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

[frizzlefry]

Wow. That sucks. Should be easy to beat in court as they charged you with an offence relating to traffic lights. Wonder how reasonable grounds to search your car would apply...depending on your car, Lidar guns often throw JAM codes for a variety of reasons. I know the blinder m27 tends not to throw JAM codes on the LTI guns which I think are what most LEOs use in western Canada. If they were using a laser Atlanta there are tons of videos on YouTube showing DRLs, the road and snow causing a JAM codes on them. We are pretty lucky in Alberta as we have no front plates. Black car, no chrome, no front plate = lidar read failures without any jammer. BS thing about it is that I have had cops trained to use lidar telling me they "never fail" but the manual for the LTI guns clearly states that headlights and a sunny day can cause jam codes. Looked into it and there are a lot of cases listed in canlii that show cops are not required to read the manual so many have no idea how the gun really works or what will cause it to fail. They are just trained to point and shoot and make arrests/charges based on what the gun says. Like how all lidar manuals state that there is a +/- of 2km accuracy but they will impound cars under BC's 40km or over law based on a lidar reading of 40km over when it could easily have actually been 38km over. If they read the manual they would know the lidar gun could be wrong.

Crazy thing is that there are also a lot of cases listed in canlii that show the prosecution fighting requests to make the lidar manuals available to defendants. Because the manuals clearly state the various ways the guns can return incorrect readings which could be used to fight tickets.

[frizzlefry]

Question OP, were you actually arrested? If no, then they can't search YOU. Car maybe, but not you. I may just adjust my jammer so I can quickly disconnect it and put it in my pocket. If its not connected, they can't charge me with some BS charge or search my person without arrest...I think.

[Ricochet]

Question OP, were you actually arrested? If no, then they can't search YOU. Car maybe, but not you. I may just adjust my jammer so I can quickly disconnect it and put it in my pocket. If its not connected, they can't charge me with some BS charge or search my person without arrest...I think.

You aren't going to be putting an LI jammer head unit in your pocket if/when you get pulled over. If this was possible, it would be one of the most ghetto installs in history. No offense, but let's be real about the extent one can go to reasonably to protect themselves.

I've given this alot of thought. Jammers are illegal in CA as well. If I had to remount a windshield based detector each morning I wouldn't use it. Same goes for a jammer. The whole purpose of the unit is to have it work each and every time to use your car. Jump in and go.

[frizzlefry]

No offense taken but I was referring to the CPU unit itself, not the heads obviously. Just make that somewhat accessible, unplug 4 cables and pocket it if you are really concerned about getting railroaded during a traffic stop. Heads cannot function without the CPU. Can’t even power on. Even in some provinces where radar detectors are illegal, they are only illegal to USE. You can have it in the car just not plugged in. No law in BC about jammers being illegal so if it’s not functional…

Noticed the drivesmartBC site mentions that you can be charged with obstructing a police officer for using a jammer. It’s a NOT a government run site however. It’s a community site run by a former RCMP officer. So the obstruction statement is purely his own opinion. He mentions people have been convicted before but no case law has ever been produced. And the OP was charged with obstructing a traffic control device. Not a cop. BIG DIFFERENCE there. One is a criminal offence, the other is a traffic violation which, if you are going to slam the hammer on jammers, makes much more sense than a criminal charge. So the blogging cop says criminal obstruction, the cop that pulled over the OP says traffic control device obstruction…even the RCMP officers are not on the same page about how to misapply the laws in BC. What a gong show. It’s very much a “try this now, let the courts sort it out later” attitude that is highly unconstitutional.

I find if really funny that the RCMP can’t/won’t do squat about possessing/buying a dangerous drug like bath salts (it’s actually synthetic cocaine) because it is not specifically defined as an illegal substance as of yet. Never mind that it causes people to act violently. But laser jammers, which are also not specifically banned or deemed illegal in BC, are prime targets for “law interpretation” by the RCMP in order to slap convictions on people. It’s completely illogical. I guess synthetic cocaine would be targeted if it somehow messed with traffic enforcement revenue.

[frizzlefry]

Hey OP, this could help. This deals with criminal obstruction, which some BC cops have tried before apparently, but I think this could also apply to the definition of obstruction as stated in the traffic act.
CanLII - 2005 ABPC 171 (CanLII)
Look at section 19.3 under the definition of obstruction. It states "Trifling, momentary or transitory actions on the part of the accused, which do not cause problems of consequence or which require only an insignificant amount of additional effort on the part of the peace officer, may not be sufficient to constitute 'obstruction'."

The fact that you turned it off would fall into the "momentary or transitory (not perminant)" catagory during which the officer can easily, with little to no additional effort, visually determine your speed (courts accept that in BC without lidar/radar readings) I don't see how it could be considered to cause an obstruction to a cop or traffic light....which a lidar gun isn't to begin with. Should be an easy win.