Question for the officers: "corrupt cops"
 

:troll: right? Not really...

A friend of mine made an interesting comment the other day: she said "all cops are corrupt" based on the idea that "anytime they give someone a warning instead of a ticket, they're not enforcing the law, and are thus corrupt".

I'm pretty sure she was speaking somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it made me wonder: IS there actually provision in the MVA/MVAR that allows a cop to use his (or her) discretion on whether to actually give a warning rather than a ticket, or is it more of an "unwritten policy"?

The legislation usually works the other way around, with some sections specifying an action that the officer must take. This removes the officer's discretion in the circumstances. The system does provide for the use of discretion otherwise, and Crown Counsel does the same thing when presented with a police report. Diversion is another acceptable method of dealing offenders, which is where I was able to put together a business case for trading a ticket for driver training. (I still think that it is too bad that didn't fly...).

Of course, when it is illegal, immoral or not in the public interest to apply discretion, the officer could be in trouble for doing so.

Thanks for the clarification! What I was really thinking about was this:

Is this provision actually "official" and in writing? Specifically, something that I could back with (not necessarily a section number, unless there is one) that states outright that the officer is allowed this discretion.

I was taught to "enforce the law with discretion". To charge everybody with every single possible charge would create, to quote Mr Lahey...."a S**t Tsunami" that would submerge the entire legal system. Even giving someone a couple of charges on the same VT would raise eyebrows and I would be asked to justify a "home run" VT. BTW..."discretion" can cut both ways...it cal also mean that all possible charges can be laid. I had a number of clients that I began initially considering lesser charges, end up finding the dark side of discretion. Even had a few that I had planned verbal or written warnings, talk themselves into lot$ of expen$ive paperwork.

Section 251 dealing with impoundments says..

f) has committed an offence under

(i) section 194 (1) or (2), or

(ii) section 25 (15) by violating a requirement, restriction or condition prescribed under section 25 in relation to a driver's licence that allows the person to drive or operate a motorcycle, which requirement, restriction or condition is specified in the regulations for the purposes of this provision,

the peace officer or another peace officer must
(g) cause the motor vehicle to be taken to and impounded at a place directed by the peace officer, and

(h) if paragraph (c) of this subsection applies, serve on the person a notice of driving prohibition in the form established by the superintendent

Do cops have quotas to fill? Like give X tickets in a day or anything similar?

THAT has been answered here many times, by all the participating officers: NO.

No. Never.

Oh, wait... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...ket-quota.html



And Pg. 79: http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/police_ser...valleyirsu.pdf:

Well, the first link is for LAPD. I've never worked for them.

The second link is for Fraser Valley IRSU, ditto.

The only quota that I have been subject to is a minimum of 6 impaired drivers per year. The only complaint I've heard about that is the quota wasn't high enough....

With the number of violators out there, meeting any quota wouldn't be a stretch.

im sure VPD traffic has quotas... lets not be naive.

Yeh....kinda like "air Miles"...except it involves blue pieces of paper instead of a blue credit card. :)