Just throwing this out there for discussion .... Perhaps someone has been in this "pickle". With the recent change to Sec 78 of the HTA (hand-held wireless communication devices), what would you do in this situation.... -Police officer observes a driver holding cell phone to their ear or even up by their nose as they tic-tac type away a text. -Police officer initiates a traffic stop (for obvious reason) and informs the driver of the purpose of the stop ..."I stopped you because you were talking on your cell phone" (or relevant statement). -Driver states "I don't even own a cell phone" ..... because he/she has tucked it into the glove-box after seeing your lights on behind them.....and to my understanding there is ZERO rights to search under this offence (??). Now the police officer is in a pickle? He/she would like to write a ticket, but the "evidence" to support the charge is out of sight. Of course you (police) know it was a cell phone (lips were yapping, laughing, little black or silver thing held to the side of driver's head) ..... I mean, who really does that? (unless they're on the phone). Question: Grounds to search surround other scenarios (R.A.D.A.R. detectors or alcohol), but is there anything to "help" the police with regards to this hand-held wireless communication device section of the HTA? Secondly, would anyone ever consider seizing the phone (if it was in plain view) as evidence to support the charge? (Although there aren't many seizure options within the HTA). Personally I think its a tough one to write and an EASY one to contest. Thanks for reading, Your thoughts?
Just throwing this out there for discussion .... Perhaps someone has been in this "pickle".
With the recent change to Sec 78 of the HTA (hand-held wireless communication devices), what would you do in this situation....
-Police officer observes a driver holding cell phone to their ear or even up by their nose as they tic-tac type away a text.
-Police officer initiates a traffic stop (for obvious reason) and informs the driver of the purpose of the stop ..."I stopped you because you were talking on your cell phone" (or relevant statement).
-Driver states "I don't even own a cell phone" ..... because he/she has tucked it into the glove-box after seeing your lights on behind them.....and to my understanding there is ZERO rights to search under this offence (??).
Now the police officer is in a pickle? He/she would like to write a ticket, but the "evidence" to support the charge is out of sight. Of course you (police) know it was a cell phone (lips were yapping, laughing, little black or silver thing held to the side of driver's head) ..... I mean, who really does that? (unless they're on the phone).
Question: Grounds to search surround other scenarios (R.A.D.A.R. detectors or alcohol), but is there anything to "help" the police with regards to this hand-held wireless communication device section of the HTA? Secondly, would anyone ever consider seizing the phone (if it was in plain view) as evidence to support the charge? (Although there aren't many seizure options within the HTA).
Personally I think its a tough one to write and an EASY one to contest.
Why seize the phone? It is different from SMWD and open liquor (where both are prohibited inside a vehicle) Anyway, it is no different than a seatbelt infraction.....Either see the belt on or off......or see the phone being used or not. Gather evidence accordingly.
Why seize the phone? It is different from SMWD and open liquor (where both are prohibited inside a vehicle)
Anyway, it is no different than a seatbelt infraction.....Either see the belt on or off......or see the phone being used or not. Gather evidence accordingly.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Agreed, the evidence isn't "out of sight" now that it's in the glove box, the evidence is the officer's observations at the time the offence was committed. That's what the court will rely on, regardless of whether a phone was actually observed still in the drivers hands after the vehicle was stopped.
Agreed, the evidence isn't "out of sight" now that it's in the glove box, the evidence is the officer's observations at the time the offence was committed. That's what the court will rely on, regardless of whether a phone was actually observed still in the drivers hands after the vehicle was stopped.
Respectfully disagree. Simon Borys and hwybear both covered it. The officer does not need to produce the cellphone as evidence that the individual was talking on it. This is not a drug seizure. The only evidence that needs to be entered for a conviction is that the officer observed the driver using a hand-held communications device when driving. That's it. The officer only needs reasonable grounds, not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. You'd need to show the officer didn't have an adequate view, or have clear, concise testimony countering the officer's statements, to win if it proceeded to trial. That is much easier said than done.
ibboyd wrote:
Personally I think its a tough one to write and an EASY one to contest.
Respectfully disagree.
Simon Borys and hwybear both covered it. The officer does not need to produce the cellphone as evidence that the individual was talking on it. This is not a drug seizure. The only evidence that needs to be entered for a conviction is that the officer observed the driver using a hand-held communications device when driving. That's it. The officer only needs reasonable grounds, not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. You'd need to show the officer didn't have an adequate view, or have clear, concise testimony countering the officer's statements, to win if it proceeded to trial. That is much easier said than done.
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
Hi everyone. I'm asking for a friend who has a question of interpretation.
He was ticketed for using a hand-held device. He contends that he was acting within the exemption provided under Subsection 14 (1) of O. Reg. 366/09, which reads as follows (emphasis added):
Hey guys i just wanted to know what speeds you see others do on the roads on a regular basis. As we all know no body drives 100 km. It seems they only hit that speed twice once on the way up and once on the way down.
it seems the De Facto limit on the 401 is about 120-130. But lately i dont know if…
On June 10, 2017, I was pulled over by an OPP on the 403 heading WB and told I registered 136km/hr. I kept chit chat to a minimum and took my ticket and went on with my day. I later requested my disclosure and did not receive it until a week before my Oct. 27 court date, and so I had my date…
Anyone know any more information? Apparently kathleen wynne mentioned trying to introduce legislation after more than 20 years of no speed cameras. My guess is that it wont happen, since they've tried before many times to bring it back after it was abolished.
The other day I was given a ticket for speeding 119 in a 90, on highway 17 near Marathon, ON (Speeding ticket capital of the universe, BTW). The officer claims to have "clocked" me using the vehicle mounted radar at 121 KMH and dropped it (presumably to lower fine and demerits).
I posted this in the 3 Demerit Section and haven't received any
responses.
I received a failure to stop at an amber light ticket on April 17, 2009. At my First Attendance Meeting I asked to read the police officer's notes and remember thinking how ridiculous they were and the difficulty…
I was on the right side of the road going straight when a pedestrian waved down the taxi driver in the lane next to me. He pulled over to the right without any notice or signalling and hit me with the side of his car.
There were many witnesses but I immediately had a concussion and did not think of…
My mother was driving EB on a 4 lane street (2 lanes EB, 2 lanes WB).
She was in the left hand lane and started a left hand turn so as to enter a side street, crossing WB traffic. There was NO intersection. She hit a cyclist who was heading WB. Police where called but none showed up. My…
If the speed limit is 50, and you do 100+, not only do you get 6 points. Your car gets impounded for a week, and your license suspended for 7 days, along with a hefty fine of at least $2000. The penalty is actually the same as for racing. The law came in effect on October 1, 2007. Remember -…
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…
