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

[CapnAl]

Here's some info members should be aware of. Today, at Nanoose Bay, LI alerted just as I was accellerating from light change (not speeding). Traffic enforcement were lit me up at approx 300 feet. I hit brakes and switched off LI but they knew I had it.
Charged as in title. LI unit stripped from car.

Ticket issued for violation of BC Section 135.1 of Motor Vehicle Act

Prohibition against obstruction of traffic light safety devices

135.1 A person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, intentionally obstructs or otherwise interferes with the operation of a traffic light safety device, as defined in section 83.1 (1) which states:"traffic light safety device" means a traffic light safety device prescribed under subsection (8) that is capable of photographing or capturing one or more images of a motor vehicle and of accurately and simultaneously recording data related to the motor vehicle and a traffic control signal.
I think charge was intended to have been recorded as section 135 (1).

Obstruction of signal prohibited

135 (1) A person must not erect or maintain on or in view of a highway a device that purports to be, resembles or interferes with the effectiveness of a traffic control device, unless the person is authorized to do so by

(a) the minister responsible for the administration of the Transportation Act,

(b) the council of the municipality in which the device is placed, erected or maintained,

(c) the governing body of the treaty first nation in whose treaty lands the device is placed, erected or maintained, or

(d) a person duly authorized by a person or body referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c).

I'll be fighting this, but your readers should know that I was handcuffed and put in back of cruiser till cop supervisor came, and I'm out a nearly new LI from my first LI alert! Cop says LI is history. Ouch. And the ticket was for $253 which is amount I hope I won't have to pay if I lose in court not to mention the potential for points/increased insurance. Also I have order to get vehicle inspected for removal of all wiring pertaining to LI. Cop says they've seized about ten laser jammers. Comments?

[AvsBest]

Do you know what gun he was using?

And that section is for speed cams that is no longer used in bc. This section is not applicable in your case it should be easy to get out of it.

A traffic control device is pretty much a sign. A stop sign, a yield sign are all traffic control device. A laser is not.

[jerry540i]

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.

[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

[Jstglockem]

Funny, this should be an easy win. No to mention all the other items that people pointed out earlier.

If they had an actual video of you switching the LI on/off that would not even be enough based on their letter of the law.

If they want to make these illegal they need to write a law for lidar jammers.

A perfect example are the laws in Virginia. All they can do is a fix it ticket.

Did they destroy or disfigure any of your property while illegally impounding your property?

[jerry540i]

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/

[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.

[SHOtime2511]

Sounds like he charged you for the wrong offence.
Fight it all the way.
Sorry you live in a police state.

[jerry540i]

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.

[CapnAl]

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 from cutting the wires, ie. requires a safety inspection, then why did they let me drive off with an "unsafe" vehicle? I will fight this as well. For the record, ICBC (Public Insurance Corp of BC) says that only the officer or his supervisor can rescind the inspection order and I can't renew insurance unless this is resolved either with inspection or getting the order cancelled. By the way the car is a 2010 with 24k.
Anyway thanks for the feedback. I'm pretty confident I'll win this. I'll miss the LI though. It did work well as claimed. Had I been speeding it definitely would have saved my ass.