BC Canada - LI SEIZED -charged with obstruct or interference of Speed Monitor Device

[AvsBest]

They used wire cutters to cut wiring the grill modules, then they had the balls to write an additional order to get a vehicle inspection at a government facility (approx$100). The thing there is, if the vehicle was deemed somehow unsafe, ie. requires a safety inspection, then why did they let me drive off with an "unsafe" vehicle? I will fight this as well.

There is absolutely nothing you can do about a Box 2 (which is what you got). It doesn't get to court whatesoever. I guess you can call ICBC but they will more likely tell you to pound sand. You have 30 days to comply, it you don't, it is a 598$ fine and you end up on a tow truck. If you find a way to fight this please let me know, as it would be news to me

[jerry540i]

They used wire cutters to cut wiring the grill modules, then they had the balls to write an additional order to get a vehicle inspection at a government facility (approx$100). The thing there is, if the vehicle was deemed somehow unsafe, ie. requires a safety inspection, then why did they let me drive off with an "unsafe" vehicle? I will fight this as well.

Definitely keep us posted.
What happened to you is complete BS (though I think the cops have the right to make sure your vehicle meets safety standards--this was just another power trip by the cop)

[AvsBest]

You got charged with interfering with a red light camera by the looks of it .Laser doesnt photograph your vehicle.
Plead not guilty, win the case, and get your LI's back.

Doesn't work that way up here. He's got about 60 days (maybe less) to make an application to a judge. His court date will likely be about 1 year down the road for the ticket itself so the charge has nothing to do with the seizure. It is totally separate. If he doesn't do the application thing, the property is destroyed. The LEO might try to use criminal obstruction to keep the LIs and might be able to keep it that way but who knows what the LEO intention/knowledge is.

Depending on what statute the LEO used to seize it, there is different things that could be done. It just depends. What probably happened is: the LEO looked in his cheater and found the name of the offence without reading the actual wording of the section. Probably seized it for repetition of the offence based on this section or criminal code obstruction, who knows

You'd think they'd keep the LI's as evidence for trial. Kinda hard to prosecute the case if they've destroyed the jammers. No evidence=no conviction. "Your honor, there were these little black boxes that we've destroyed.... "

Court date a year down the road---R v. Askov gets this kicked out for unneccesary delay.

Criminal obstruction for a traffic case? Lower courts across Canada have ruled against this tactic.

I agree with your cheater theory. To me, it sounds like a cop who didnt like being jammed and is taking a "I'll show you who's boss" appoach.

J/

He can certainly try to get it punted for delay but it would be too much work for him in this situation(build his case, get the case transferred to a provincial judge (traffic court judge don't have the authority to rule on a delay application). I think just going to traffic court would do the trick for him and be less of a hassle. You don't really need the devices for court, I assumed they took picture and that would do the trick.

For the obstruction it depends. I assume you are from eastern Canada. For example, in quebec, they have a provincial statute that require people to identify themselves when the commit any offence. So if you don't ID yourself, they arrest you based on that. They are then not allowed to go criminal code obstruction.

I am in western canada and there is no such thing over here so criminal obstruction is used if poeple don't ID themselves. It can change quiet a bit depending on where you are. If you have a jammer law where you are, they obviously couldn't go obstruction because they already have a lesser provincial law in place.

Like I said in another post, criminal obstruction has never been tried for jammers in Canada so one LEO has to try and we will then know what the court thinks of it. This would only apply for BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan as all the other provinces have their own version of detectors/jammers.

The red highlighted part is where I disagree.
In Ontario for example, if they bust you for a detector and you plead not guilty, the seized detector is presented as evidence at trial. No detector=not guilty, and you can petition the crown for replacement costs for the seized/destroyed "evidence".

Now, I'm assuming a similar procedure for prosecution exists in BC--the Crown has to present the evidence at trial, pictures certainly wont cut it. No way to prove the pictures are the actual devices on the car in question.

Maybe its an ontario thing, we use pictures for tons of things here without producing anything else in evidence and it flies. You take a picture of the device, shows how it is installed, takes a pictures that shows the licence plate of the vehicle, show the switch. I personally think it is better evidence than the device itself because it shows where it was, etc. If you just show the heads to regular joe, he wouldn't have a clue what it is, where it goes, etc...

Anyway, not the point here. Even though we are in the same country, each provinces run their own show when it comes to traffic court. Another example is that in most provinces, the judges can reduce or eliminate points that comes with tickets. In BC, they can't do it, all they do is guilty or not guilty and they may be able to reduce the fine amount on certain offences only.

[Ozone]

Please keep us in touch with how it goes. I'm interested in this as well since I'm from Victoria. RCMP Im assuming. Any chance of contacting a traffic lawyer or too expensive?

[AvsBest]

Please keep us in touch with how it goes. I'm interested in this as well since I'm from Victoria. RCMP Im assuming. Any chance of contacting a traffic lawyer or too expensive?

I am sure it is an option but there is a few problems. The lawyer will likely not have a clue of what a jammer is so he is probably not that experienced. If he lawyers up to get his LIs back, I wouldn't know what kind of laywer to ask because it has nothing to do with traffic court (I would start with a criminal lawyer but even then he might tell you that he doesn't know what to do).

If he wants a lawyer for the ticket, I really don't think he needs one because the section clearly doesn't apply. It's almost like being charged with speeding when you blow a stop sign... Obviously we never know what the judge may think but it sounds pretty cut and dry to me.

Do you know what gun the LEO was using?

[nitehawk]

+1 I'm curious to know what gun the LI alerted you with? Considering the LI does not create jam codes, the officer must be well versed with jammers. Either that, or perhaps he was pulling every car that would not give him a reading.

[bunker01]

To my knowledge Laser Atlanta will cause a JAM code a lot of time from almost anything, I hope you had a Panic kill switch to rewrite the firmware and make them look stupid when you can say its a parking sensor which always emmits some sort of laser interference just like all the newer Infinities they are always driving and emitting laser which can delay the gun reading.

Also, "unless BC has a specific law banning the use of jammers, then the offense is "unknown to the law." Basically, this means that you cannot be charged/written up/summoned/ etc. for a law that doesn't exist." Here is what I found for you from another member:

a little Charter of Rights argument
I can't believe that the cop had the nerve to post the obstruction of justice section of the criminal code. The police used to try this BS tactic in Ontario when looking for radar detectors. They would bully some poor person and threaten to arrest them with obstruction if they didn't hand over their detectors. Luckily, there's a nice precedent now (actually from a long time ago) where the Judge set a precedent and threw the case out. (Bracebridge court) Anyway, in BC (or anywhere else) there's not a chance in hell that the charge would hold up in court. Unless BC has a specific law banning the use of jammers, then the offense is "unknown to the law." Basically, this means that you cannot be charged/written up/summoned/ etc. for a law that doesn't exist.

The courts realize that the there must be some leeway and flexibility when examining the breadth of an offense. To charge someone with a criminal code offense when they are jamming a police lidar used to enforce speeding sections of the highway traffic act would not be tolerated by the courts. A speeding ticket is not punishable by jail time in Canada and thus ther are no sec. 7 of the Charter issues at stake (life and liberty). However, a criminal code offense (obstruction) could technically see someone end up in the bucket. Therefore, in a just society, the jailing of someone who violated a provincial highway traffic act (or the cop trying to use his lidar) would not be demonstrably justified as per sec. 1 of the Charter. In a nutshell, jamming the lidar and messing with the highway traffic act does not allow the cops to arrest you and put you in jail.

[Reflections]

a little Charter of Rights argument
I can't believe that the cop had the nerve to post the obstruction of justice section of the criminal code. The police used to try this BS tactic in Ontario when looking for radar detectors. They would bully some poor person and threaten to arrest them with obstruction if they didn't hand over their detectors. Luckily, there's a nice precedent now (actually from a long time ago) where the Judge set a precedent and threw the case out. (Bracebridge court) Anyway, in BC (or anywhere else) there's not a chance in hell that the charge would hold up in court. Unless BC has a specific law banning the use of jammers, then the offense is "unknown to the law." Basically, this means that you cannot be charged/written up/summoned/ etc. for a law that doesn't exist. << correct

The courts realize that the there must be some leeway and flexibility when examining the breadth of an offense. To charge someone with a criminal code offense when they are jamming a police lidar used to enforce speeding sections of the highway traffic act would not be tolerated by the courts. A speeding ticket is not punishable by jail time in Canada and thus ther are no sec. 7 of the Charter issues at stake (life and liberty). However, a criminal code offense (obstruction) could technically see someone end up in the bucket. Therefore, in a just society, the jailing of someone who violated a provincial highway traffic act (or the cop trying to use his lidar) would not be demonstrably justified as per sec. 1 of the Charter. In a nutshell, jamming the lidar and messing with the highway traffic act does not allow the cops to arrest you and put you in jail.

Correction: Ontario's street racing law, can get you jail time for speeding........ however, in this instance, the OP was charged with essentially tampering with a traffic control device. The OHTA basically states that Lidar units are "speed measuring devices"..... quite different..... Is there anything in the BC traffic act that actually states what a lidar device is<<< that is the million $$$ question. Also, have the officer prove that your LI's can somehow cause traffic lights to work at your command.

Good luck with sticking it to this guy, he's way over the top.

[CapnAl]

Update: Police cancel Notice and Order vehicle inspection "to remove laser Jammer device" already seized by them during original stop. I have filed notice June 15th to dispute original charge. No court date notification yet. I'll keep you posted of results including my intention to either get jammer back or to file a claim for damages due to illegal seizure (depending of course whether our legal system pulls more rabbits out of their asses. Ps. Did I mention I have an absolutely clean driving abstract, not to mention being treated like a bank robber for a F'King traffic violation. None of the other people pulled over for MVA infractions after I was arrested got put in back of a cruiser with handcuffs on that day, and for the record I was polite and respectfull at all times.

[SHOtime2511]

scumbags...please keep us updated.
Be careful what you post here. Anyone can read it.
I'd hate for some of the information you have posted bite you in the ass on your court date.