REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum


Welcome to the REVscene Automotive Forum forums.

Registration is Free!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! The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   REVscene Automotive Forum > Automotive Chat > Police Forum

Police Forum Police Head Mod: Skidmark
Questions & info about the Motor Vehicle Act. Mature discussion only.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-31-2010, 01:26 PM   #1
NEWBIE ACCOUNT!
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: invermere
Posts: 24
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Drive while prohibited

I was just recently give an appearance notice to appear in court for driving while prohibited in BC. An officer came to the door where I was visiting, I'm sure after driving around this small town in BC for some time to locate the vehicle. He accused me of driving down the highway, and said that he had seen me driving. I am not sure what the police training is, but I can't positively be sure of anyone's identity meeting them head on at 100 k an hour on a cloudy day. The vehicle he says he saw on the highway, is not registered in my name, the address and the people I was visiting was not any of the registered owners, so assuming he ran the plate, it took some really great police work to track the alleged vehicle down. I'm not sure how this is even possible, I thought you had to be caught in the act of driving. None of these conditions are true, unless you can count on the positive id he says he made of me while meeting the vehicle with his vehicle, both of them traveling at a 100 k, on a cloudy day, with factory tinting of a domestic van rear and side windows.
Advertisement
scoughty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2010, 01:59 PM   #2
I bringith the lowerballerith
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: PR
Posts: 1,131
Thanked 250 Times in 128 Posts
Were you driving?

Its more than possible for the to track down someone in a similar method that you've described, along with other investigational avenues. If you've been served with an appearance notice, you should get a lawyer. Once the Report To Crown Counsel has been submitted and charges approved, you will have your disclosure about how exactly he determined it was you driving at what date and time.
__________________
"Never give a match up halfway through. Never say that you do not feel up to it, that your condition is bad, and throw in the towel. Fight to the very end, always looking for your chance to break through." - Kazuzo Kudo
sho_bc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2010, 02:07 PM   #3
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
So you're saying that he should not have been able to see you while you were driving while prohibited...or that you were not driving while prohibited and that this is a total, random act of mistaken identity because it was not your car? It's really easy to track the owner of a car down..the licence plate is a dead giveaway every time. If it's a "small town in BC" it is very easy to keep an eye on someone. Maybe he saw you at another time than when you thought he saw you...or saw you get into the car or get out of it at another time?
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 03-31-2010, 03:10 PM   #4
NEWBIE ACCOUNT!
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: invermere
Posts: 24
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
No, he said he saw me driving down the highway. I was at a friends house, when he showed up there about a hour later from when he said he saw me. As far as the plates go, it is registered to the owner and they live several miles away in another town. So there was no connection to my friends house and the vehicle. I suspect that he was driving around and saw the van and he had known that I had driven it on occasions. On the appearance notice, it says he saw me driving at about 10 AM, again that is impossible, as I was at my friends since 9.30 AM and the van was parked and there was noone behind the wheel, getting out of the vehicle or gettting in, for that matter we were all in the house. I have a complaint on going with this member from a previous encounter, where the van was stuck in a ditch on a gravel/muddy road. I was waiting out side of the van for a taxi to come get me and he showed up and accussed me of drinking and said that I had driven off the road, when it was very apparent by the tire tracks, because of the mud, that I moved over to far for a passing vehicle. He gave me a 24 hr. prohibition. There were no keys in the van, I was about a hundred yards from the van on a hill watching for the taxi. The van was stuck and unmovable/drivable ofcourse in the peliminary report, he denys all of it. So I think there is something alittle shaddy happening here. I curious has how he could make the absolute assumsion that it was me driving, when I was not driving when he came calling, as far as him seeing me, I am not convinced that he could 100% id anybody behind the wheel. These are my curiosities, I thought someone could shed some light on procedure for charging someone with this type of violation, Thanks
scoughty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2010, 04:30 PM   #5
I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
 
jlenko's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 3,562
Thanked 330 Times in 163 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by offtopic
I love this forum...
So..

Quote:
Originally Posted by sho_bc
Were you driving?
I mean.. are you guilty or not? If you got caught breaking the law, obviously the system works! If you're innocent.. then you've got a member who is picking on you from a previous incident? That's what you make it out like.
__________________
Don't be the next RS.net statistic - If you drink, don't drive. You'll lose your licence, and the rest of us will laugh at you.
jlenko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2010, 05:41 PM   #6
HELP ME PLS!!!
 
johny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: here
Posts: 5,793
Thanked 146 Times in 67 Posts
so how did the van get to your friends house?... while you happened to be there.
johny is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 04-01-2010, 09:53 AM   #7
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
"[I have a complaint on going with this member from a previous encounter, where the van was stuck in a ditch on a gravel/muddy road. I was waiting out side of the van for a taxi to come get me and he showed up and accussed me of drinking and said that I had driven off the road, when it was very apparent by the tire tracks, because of the mud, that I moved over to far for a passing vehicle. "

You admit that you had recently driven the vehicle, he found signs of impairment, you had care and control of the vehicle... and he issued a 24 hour suspension. There is no requirement that the vehicle be drivable...sinmply that it had been driven...and you admit that you had driven it. There is no legal requirement that the vehicle be able to be driven at that point. The court may consider that the van would be removed and you would continue to drive it again. That happens all the time in my experience. The 215 was issued to prevent you from doing just that. Those are the legal points.

"He gave me a 24 hr. prohibition. There were no keys in the van, I was about a hundred yards from the van on a hill watching for the taxi. The van was stuck and unmovable/drivable ofcourse in the peliminary report, he denys all of it. "

By this reasoning, if you are observed speeding by Police and you stop on the side of the road under the same circumstances you outlined above, they could not ticket you because the van was now stuck. The offence has been committed and the charge is because of what HAS happened.


"So I think there is something alittle shaddy happening here. I curious has how he could make the absolute assumsion that it was me driving, when I was not driving when he came calling, as far as him seeing me, I am not convinced that he could 100% id anybody behind the wheel. These are my curiosities, I thought someone could shed some light on procedure for charging someone with this type of violation, Thanks[/QUOTE]"


The violation that the court will deal with is you driving while prohibited. The Police will have to prove that to the court beyond a reasonable doubt...if they don't, then you get off...if they do, you pay the price. As an aside, I'm wondering why you have not told us if you were driving or not? If you want an honest and accurate answer it would be nice to have all the facts. As someone trained in statement analysis, the way you have formed this question where you say that he should not have been able to see you....rather than he did not see me because I was not driving, leads me to certain conclusions and I'm not the only one here who has picked up on this.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 12:59 PM   #8
NEWBIE ACCOUNT!
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: invermere
Posts: 24
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
The truth is, I was driving, but it was an hour before he said he saw me, he says he saw me at 11:00, I told him that was impossible, as it is only 11:00 now, and I have been here for an hour and 4 people verified that. He crossed off the 11:00 on the ticket and wrote in 10:00. that is one of the concerns, but the main question is simply, If the vehicle (not registered to me, no way to legally tie it to me by running the plate), but I had been seen driving it on a previous occasion, legally, as I had no prohibition pryor to this was spotted, is that enough of a probable cause to pull it over?. If the answer is "Yes", then would there not have to be a positive id on the driver?. If the vehicle was not stopped at the time of the infraction, but an hour or so later it was spotted at a residence (not mine), and after seeing me at the residence, and knowing that I have driven the vehicle before hand, wouldn't it be a little presumptuous to just assume it was me driving, and start writing out tickets?, or is that why we tie up the courts?. No one was questioned at the residence. If in fact, he had seen me driving, which I know for a fact this is not the case, as there were no police on the road at the time I was driving, especially the car he was driving, a marked car, would he not of had to make a positive ID first, before pulling the vehicle over, or assuming it was me driving?. If in fact, I did pass him on the highway, and we were both doing 100k, and again he did not persue the vehicle or physically pull it over, but instead an hour later found the vehicle, am I to believe that the police have better eyes than myself, and that they can positively ID someone going those speeds, with all kinds of obstructions, ie. dirty windsheild, tinted back and side windows, cloudy day, or again is it simply assuming it was me, because I have driven the vehicle previously?. I am asking anyone to judge this, I know the court will do that. I am simply concerned as to the procedures of the police in this matter, and wondering how a person can be charge for what ever reason, without aleast some form of proof of the crime. The fact that I was present at the residence, and have had a dealing with the officer once before with the same vehicle, and again, I'm sure it is not the only description of the vehicle in existence in this area, does not seem to be a valid reason for this officer to do what he has done.
scoughty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 01:02 PM   #9
NEWBIE ACCOUNT!
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: invermere
Posts: 24
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Correction, it should read, In fact if I did pass him on the highway, not, I did pass him
scoughty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 01:56 PM   #10
I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
 
jlenko's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 3,562
Thanked 330 Times in 163 Posts
It sounds like you're questioning the officer's observation skills. Good luck fighting that one! Picking people out in a small town is much easier than, say, in Vancouver.

Besides.. you've admitted you were guilty. Time to take responsibility for your actions and MAN UP! Instead of trying to find a way out of your own stupidity...

PS. I love the police forum
__________________
Don't be the next RS.net statistic - If you drink, don't drive. You'll lose your licence, and the rest of us will laugh at you.
jlenko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 02:01 PM   #11
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
"does not seem to be a valid reason for this officer to do what he has done. "

So, the fact that you continue to drive while prohibited WOULD be a valid reason for him to continue to investigate you. Obviously he was right. I often sat on the homes, vehicles, places of work, hangouts, of prohibited drivers to catch them. It's a common investigational technique used by Police, insurance fraud investigators, private eyes and ex wives.

As I said earlier, the charges you are facing have to be proven or disproven in court. The judge will look at the facts on THIS CASE ONLY, not any previous dealings, and make a finding of guilty or not guilty. Just as a matter of note, anyone who is prohibited from dirving, and continues to drive, should get what they have coming to them...and that includes civil and criminal consequences. I believe most posters here on RS would agree.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 04-01-2010, 02:04 PM   #12
I bringith the lowerballerith
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: PR
Posts: 1,131
Thanked 250 Times in 128 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by scoughty View Post
The truth is, I was driving, but it was an hour before he said he saw me, he says he saw me at 11:00, I told him that was impossible, as it is only 11:00 now, and I have been here for an hour and 4 people verified that. He crossed off the 11:00 on the ticket and wrote in 10:00. that is one of the concerns, but the main question is simply, If the vehicle (not registered to me, no way to legally tie it to me by running the plate), but I had been seen driving it on a previous occasion, legally, as I had no prohibition pryor to this was spotted, is that enough of a probable cause to pull it over?. If the answer is "Yes", then would there not have to be a positive id on the driver?. If the vehicle was not stopped at the time of the infraction, but an hour or so later it was spotted at a residence (not mine), and after seeing me at the residence, and knowing that I have driven the vehicle before hand, wouldn't it be a little presumptuous to just assume it was me driving, and start writing out tickets?, or is that why we tie up the courts?. No one was questioned at the residence. If in fact, he had seen me driving, which I know for a fact this is not the case, as there were no police on the road at the time I was driving, especially the car he was driving, a marked car, would he not of had to make a positive ID first, before pulling the vehicle over, or assuming it was me driving?. If in fact, I did pass him on the highway, and we were both doing 100k, and again he did not persue the vehicle or physically pull it over, but instead an hour later found the vehicle, am I to believe that the police have better eyes than myself, and that they can positively ID someone going those speeds, with all kinds of obstructions, ie. dirty windsheild, tinted back and side windows, cloudy day, or again is it simply assuming it was me, because I have driven the vehicle previously?. I am asking anyone to judge this, I know the court will do that. I am simply concerned as to the procedures of the police in this matter, and wondering how a person can be charge for what ever reason, without aleast some form of proof of the crime. The fact that I was present at the residence, and have had a dealing with the officer once before with the same vehicle, and again, I'm sure it is not the only description of the vehicle in existence in this area, does not seem to be a valid reason for this officer to do what he has done.
And the truth comes out.

If I can be driving along and read at least half of a licence plate while a driver is approaching me at high speed, it is certainly plausible that the police officer may have observed someone he recognized was behind the wheel of a vehicle when he wasn't supposed to be. Thats someone being you.

As I posed above, get yourself a lawyer. If and when an information is laid, there will be disclosure and you will see exactly what evidence the police officer/Crown has against you.


PS - Please use the "enter" button on your keyboard. It will make things MUCH easier to read.
__________________
"Never give a match up halfway through. Never say that you do not feel up to it, that your condition is bad, and throw in the towel. Fight to the very end, always looking for your chance to break through." - Kazuzo Kudo
sho_bc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 03:33 PM   #13
My homepage has been set to RS
 
xpl0sive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Burnaby,BC
Posts: 2,053
Thanked 1,185 Times in 304 Posts
lol now you've sewered yourself. why would you admit to being the driver on a PUBLIC forum? you had a chance of getting away with it if you raised enough doubt in court...
__________________
Fast, Reliable, Cheap

A car can be only 2 out of the 3.

Last edited by skidmark; 04-01-2010 at 06:06 PM.
xpl0sive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 04:06 PM   #14
NEWBIE ACCOUNT!
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: invermere
Posts: 24
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
This is exactly what I mean, the police can only see half of the picture/license plate, the rest is assumptions. Every one of your responses direct the onus to me not to drive, Well I'll agree with that, and I should not have driven, now that I have said that.

Can some one here admit to the public and explain to me, how it is a cop can give a ticket to an individual just because they were there and a vehicle that they have been know to drive legally was there and for only those reasons?.

Can someone here admit that when a public complaint is filed against a officer, that it pisses them off?.

Can someone here admit, that they would want payback if such a complaint was filed against them?.

You all speak of truth, but it appears its only one sided truth that you want hear, my side.

I don't know who any of your are, and you don't know anything about me or my past. So if I can admit in anonymity my crime to you, why can't you guys admit in anonymity to me, that this crap does happen, wether it is deserved or not, and it isn't right. So enough of me, lets hear about the bullshit that goes on in this great country of ours. We do have a Charter Of Rights, and that is for everyone, guilty or innocent, and even you guys.

Last edited by scoughty; 04-01-2010 at 04:22 PM.
scoughty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 04:47 PM   #15
NEWBIE ACCOUNT!
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: invermere
Posts: 24
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
This is a quote from "SOUNDY" on another thread.

the police can't just go around passing out random tickets with nothing to back them up.
scoughty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 05:23 PM   #16
I *Fwap* *Fwap* *Fwap* to RS
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,506
Thanked 102 Times in 61 Posts
Instead of speculating, do what Sho_bc said to do. Get the disclosure so you can see how he knew you drove. For all you know, he may have been camping out where you got into the vehicle and drove off. If that's the case, then he would have in his notes where he saw you get into the vehicle and drive. There's nothing we can speculate until we know how the officer really knew you were driving. He may have had a vendetta against you and was looking for you, but there's no law against that as if he really did indeed see you driving while prohibited. He's not obligated to give you full details of how he caught you or what evidence he has to back up his ticket unless you dispute and ask for disclosure.
wing_woo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 06:07 PM   #17
Retired Traffic Cop
 
skidmark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Nanoose Bay, BC
Posts: 9,023
Thanked 115 Times in 66 Posts
Actually, you should retain a lawyer or at least get legal advice for this one. Although I can't figure out how you consider yourself to be innocent if you were driving when you were not supposed to be...
__________________
Have you ever met anyone that would admit to being less than a better than average driver ??

Learn more at DriveSmartBC
skidmark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 06:39 PM   #18
nuggets mod
 
freakshow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: richmond
Posts: 6,706
Thanked 3,047 Times in 842 Posts
So ultimately, you know you're guilty, and the officer caught you, but you don't believe that the officer should have had enough information to know that you're guilty, and thus, catch you.

Your two options are: A) Man up and pay. You know you're guilty, the officer thinks you are (from whatever evidence he had).
or B) Take it to court. Present your side of the evidence, and see what the officer has.

Your real question in this thread is: Can officers make assumptions without knowing 110% what happened. The answer is yes. Yes they can.

Oh, and thanks for using the Enter key, it really did help.
__________________
I searched for truth, and all I found was You

'00 323i (Sold)
'01 Civic Si (Sold)
'95 240sx (Sold)
'02 LMB M5 (Sold)
'92 4Runner (Sold)
'92 Civic VX (Sold)
'03 SL500 (Sold)
'92 NSX
'99 M3 (Totalled)
'07 A4 2.0T (Sold)
'01 CB M5 (Sold)
'01 540i (Sold)
'11 535ix
freakshow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 06:41 PM   #19
I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
 
jlenko's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 3,562
Thanked 330 Times in 163 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
Actually, you should retain a lawyer or at least get legal advice for this one. Although I can't figure out how you consider yourself to be innocent if you were driving when you were not supposed to be...
I'd love to see this guy's IP address. A new account, posting stuff in this thread only? Smells like a troll with an anti-cop agenda to me.

To the OP - suck it up, Princess. You got caught. Boo hoo. Pay the fine!
__________________
Don't be the next RS.net statistic - If you drink, don't drive. You'll lose your licence, and the rest of us will laugh at you.
jlenko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 07:58 PM   #20
NEWBIE ACCOUNT!
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: invermere
Posts: 24
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
[QUOTE=jlenko;6890482]I'd love to see this guy's IP address. A new account, posting stuff in this thread only? Smells like a troll with an anti-cop agenda to me.

I posted in this THREAD, "Driving Prohibition", because I started this THREAD in the POLICE FORUM, get it straight, FORUM>THREAD. If you are a cop, you are not very observant.

I will wait for the disclosure and will see. Unfortunately, I cannot get it till first appearance, which again has been set suspiciously for two months from now.

Now that most of you have bashed me for driving, and seemingly, been avoiding all of my questions, why doesn't someone answer, just for curiosity sakes?
scoughty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 08:10 PM   #21
I *Fwap* *Fwap* *Fwap* to RS
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,506
Thanked 102 Times in 61 Posts
Did you even read my post? There is no answer until you get the disclosure. There's no point in speculating whether what he did was ethical or not or if it was even possible for him to ID you until you get his notes on the case and find out exactly how he got you...or is that not the answer you want to hear?
wing_woo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 09:49 PM   #22
I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
 
jlenko's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 3,562
Thanked 330 Times in 163 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by scoughty
If you are a cop, you are not very observant.
Nope, I'm definitely not a cop. They wouldn't want me because I'd shoot all the drug dealers and criminals in the head and ask questions later

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoughty
Now that most of you have bashed me for driving, and seemingly, been avoiding all of my questions, why doesn't someone answer, just for curiosity sakes?
We are E-thugs that have no lives, and therefore like to pick on the dim-witted members of society, and well... you sorta fit the bill!
__________________
Don't be the next RS.net statistic - If you drink, don't drive. You'll lose your licence, and the rest of us will laugh at you.
jlenko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 11:09 PM   #23
Willing to sell body for a few minutes on RS
 
underscore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Kel-pwn-a
Posts: 11,982
Thanked 4,967 Times in 2,174 Posts
So you drove while prohibited, and because you didn't see a cop car while driving the day that you got busted for driving while prohibited you think you should be able to get away with it? If nothing else, in a small town it shouldn't take much for a cop to pick out you driving the vehicle that he knows you drive and then find it at a house you frequent while driving said vehicle.

You even said, you are known to drive that van, and that same van is registered to someone whose house is some distance from where the cop found you with the van...

Also, to answer your question, if I was an officer and someone filed a complaint I wouldn't go out hunting for revenge, you can get complaints at any job and most of the time they are from morons who aren't worth bothering with. Unfortunately I'm not a cop as I fit into the same boat as jlenko here.
__________________
1992 Toyota Celica GT-S // 1991 Toyota Celica GTFour RC FOR SALE // 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD

Quote:
Originally Posted by maksimizer View Post
half those dudes are hotter than ,my GF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevYouUp View Post
reading this thread is like waiting for goku to charge up a spirit bomb in dragon ball z
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good_KarMa View Post
OH thank god. I thought u had sex with my wife. :cry:
underscore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2010, 03:06 AM   #24
I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
 
Acuracura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: N4912~W12307~
Posts: 3,999
Thanked 44 Times in 19 Posts
This is not a ticket you dispute. It's a court appearance where you'll plead guilty or not.

Last rumour I heard was there is MANDATORY JAIL TIME for prohib drivers so i suggest you get a lawyer.
__________________
check out BCaquaria for all your aquarium needs
also visit the Ham Radio Forums for discussion on radio communication
Acuracura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2010, 10:32 AM   #25
Everyone wants a piece of R S...
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Canoe
Posts: 373
Thanked 31 Times in 10 Posts
The cop may not have even been on duty when he saw you. That could be why you didn't see a marked or unmarked cruiser. For all you know, he saw you leaving your house when he was in his personal vehicle, or he was walking up the road. Heck, he may even live down the street from your friend's house and saw you getting out of the van. When he gives you the ticket, he doesn't have to disclose where/how/when he saw you driving. Just that he saw you driving...and as you admitted, you were driving, you got caught, and now are looking for a loophole to drag yourself through to get out of your criminal offense.

edit:
As an untrained civilian, I am able to make positive id's of people when passing them head on on a highway. ESPECIALLY if it's a vehicle I am familiar with, and even more so on a cloudy day, when there is no glare on the windshield.

You should have just disputed the prohibition. Now you have to dispute not only that, but you also have to find a lawyer and fight the drive while prohibited, which is a criminal offense. I would advise setting aside a great deal of money for this one, as now the lawyer has to try to defend someone who is obviously guilty, by his own admission. The lawyer now has to hope that the officers notes which will be provided during discovery, or his testimony are incorrect, or he can beat him down during cross examination, and leave you with a way out.

Good luck with this, and take it as a learning experience. When you're prohibited, whether you feel it's justified or not, do not drive. Especially in a small town like Invermere.

Last edited by Quicksilver; 04-02-2010 at 10:43 AM.
Quicksilver is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net