STI Driver Seized, Ontario

[STI_Boy]

And where do they manufacture these tools of the devil?

Ontario of course. Follow the money.

[OpenRoad]

A throw-away detector won't fly if the cop already "knows" you have an STi though... have your friend buy a Redline from Radarbusters or another authorized dealer, then hardwire and mount it high where it can't be seen from outside... then keep a cheapo handy to hand to the highway robber.

Perhaps there is a market for dummy lookalike detectors. Just a look-a-like shell with battery powered LEDs, and a 'warm' component.

[TRun]

A throw-away detector won't fly if the cop already "knows" you have an STi though... have your friend buy a Redline from Radarbusters or another authorized dealer, then hardwire and mount it high where it can't be seen from outside... then keep a cheapo handy to hand to the highway robber.

Perhaps there is a market for dummy lookalike detectors. Just a look-a-like shell with battery powered LEDs, and a 'warm' component.

Its called a cobra

[kpatz]

Its called a cobra

Except that the Cobra needs to be on in order to make it warm, and if it's on, it'll interfere with every RD within a 1/4 mile radius.

Someone needs to modify Cobras and remove the local oscillators and then sell them as decoy shells. Then you can leave them plugged in until you get pulled over.

[Eric29]

I think it was a joke.

Anyway, if you do what you suggest, the joke will be on you after the cops write you up and you have to spend a small fortune on an attorney and an expert witness to explain what a "local oscillator" is to some judge who has spent his entire legal career deferring to the police.

Its called a cobra

Except that the Cobra needs to be on in order to make it warm, and if it's on, it'll interfere with every RD within a 1/4 mile radius.

Someone needs to modify Cobras and remove the local oscillators and then sell them as decoy shells. Then you can leave them plugged in until you get pulled over.

[Woodscolby]

I think it was a joke.

Anyway, if you do what you suggest, the joke will be on you after the cops write you up and you have to spend a small fortune on an attorney and an expert witness to explain what a "local oscillator" is to some judge who has spent his entire legal career deferring to the police.

Its called a cobra

Except that the Cobra needs to be on in order to make it warm, and if it's on, it'll interfere with every RD within a 1/4 mile radius.

Someone needs to modify Cobras and remove the local oscillators and then sell them as decoy shells. Then you can leave them plugged in until you get pulled over.

The point wasn't to get out of the ticket. The point was so that you don't lose your nice detector.

[Eric29]

Thanks.

It is unfortunate though that you have to spend a lot of money to assert your basic rights when they are violated.

I think it was a joke.

Anyway, if you do what you suggest, the joke will be on you after the cops write you up and you have to spend a small fortune on an attorney and an expert witness to explain what a "local oscillator" is to some judge who has spent his entire legal career deferring to the police.

Its called a cobra

Except that the Cobra needs to be on in order to make it warm, and if it's on, it'll interfere with every RD within a 1/4 mile radius.

Someone needs to modify Cobras and remove the local oscillators and then sell them as decoy shells. Then you can leave them plugged in until you get pulled over.

The point wasn't to get out of the ticket. The point was so that you don't lose your nice detector.

[jerry540i]

I still don't think, based on the limited info the OP provided, that the cop had a legal reason to make the stop.

KEY WORDS: LIMITED INFO.

But, since the officer KNEW what he was looking for, it isn't all that hard to think that he probably did SUSPECT that their was an ILLEGAL RD in the vehicle - and he was correct.

"Hunches and suspicions" don't constitute reasonable grounds for a traffic stop, and just because he was correct still doesn't justify the stop: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Harrison


"Background

On October 24, 2004, Bradley Harrison was driving an SUV with a friend near Kirkland Lake, Ontario. They were driving from Vancouver to Toronto. Constable Bertoncello of the Ontario Provincial Police observed that the vehicle had no front license plate, an offence if the car is registered in Ontario. Bertoncello activated his emergency lights and pulled the car over. He then realized the vehicle was registered in Alberta and was not required to have a front license plate. He was also informed by radio dispatch that the vehicle had been rented in Vancouver. At that time, Bertoncello has no grounds to believe any offence was being committed.
Nonetheless, Bertoncello was suspicious. The vehicle appeared to be "lived-in", which suggested it had been driven directly through from Vancouver. He knew that rental cars were often used by drug couriers. He knew that it was rare for drivers to drive that stretch of the road at exactly the speed limit, which Harrison had been doing. Finally, Harrison and his friend gave contradictory stories when questioned separately.

Trial
At the Superior Court of Ontario, the trial judge found the detention was based on a hunch or suspicion, and not on reasonable grounds. It was therefore an arbitrary detention and violated section 9 of the Charter. The judge also found that the search had nothing to do with why Harrison was arrested, and was therefore without lawful authority and violated section 8 of the Charter.
In determining whether the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, the judge applied the test found in R. v. Collins. In determining the seriousness of the breach, the judge was highly critical of Bertoncello's actions. He found that the officer's intentions "'was to take whatever steps were necessary to determine whether his suspicions were correct', notwithstanding the lack of any legal basis for the stop or search", and that the officer's actions "can only be described as brazen and flagrant". He also found that Bertoncello's in court testimony was "contrived and defy credibility".
However, the trial judge found that the officer's actions "pale in comparison" with the 35 kilograms of cocaine found in Harrison's vehicle. He therefore found that administration of justice would suffer more if the cocaine was excluded, and admitted the evidence."

Sadly...in this case, the drugs were admitted (which was BS!), but the caselaw appears as though it could apply to the immediate matter, and the possession of a STi Driver does not compare to the possession of 4 million dollars worth of coke destined for the streets. I'd certainly cite this precedent in my defense.

You're right, it doesn't compare because the law on radar detectors and drugs when it comes to search is completely different.

Reasonable grounds for a search of a radar detector is as simple as, "As soon as I activated my radar, the car activated it's brakes suddenly."

It is REASONABLE to stop and search without warrant or permission.

You have summed up the entire battle in one easy sentence. So far, Ontario courts have determined that violating a person's right against unreasonable search and seizure during a traffic stop (read: without warrant) applies to things like drugs, weapons, kidnapping, terrorism, and radar detectors. (I'm not joking).

This has been the focal point of a few court challenges trying to overturn the law. Basically the position is that a person's rights should be considered "greater" than the state's need to remove radar detectors from the vehicle.

J/

[Wannago]

35Kg (4 million dollars) worth of cocaine is one thing, and admittedly is akin to weapons, kidnapping, and terrorism, but you are really making a strech to lump RDs into that same category. Criminal offenses vs misdemeanor Highway Traffic Act violations. No comparison...

Just because "overzealous" cops have blatantly violated the Charter when it comes to traffic stops and specifically the use of RDs, does not mean that the courts likewise support this breach. I don't believe there is any proof (yet) that a court has deemed it acceptable to violate a person's constitutional rights for the possession of a RD. If there is, I haven't seen that caselaw.

It will be interesting to see how Dcdave's case turns out, although I am not familiar with his case nor the defensive strategy he intends to argue.

People have to stand up for their rights - if they don't, then they will just continue to get abused. The cops can do whatever they feel is appopriate, but the courts ultimately say whether they are right or not. I can't see any judge allowing a breach of the charter in support of this type of traffic act violation.

[wolfpacal]

Hey Wannago, how do AB LEO's treat people with RD's? Is there ever talk of making them illegal there too?