Provincial Government. The standard is not the property of the individual police agencies and they probably won't provide a certified or true copy.

Decatur wrote:

The Provincial Standard is now 36 months. The 2004 version was replaced in 2011. All police agencies in Ontario follow this standard. Some PSB sites may not have updated to reflect these recent changes. As far as I'm aware, the only way to get a true copy of the standard is to do the FOI request through the Provincial Government. The standard is not the property of the individual police agencies and they probably won't provide a certified or true copy.

Decatur, I am not sure I agree 100% with your comments,

I now have a copy of the 2011 Policy Services Manual. It lays out Adequacy Standards that PSB/Agencies are to build into their internal Policy Manuals. The OPP standards/policy for Policing - The "Police Orders" current version mandates that for every officer that uses a speed detection device must complete refresher training every 24 months. Additionally they should refrain from using the sdd if they have not received the required training course(s).

The OPP Police Orders are more stringent than the Adequacy Standard; However the Police Orders say where there is a difference - the Orders will prevail if they are more restrictive, but still compliant with the legislation.

I think I have a case???

Considering that the "2011 Policy Services Manual" and the new standard are both dated 2011 it is possible that the OPP revised their manual prior to the new standard being issued?

The only way to find out whether the officer was "qualified" to operate a speed measuring device will be to ask him on the stand when he last qualified and go from there.

I'm not in a position to comment on what an individual police agency may or may not have in their policies or orders. That's why I only provided information on the provincial standard.

Decatur wrote:

Considering that the "2011 Policy Services Manual" and the new standard are both dated 2011 it is possible that the OPP revised their manual prior to the new standard being issued?

The only way to find out whether the officer was "qualified" to operate a speed measuring device will be to ask him on the stand when he last qualified and go from there.

I'm not in a position to comment on what an individual police agency may or may not have in their policies or orders. That's why I only provided information on the provincial standard.

Decatur,

I have a copy of the 2011 Adequacy Standards as well as direct clarification from the OPP that the current "Police Orders" are more stringent than the Adequacy Standard ( i.e. 24 months vs. 36 months)... I think that communication (all documented) is strong enough to request that the charges are dropped?

Procedural question - would you discuss this with the Prosecutor prior to trial to show him my due diligence and request the charges are dropped? Or would you forgo the meeting and proceed to present my line arguments at the trial? Is there any chance based on my discussion with the Prosecutor before the trial - they will drop the charges ?

Thanks

R

My line of thinking is that the OPP simply do their re qualifications more often than the Province requires. Under Provincial guidelines they are not required to do so. Even if they don't re qualify within the 2 year period I believe they are still qualified to operate speed measuring devices in Ontario.

You could try discussing this with the prosecutor prior to the trial and see what they say. They may not even be aware in the discrepancy between the standard and OPP policy.

Decatur wrote:

My line of thinking is that the OPP simply do their re qualifications more often than the Province requires. Under Provincial guidelines they are not required to do so. Even if they don't re qualify within the 2 year period I believe they are still qualified to operate speed measuring devices in Ontario.

You could try discussing this with the prosecutor prior to the trial and see what they say. They may not even be aware in the discrepancy between the standard and OPP policy.

The OPP Police Orders are more stringent, and state that if the officer has not maintained their training they should not be operating a speed measuring device. The Orders also state that when in conflict with the Provincial 'guidelines' and are more stringent - then the Orders will take precedent.

Else, what is the point of having specific OPP police Orders, York Regional Policy, Brantford, etc... ? The Provincial Standards are guidelines - the individual agencies (i.e. OPP) write their own internal policies to meet the standards. They should be measured and held accountable to their own internal policy.

You might want to consider more than just training. If it goes to trial ask about how often the officer actually uses radar. Just because they re qualify every 2 years doesn't mean they use it. I'd rather have an officer requal every 3 years and use it daily than someone who does it every 2 and takes the radar out once a month.

And don't forget to actually ask the officer when they did their re qualification if the prosecutor doesn't bring it up.

Decatur wrote:

You might want to consider more than just training. If it goes to trial ask about how often the officer actually uses radar. Just because they re qualify every 2 years doesn't mean they use it. I'd rather have an officer requal every 3 years and use it daily than someone who does it every 2 and takes the radar out once a month.

And don't forget to actually ask the officer when they did their re qualification if the prosecutor doesn't bring it up.

Thanks, good points..

Would you approach the Prosecutor prior to the start to notify them of my discoveries and see if it can be tossed? Is there any risk in doing this? Or, would it be better to just wait for the trial and state my case?

I'm not in a position to give any legal advice about that subject. You may bring it up to the prosecutor but they would probably consider it evidence and not really want to hear it.

Decatur wrote:

I'm not in a position to give any legal advice about that subject. You may bring it up to the prosecutor but they would probably consider it evidence and not really want to hear it.

Ok, thanks..

I was just curious if there was a chance after I disclosed my findings to the Prosecutor - if they might dismiss the charges before it actually gets to the trial?

If you bring that up they will most likely tell you to get lost with no charge.

edit: you have to stand by your decision.

With me they just dropped the charge I thought the cop was gonna cry.

Cheers

Viper1

Well, I was in court today.

I checked in with the Prosecutor and stated my intent for a trial

I waited through 2 breaks for the Pros to only call my name during the 2nd break and tell me the Officer was injured over a week ago and they would be moving for an adjournment unless I wanted to take a 1 time sweet deal. I said I would argue for the adjournment and put it before the JP. I objected to the JP and argued that although sympathetic to the Officer - it is not my issue, and why did the detachment make arrangements and discuss with the Pros and send out a notification for a new trial date prior to me driving all the way in to court. Anyways - the JP granted the 1 time adjournment and I am supposed to go back in Dec.

I told the Pros during the discussion we had about the 1 time sweet deal, if there was a chance to review the evidence and perhaps get the ticket tossed on the spot. He told me if I wanted to show my poker hand, but he might be inclined to use my evidence against me. I told him I didn't care, because what I had was a clear statement of fact in the disclosure about the re-cert date and my due dilligence from the OPP said 24 months. He said that the officer was an instructor, to which I said it did not matter, as the OPP policy does not differentiate - just notes "anyone in uniform" using the SDD.. He said nothing.

Anyways, back to trial in Dec.

Also, follow up question ...

Would there be any usefulness in asking for disclosure on the Officers Injury (nature) or when/why the detachment would have notified the Prosecutor or the court about his inability to make it to court?

Thanks

No.

You have already won this.

Just show up and plead not guilty.

If they let you get that far.

THEN WAIT to be told you are free to go.

Cheers

Viper1

On my trial the officer said he never read the manual and he doesn't know what is in it except the testing page

The Judge accepted it as normal.