Click to go to Forum Home Click to go to maXbimmer Home

Go Back   maXbimmer Forums > General > General Discussion
User Name
Password


Welcome to Maxbimmer.com!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 07-19-2009, 12:39 AM   #1
M3ti Compact
Fuel Efficient 318 Member
 
M3ti Compact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,465
s.172 Street racing charter challenge fails

For all who like me, believe that Ontario's new "street racing" laws (s.172) is unconsitutional; well, apparently we were all wrong.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc...09oncj153.html

I was surprised that no one has made a charter challenge on this outrageous law - in fact, people have; I just didn't know about it.

Here is the summary:

S.172 was challenged on two seperate provisions of the charter

Challenge 1. Section 7 - Right to life, liberty and security.

A conviction under s.172 exposes you to the penalty of imprisionment for up to 6 months, imprisionment being an impairment to your right to life. However, speeding is generally considered an "absolute liability" offence, for which, there is no defense. In offences which provide no defense, there can be no associated jail time. For this reason, normal speeding convictions (s.128) carry no possibility of jail time.

When it comes to s.172, you can be convicted by speeding 50km/h over the limit. Now, this offence between 1-49km/h over has no defense. At 50km/h+ over, a layperson would presumably assume that you still have no defense for going that fast, and hence, this is an absolute liability offence, in which case there cannot be any associated jail time - making s.172 unconstitutional.

NOT TRUE. At 50km/h over the limit, this judge has ruled that speeding changes from an absolute liability offence into a "strict liability" offence. With strict liability, the only defense available is if you can show you took reasonable care to prevent yourself from breaking the law. With a defense available, jail time is an acceptable penalty, and therefore, the s.172 does not violate section 7 of the charter.

Challenge 2: Section 11 - Right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

When the charge of s.172 is laid, the police officer will impound your vehicle and suspend your license for 7 days at the site of the offence. There is no appeal or recourse. This is all done on the word of the officer. And with the very vague wordings of s.172, essentially any innocent driving mistake can be misconstrued into a s.172 violation at the whim of the officer, and your car impounded. While the vague wording of s.172 was not dealt with by this court, there have been numerous stories in the news of police officers applying s.172 in spite and errorneously.

This judge rules that while it is true your car is impounded on the spot, you are not convicted on the spot, and you have the right to fight the charge in court. The impounding of your vehicle is an "administrative consequence". You are still presumed innocent. Therefore, s. 172 does not violate section 11 of the Charter.
__________________
M3ti Compact is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2009, 12:41 AM   #2
344i
5th Gear Member
 
344i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: .
Posts: 1,122
Next summer, im in BC, Ontario can go to hell
344i is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2009, 12:57 AM   #3
Porter86
shiftin gears
 
Porter86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oakville, Ontario
Posts: 271
Send a message via MSN to Porter86
Quote:
Originally Posted by 344i View Post
Next summer, im in BC, Ontario can go to hell
haha. nice read, although if you ask to see the radar gun, they have to show you it. and if they don't than no ticket. thats been my understanding of it, my ticket my sis ticket she got, n my other friend whos gotten a couple tickets. we were either all show before anything was said, and my buddy ask to see the gun, the guy gave him a hard time but still did.

if someone knows different bout that part say so plz,lol.
Porter86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2009, 01:29 AM   #4
craigIS
A.K.A. crossfire291
 
craigIS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chatham
Posts: 2,044
Send a message via MSN to craigIS
as much as i never liked this law, i always knew that this law does not violate any rights.

i have always said what the court says, not in the same words, but the same idea....having a lisence, driving and owning a car, are privileges, not rights. privileges can be taken away, rights can not.

the part about impounding the car i didnt really understand, but knew that they could do it.
__________________


flickr
craigIS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2009, 07:09 AM   #5
Dr. Flyview
Formerly Flav_cool
 
Dr. Flyview's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,365
Send a message via MSN to Dr. Flyview
Uhhh are the judges smoking crack? I don't see how their explanations make ANY sense.

1) So they claim you have a defense. Uhh what could I reasonably have done to insure I wasn't going 50 over?...hmmmmm...hmmmmmmmmm ?!?!?
2) It's an administrative consequence to have your car taken away?? WTF? That's seizure of property without a trial. How is that being considered innocent until proven guilty?

You know it's bad when the judicial system is corrupt.
__________________

1998 BMW 328is - summer
1994 BMW 325i - daily
1992 BMW 325i - totaled
1988 Mercedes Benz 190E 2.3-8V -
sold

Dr. Flyview is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2009, 03:03 PM   #6
damameke
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossfire291 View Post
the part about impounding the car i didnt really understand, but knew that they could do it.
Impounding and lost of priviledge to drive for 7 days is an added punishment..
on top of the fine

Is this law getting through to the drivers, apparently not, case in point.. Mini and Honda Prelude racing at 200km on a 50 km zone a few days ago..and they dont even own the cars and we are not taking about 16 or 17 both are 21 years old... stupidity or raging hormone?

I can only say.. i was glad i wasnt on that road they raced on.. could have been me.. they could have crashed on...

laws can be challenged but not broken....

Last edited by damameke; 07-19-2009 at 04:57 PM.
damameke is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2009, 03:26 PM   #7
ericdalinda
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,242
a little off topic a friend of mine just got a speeding ticket for doing 82 in a 60 zone, the catch is his cluster is broke and his spedometer doesnt work....

so does my friend have a case here? basically showing the judge a work order fix of the speedo and dropped charge?
or what could possibly happen??
ericdalinda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2009, 05:03 PM   #8
damameke
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericdalinda View Post
a little off topic a friend of mine just got a speeding ticket for doing 82 in a 60 zone, the catch is his cluster is broke and his spedometer doesnt work....

so does my friend have a case here? basically showing the judge a work order fix of the speedo and dropped charge?
or what could possibly happen??
personnaly, I dont think your friend has a case for we are responsible for our cars, I presumed your friend knew the speedometer was broken and he was caught .. then again anything is possible for him to plead his case with a judge..
damameke is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2009, 06:31 PM   #9
craigIS
A.K.A. crossfire291
 
craigIS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chatham
Posts: 2,044
Send a message via MSN to craigIS
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericdalinda View Post
a little off topic a friend of mine just got a speeding ticket for doing 82 in a 60 zone, the catch is his cluster is broke and his spedometer doesnt work....

so does my friend have a case here? basically showing the judge a work order fix of the speedo and dropped charge?
or what could possibly happen??
well, if your friend has a work order for the problem that was booked before the ticket was issued then i would assume he would have a case. if he doesnt have a work order dated before the ticket was issued, then i dont think he has much to go on.
__________________


flickr
craigIS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2009, 06:47 PM   #10
tdotbimmer
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: KW/Guelph/Toronto
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericdalinda View Post
a little off topic a friend of mine just got a speeding ticket for doing 82 in a 60 zone, the catch is his cluster is broke and his spedometer doesnt work....

so does my friend have a case here? basically showing the judge a work order fix of the speedo and dropped charge?
or what could possibly happen??
Your friend will not win in court based on a defective speedometer. If he adhered to the posted speed limit and/or the rules of the road, he wouldnt have been pulled over in the first place. Did he request to see the reading on the lidar or radar gun? If he wasnt allowed to (need witness for this), then he may have a case.

Even if he provided a work order with a prior date, that doesnt excuse him from speeding. And we all know, work order can be purchased these days from corrupt shops.
__________________

1992 E31 850I aka M3'S FATHER -- Brilliant Red/Black Interior
2 Wallets' List:
19" DPE LS15 - 19X8 F | 19X10 R | NITTO INVO 245/35/19 F | 285/30/19 R
2002 E46 aka M3'S STEP SON -- Topaz Blue Exterior/Tan Interior
tdotbimmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2009, 04:14 AM   #11
magnus
6th Gear Member
 
magnus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Reykjavik
Posts: 3,471
You could always ask and see when was the last time the radar was calibrated and checked by authorized professionals! Did that once in Greece and they let me go!
__________________
http://pics.livejournal.com/blblblblx/pic/000r554e.gif

"Lo there do I see my father.
Lo there do I see my mother.
Lo there do I see my brothers and my sisters.
Lo there do I see the line of my people back to the beginning.
Lo they do call to me
they bid me take my place among them in the Halls of Valhalla,
where the brave may live forever"
magnus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 07:52 AM   #12
trd_mr2
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: winona
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdotbimmer View Post
Your friend will not win in court based on a defective speedometer. If he adhered to the posted speed limit and/or the rules of the road, he wouldnt have been pulled over in the first place. Did he request to see the reading on the lidar or radar gun? If he wasnt allowed to (need witness for this), then he may have a case.

Even if he provided a work order with a prior date, that doesnt excuse him from speeding. And we all know, work order can be purchased these days from corrupt shops.
corrupt shops ? everyone in this world is corrupt, even the legal system
trd_mr2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 12:52 PM   #13
chromius
6th Gear Member
 
chromius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,006
Luckily, from the looks of it, this is a lower court, so as a result this is not a precedent setting decision. This ruling can be appealed. And Also, won't be used as precedent in future cases in which these charter violations have been cited.

So, This isn't the end yet.
__________________
Photobucket
chromius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 03:44 PM   #14
Dr. Flyview
Formerly Flav_cool
 
Dr. Flyview's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,365
Send a message via MSN to Dr. Flyview
Chromius, it looks like you know a little about the law. Do you agree with what I've said?
__________________

1998 BMW 328is - summer
1994 BMW 325i - daily
1992 BMW 325i - totaled
1988 Mercedes Benz 190E 2.3-8V -
sold

Dr. Flyview is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2009, 03:50 PM   #15
mirek
6th Gear Member
 
mirek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Flyview View Post
Uhhh are the judges smoking crack? I don't see how their explanations make ANY sense.

1) So they claim you have a defense. Uhh what could I reasonably have done to insure I wasn't going 50 over?...hmmmmm...hmmmmmmmmm ?!?!?
2) It's an administrative consequence to have your car taken away?? WTF? That's seizure of property without a trial. How is that being considered innocent until proven guilty?

You know it's bad when the judicial system is corrupt.
Re #2: what about all the people that are in JAIL awaiting trail, how is this any different? same thing.
mirek is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.