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.
hello freinds i sure hope this thread is not in the search i went through 3 pages of "radar" and two pages of "radar seizure", without being able to anser the fallowing question.
*i know some of you will want to know so
~no, i have never owned a radar unit
~no, none of my personal property has been taken
~no, i am not planning on purchasing a radar unit
~i simply want to know after talking to more then one individual, where the topic came up.
i'm sure more then a few of us have heard rumors of officers taking radar detecting units form speed offenders.
a) i'm hoping this is just a myth because the unit is legal in BC. so wouldn't taking the unit be theft?
b) 1. would use of intimidation to ask the offender to give them the unit, in order to bipass allegations of theft, where the offender "willingly" handed over the unit, be legal?
b) 2. on this topic is intimidation even legal to be used by the police in ordinary situations? i've been stopped at a road check for alcohol and been treated with respect (obviously not offending the law). how ever, i've also been stopped at an alcohol aroad check (not offending the law) and been treated like a criminal, with the officer obviously using intimidation. i don't understand this as i was not drinking or giving the officer in question anything but respect.
in the above case i'm using "intimidation" to mean
~an overly authoritarian voice
~condesending language
~the stare down
all of which fit into the definition:
"Intimidation (also called cowing) is intentional behavior "which would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm. It's not necessary to prove that the behavior was so violent as to cause terror or that the victim was actually frightened."
A) If the item was seized it would have to be for a reason such as for evidence. Maybe you're confusing a radar detector vs a Jammer?
B1) If the item is not being seized but you're just handing it over to Police, there should be a Relinquishment of Claim with it. You will be signing a piece of paper or his notebook saying you're giving it to Police on your own volition.
B2) Depends on how the intimidation is used and what it leads to and in what context. In your case of a road block which is checking for driver sobriety, I would say it's fine. The cop is intimidating you to determine if you have already drank alcohol. If you have, the offence was already committed. Just because he was intimidating didn't make you more drunk.
If you excuse was: "The officer was very intimidating to me so when he asked if I had anything to drink I felt obligated to say Yes". Then the officer does an ASD and showed you had consumed alcohol anyways, intimidation will not be a factor.
Another example of you going through a road block:
Officer: "Have you had any alcohol tonight?" (In a intimidating manner)
You: "I have child porn on my cell phone!" (scared shitless)
I don't think the inimidating factor would be an issue after you get arrested
Different scenario: You're a suspect in a murder. Cops come up and take you down at gun point. One cop is holding a gun to your head asking if you killed whoever. You answer "YES". Now intimidation is a factor, especially because it led to a confession.
__________________
check out BCaquaria for all your aquarium needs
also visit the Ham Radio Forums for discussion on radio communication
[i'm sure more then a few of us have heard rumors of officers taking radar detecting units form speed offenders.
Ah yes...rumours. Why would Police want to "take" a Radar detector? Unless it was stolen property and they were recovering it from you, hey would ahve no reason to take it.
b) 2. on this topic is intimidation even legal to be used by the police in ordinary situations?
in the above case i'm using "intimidation" to mean
~an overly authoritarian voice
Like...drop the weapon, get out of the car, stop where you are, move back, do it now ! , ...instead of..."please sir if it would not be too much trouble for you, would you consider dropping that weapon that you just used to hurt someone with, or could possibly end up accidentally injuring somneone?"
~condesending language
Oops...the latter part above is using condesending language isn't it?
~the stare down
"But mummy he looked at me that way...make him stop!"
all of which fit into the definition:
"Intimidation (also called cowing) is intentional behavior "which would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm. It's not necessary to prove that the behavior was so violent as to cause terror or that the victim was actually frightened."[/QUOTE]
I can't see how someone being condesending can cause you fear of injury or harm, nor looking at someone?
Police work often requires them to take charge of situations that would cause anyone "fear of injury or harm". Try stopping a vehicle in a remote area and those in the vehicle don't want to be stopped. You have to take charge of the situation and compliance requires that you maybe even have to raise your voice at someone..or, shudder...look at them in a stern way. It may take them fearing for their safety, to protect your own. Telling someone to drop a weapon or get on the ground doesn't work if they don't have a respect for the consequences if they don't. It's a sad comment on today's civilization that the tone of someone's voice or the way they look at you, cause "fear of injury or harm".
Different scenario: You're a suspect in a murder. Cops come up and take you down at gun point. One cop is holding a gun to your head asking if you killed whoever. You answer "YES". Now intimidation is a factor, especially because it led to a confession
You watch waaaaayyyyy too much TV. I'm sure a confession given at gunpoint would be admitted in court in Canada as a voluntary admission of guilt.
In short, in BC Police don't seize Radar detectors unles they are stolen property. Other provinces where they are illegal and prohibited in a vehicle, they are normally seized to prevent continuation and for court purposes.
You think a spontaneous confession like that would hold prior giving the guy his 10a, 10b? You're not even suppose to do warned interviews with your firearm on because of intimidation...how ridiculous is that?
__________________
check out BCaquaria for all your aquarium needs
also visit the Ham Radio Forums for discussion on radio communication
but for b)2. the question was if it is legal in canada to usel intimidation. not is it understandable that in extreame situations and under pressure an officer would use such, ei: a suspect pulled over with suspicion of having a firearm in the vehicle.
the question is directed to scenarios of traffic stops and the like, where the majority of vehicle being checked are law abiding citizens.
~without probable cause
~without the person in question being rude
acuracura: "B2) Depends on how the intimidation is used and what it leads to and in what context. In your case of a road block which is checking for driver sobriety, I would say it's fine. The cop is intimidating you to determine if you have already drank alcohol. If you have, the offence was already committed. Just because he was intimidating didn't make you more drunk. "
i understand the initial question should be asked in a stern way to gaudge the reaction of the individual. i also understand that the officer should use the flashlight and check the eyes of the individual.
what i don't understand is how it can be legal for an officer to continue using intimidation to an ordinary citizen after concluding that the individual is clear, since it is not legal to use verbal harasment while on the job in BC and intimidation, to instill fear in an individual, is harasment.
basically intimidation
"Intimidation (also called cowing) is intentional behavior "which would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm. It's not necessary to prove that the behavior was so violent as to cause terror or that the victim was actually frightened"
= verbal harasment
"Workplace Harassment
Workplace harassment is illegal whether it happens in after-hour meetings to discuss work issues, business trips, office parties or lunch meetings.
Employers are responsible for protecting their employees. They must investigate and deal with workplace harassment. A prudent employer will establish comprehensive anti-harassment policies and procedures.
Typical examples of harassment include:
racial or sexual slurs
name calling
racist or sexist joke
negative stereotyping
physical assault bullying
threats
demeaning pictures, posters and graffiti
I'm still not quite clear on what you mean by intimidation at a traffic stop.
People lie to us. All the time. Its our job to get around the lies and seek the truth. I can't even count the times I ask someone if they had anything to drink and I smell the booze, they say they didn't, and then they blow a WARN or a FAIL. Or when I smell weed in a car, they say they don't have any and a search turns up a couple grams... and then once caught in the lie, their story changes slightly to a version of the truth, and then sometimes, later, to a more realistic version of the truth.
As for "the initial question....", its not about the initial question. You don't catch someone out in a lie in one question 99% of the time. Its the follow-up questions and having a story repeated and finding the inconsistencies, etc etc etc
__________________
"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
You think a spontaneous confession like that would hold prior giving the guy his 10a, 10b? You're not even suppose to do warned interviews with your firearm on because of intimidation...how ridiculous is that?
I have had a few "clients" in Traffic Court say that they were threatened because I was in uniform, with flashing red & blue lights on and they could see my S&W 5946 as I talked to them at their driver's window. I have had several demand that I turn the lights off as they were embarassed by the fact that people were looking at them.
"since it is not legal to use verbal harasment while on the job in BC "
Unless we are both working for the same employer, this could not apply.
If a Cop produces "demeaning pictures, posters and graffiti", then you might have some sort of human rights complaint? Sorry to tell you but most Cops are not carrying pictures and posters of you and I've never heard of a Cop tagging a client or their vehicle.
I have had a few "clients" in Traffic Court say that they were threatened because I was in uniform, with flashing red & blue lights on and they could see my S&W 5946 as I talked to them at their driver's window. I have had several demand that I turn the lights off as they were embarassed by the fact that people were looking at them.
I had a guy (recently) ask if I could deal with his arrest somewhere else, in cause some of his co-workers drove by and saw him. Perhaps by saying no, I was intimidating him?
__________________
"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
well i will recount my experience, though mine is only light and obviously not an issue enough for me to get out of the car and file a report with another officer, to later be reviewed by the complaint comissioner. how ever, i have talked to family and friends with first hand experiance where the conversation between the officer and the individual seemed to cross the bounds of the officers legal wrights. i will not introduce those conversations, as they are hearsay and i did not whitness them.
my experience: i was stopped at grainville and 4th for an alcohol block. the officer asked "have you been drinking tonight", i answered politly no. "can i see your license?", i gave it to him. "is your N displayed", i answerd yes. he checked. he then handed my license back.
at this point though the officer was coming across as being a bit of a prick, and as i am to near everyone was being polite, i did not see anything wrong in the actions that had just transpired, though irritating they were.
i then asked "may i go now?", which is absolutley the wright of any individual to ask an officer. the officer is then obliged to say either yes, or no and state his/her reasoning. apon the officers answer, after the issue has been clarified the individual may ask again.
the officer looked at me like wow ow wow buddy, i ask the questions (he did not say such). then said in an overly authoritarian voice "i didn't say that, stay here". i could tell that asking why i was being held further would only make the situation worse. the officer just stood there and looked at me for a few moments. then he walked over to another officer, after a few moments the officer came back and said "alright leave" again in a very irritated way.
^the above situation is as i said the least intense that i have personaly heard or experienced. how ever, after determining i was legaly driving, i was not drunk, and the visual observation of the vehicle did not result in probable cause to hold the individual (me) or to search the vehicle, at this point to hold an individual further just because the officer wants to feel that he is in control is bullying=intimidation=verbal harasment=ilegal, is it not?
on the majority the officers i know in person and those i've met through other means are polite. but...
is there a law in place in BC that basically allows some officers to flex their police ego or are they subject to workplace harasment law as i was under the impresion all residents of BC where?
"since it is not legal to use verbal harasment while on the job in BC "
Unless we are both working for the same employer, this could not apply.
If a Cop produces "demeaning pictures, posters and graffiti", then you might have some sort of human rights complaint? Sorry to tell you but most Cops are not carrying pictures and posters of you and I've never heard of a Cop tagging a client or their vehicle.
how does this not applie? the police force is an employed group by the provincial government of BC or in the case of the rcmp an employed group of the government of canada. the government are the citizens of canada, or the elected representatives of the citizens.
basically the police force works for the citizens. so how would work place harasment not applie? unless you are stating that only an official in governing office, such as the pm is able to use an argument of workplace harassment in such cases? which is socially wrong if not legaly questionable.
I've encountered this TWICE in Richmond. Once personally, another as passenger in my friends car.
I know radar detectors are legal in BC.
I've had my radar taken away once after getting a speeding ticket. He was pacing me from behind and did not have his radar on. I asked why, he said it was illegal, I said it wasn't in BC. The cop just ignored me and asked me again, so I just handed it to him. He then told me I can pick it up from the RCMP detachment tomorrow.
Another time I was driving through a roadblock with NO radar detector, I had an AIR FRESHNER on the dash. The cop asked me if I had anything to drink which I didn't, then told me that my radar detector was illegal.....I then told him it was an air freshner not a radar detector. He just told me to keep going.
My 3rd experience is while I was in my friends car as a passenger and he was speeding in Richmond. He got pulled over and the cop demanded he hand over his radar detector. My friend not knowing, gave the officer the detector, but I decided to question the officer, I told him that they were legal in BC and I knew a few people in the RCMP that have confirmed it. Then the cop got all pissy with me and asked me for ID which I didn't have on me cuz I wasn't driving anyways..... all in all, cop took the detector and told him to pick it up the next day from the detachment.
So my real question is, WHY do they keep taking it, telling me it's illegal, then tell me to pick it up from the front desk the next day. What is the point???
__________________ Rise Auto Salon
11938 95a Ave Delta
I can be reached VIA text @ 778-232-1465
Oil change special $70 5 liters synthetic oil including OEM filter Fender rolling from $45 per fender Car Audio:
Focal, Morel, Genesis, Clarion, Scosche, Escort, Compustar, GReddy, Blitz, Tomei, Motul, Endless, Defi, Cusco, Nismo + More
We specialize in:
Custom Car Audio
Race/4x4 Fabrication
Forced Induction
Engine Swaps
General Maintenance
@ phil@rise, in the case of your radar detector i'm sure if you wanted to and had evidence such as a dash cam. you could press charges or sue the officer in question because
section 423 of the canadinan criminal code, criminal threats and intimidation states
" 423. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing,"
subsection D states
(d) hides any tools, clothes or other property owned or used by that person, or deprives him or her of them or hinders him or her in the use of them;
so since the detector is a legal tool that you own and the officer "deprives him or her of them or hinders him or her in the use of them", without grounds to seize the item such as for evidence, you could press charges.
but again, i am asking if the use of intimidation is legal by officers in canada. i do not know of a law that allows it.
how does this not applie? the police force is an employed group by the provincial government of BC or in the case of the rcmp an employed group of the government of canada. the government are the citizens of canada, or the elected representatives of the citizens.
basically the police force works for the citizens. so how would work place harasment not applie? unless you are stating that only an official in governing office, such as the pm is able to use an argument of workplace harassment in such cases? which is socially wrong if not legaly questionable.
If you are my boss, as you state you are as you say you pay my wages, then you are harassing me on the job so I'm filing a complaint against you !I always wanted to say that to someone who screamed, yelled and swore at me because I wrote them a ticket. From one of your own links..." Employers are responsible for protecting their employees"You are not an employee, the Police are employees.
Right now my attempts to continue answer your vague questions seems to have deteriorated into a discussion on how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin. The Church in the middle ages may have felt it worthy to do so, but I no longer choose to. Like Shania said...."'I'm outta here".
you're absolutley right zulu, no one should scream at you because you're doing your job right. in the same way no one in uniform should make an individual feel afraid of them. it's a two way street of respect that is spoiled in many situations by people on both sides.
i am obviously bias to my side, having situations that have shaped my views.
i'm concluding then that there is no such law as described above.
I had a guy (recently) ask if I could deal with his arrest somewhere else, in cause some of his co-workers drove by and saw him. Perhaps by saying no, I was intimidating him?
Opressive behaviour is when the Cop won't ignore illegal behaviour that they witnessed and insist on actually charging someone. This is specially so for something like a driver not wearing his seatbelt (observed by a hidden spotter), sees the Cops and pulls the belt on (being observed by both Cops), then gets into a nasty denial at the top of his voice at roadside, when the pick up Member waves him in and issues the VT.
I had one guy who I followed with lights and siren for 5 kms, on a quiet rural road. He refused to slow down or stop until he pulled into his driveway. He then got out of his truck and started walking towards his house like he didn't see or hear the fully marked PC behind him stopped in his driveway, siren blaring. He pretended that I was not there until I grabbed his shoulder and restrained him. He then denied that he had been driving the truck, said that the truck had not moved for weeks because it was broken, and he had just emerged from his house attracted by the siren and told me to get off his property....all very aggressively, at the top of his voice. After I charged him with excessive speed, fail to stop, no insurance, no DL and issued a #1 inspection order on his piece of junk pickup with no VIN # on it, he filed a complaint because of my oppressive behaviour. He was very well known to Police and any time he had dealings with Police he immediately filed a complaint. Never succeeded in any of them because they were all lies, but it causes a lot of stress if you are the subject of the whole complaint process, specially when you know it's all a crock.
my experience: i was stopped at grainville and 4th for an alcohol block. the officer asked "have you been drinking tonight", i answered politly no. "can i see your license?", i gave it to him. "is your N displayed", i answerd yes. he checked. he then handed my license back.
at this point though the officer was coming across as being a bit of a prick, and as i am to near everyone was being polite, i did not see anything wrong in the actions that had just transpired, though irritating they were.
i then asked "may i go now?", which is absolutley the wright of any individual to ask an officer. the officer is then obliged to say either yes, or no and state his/her reasoning. apon the officers answer, after the issue has been clarified the individual may ask again.
the officer looked at me like wow ow wow buddy, i ask the questions (he did not say such). then said in an overly authoritarian voice "i didn't say that, stay here". i could tell that asking why i was being held further would only make the situation worse. the officer just stood there and looked at me for a few moments. then he walked over to another officer, after a few moments the officer came back and said "alright leave" again in a very irritated way.
The problem with this story is, you don't know what the two officers talked about, and you don't know what else happened before your stop.
Just as a wild what-if: a call may have come in for something involving a car similar to yours (let's say, for the sake of argument, a hit-and-run), so as you were waiting in line, the one officer agreed to talk to you and check your license while the other inspected your car for damage from a distance - in other words, some reason for the second officer to do a little discrete observation.
The first officer may have already been on edge if your car matched the description of one involved in a hit-and-run (he doesn't know if you're going to bolt again), and if he's still waiting for his partner to give the all-clear, he may be even more perturbed at being rushed to let you go. This would be about the point he'd go over, chat with his partner, be told that there's no visible damage, and figure you're not the droids they're looking for.
Now obviously I wasn't there, and I don't know that anything even remotely like this is the case... but by the same token, you weren't there before you rolled up, and you weren't a party to the two cops' conversation, so you don't know the circumstances surrounding your stop or what might have led to this particular sequence of events. As such, you're not in any position to judge the officers.
In the end, you were cleared and they let you go about your day - no harm, no foul. Get over it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
The problem with this story is, you don't know what the two officers talked about, and you don't know what else happened before your stop.
Just as a wild what-if: a call may have come in for something involving a car similar to yours (let's say, for the sake of argument, a hit-and-run), so as you were waiting in line, the one officer agreed to talk to you and check your license while the other inspected your car for damage from a distance - in other words, some reason for the second officer to do a little discrete observation.
The first officer may have already been on edge if your car matched the description of one involved in a hit-and-run (he doesn't know if you're going to bolt again), and if he's still waiting for his partner to give the all-clear, he may be even more perturbed at being rushed to let you go. This would be about the point he'd go over, chat with his partner, be told that there's no visible damage, and figure you're not the droids they're looking for.
Now obviously I wasn't there, and I don't know that anything even remotely like this is the case... but by the same token, you weren't there before you rolled up, and you weren't a party to the two cops' conversation, so you don't know the circumstances surrounding your stop or what might have led to this particular sequence of events. As such, you're not in any position to judge the officers.
In the end, you were cleared and they let you go about your day - no harm, no foul. Get over it.
Reminds me of the time when I was heading down to the USA, and got "randomly selected". There were two cars there (Aldergrove). Both blue Fords.
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!
