PERSONAL opinions of an OPP SAVE officer

[Boered]

7 hours ago, odot1 said:

Good case law...really just a quick read will show exactly why the case was thrown out...as it should be.  Some quick follow up would've saved a lot of time and money..Clearly no mens rea in this case.

I think what this decision did was force a little common sense into enforcement and will reduce charges being laid that are easily won by the defendant. For instance, asleep in the back seat with keys in the ignition.

[Puzzleboy]

I agree that human error is likely the cause of the majority of errors.  But how would you know if they fail?  All it takes is one erroneous reading to provide an injustice, and you would never know.  Daily calibration does not protect against this.  And we do know for sure that roadside screeners often differ from the station machine.  (And you can't always blame that on absorption rates, etc.)

Many people probably already know this, but the manufacturers of these machines were unwilling to provide machine samples for dissecting by a third party to test it's accuracies, failings, etc.  They know there are problems with it.... but they certainly don't want that exposed. 

I'm all for the rule of law, but the only way that anyone's blood-alcohol reading should be taken as gospel, is by several blood tests in a sterile lab taken by trained personnel.  Obviously, this is not practical.... so we have what we have today. 

Remember, a defence does  not have to prove that the machine was defective.  They only have to provide other, reasonable evidence which contradicts the results.  They're all different, and relevant, pieces of evidence. 

If the machines were that good, and we could foolproof them well enough to not allow the admission of any human error..... everyone would be convicted. 

 

On the key fob issue..... mine is usually in my pocket.  How would an officer even know where it was, or if it's proximity was sufficient to start the car?  I could tell him they were in my trunk.  In the old days, they could visually see the keys in the ignition. 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, odot1 said:

If the key fob is present or close enough to the vehicle you have the ability to start and put the vehicle in motion.  I agree with the crowns and occasionally some errors made by the police.  Impaireds are tough...there is a very long and unforgiving list of steps and timelines that must be followed.  AS for the instrument themselves...Its incredibly rare that they fail...  miniscule really.  If there is an issue with the readings...its human error 99.99999% of the time.  The instruments themselves as well as the roadside instruments are skewed to favour the driver as well...

[odot1]

44 minutes ago, Puzzleboy said:

I agree that human error is likely the cause of the majority of errors.  But how would you know if they fail?  All it takes is one erroneous reading to provide an injustice, and you would never know.  Daily calibration does not protect against this.  And we do know for sure that roadside screeners often differ from the station machine.  (And you can't always blame that on absorption rates, etc.)

Many people probably already know this, but the manufacturers of these machines were unwilling to provide machine samples for dissecting by a third party to test it's accuracies, failings, etc.  They know there are problems with it.... but they certainly don't want that exposed. 

I'm all for the rule of law, but the only way that anyone's blood-alcohol reading should be taken as gospel, is by several blood tests in a sterile lab taken by trained personnel.  Obviously, this is not practical.... so we have what we have today. 

Remember, a defence does  not have to prove that the machine was defective.  They only have to provide other, reasonable evidence which contradicts the results.  They're all different, and relevant, pieces of evidence. 

If the machines were that good, and we could foolproof them well enough to not allow the admission of any human error..... everyone would be convicted. 

 

On the key fob issue..... mine is usually in my pocket.  How would an officer even know where it was, or if it's proximity was sufficient to start the car?  I could tell him they were in my trunk.  In the old days, they could visually see the keys in the ignition. 

 

 

 

Search incident to arrest would locate the fobs...  or even a pat down search during investigative detention...

[Puzzleboy]

 

Hence my first question.  What right (speaking legally), would an officer have for investigative detention, or to initiate an arrest.... if he couldn't prove C & C in the first place?  It's putting the cart before the horse.  For argument's sake, let's place the fob elsewhere in the car which is not subject to search.  Or is it? 

Is it not like saying "Yeah, I knew he looked like a murderer.  And after I frisked him, I indeed found a knife"?

[odot1]

13 hours ago, Puzzleboy said:

 

Hence my first question.  What right (speaking legally), would an officer have for investigative detention, or to initiate an arrest.... if he couldn't prove C & C in the first place?  It's putting the cart before the horse.  For argument's sake, let's place the fob elsewhere in the car which is not subject to search.  Or is it? 

Is it not like saying "Yeah, I knew he looked like a murderer.  And after I frisked him, I indeed found a knife"?

Good question...  the arrest allows for the search of the person and the vehicle including the ruck for further evidence to support the arrest...such as alcohol or in this case keys.  This sis supported by common law as well as search authorities under the liquor licence act. Common law allows a search of the arrestee and their immediate surroundings for further evidence, weapons or means of escape. The grounds could be an admittance of consuming an alcoholic beverage, speech patterns, glossy eyes etc...  many things we are trained to look for.  Detention searches are a little less broad and are usually just a pat down search for weapons.  Regardless of the type of search it is always up to the officer to articulate his/her reasons for the search and then the courts will invoke the charter test.  Bottom line, you always need some articulable grounds be it what you see, hear, smell...  Then you proceed either via statute (liquor licence act) or common law search or a combination of both..  i.e. see bottle cap, open bottle etc in vehicle.. 

[Puzzleboy]

Interesting.  Appreciate your input as always.  Some of these laws are tricky. 

Have you healed up enough for joyriding, I mean, trail patrol yet? 

[odot1]

1 hour ago, Puzzleboy said:

Interesting.  Appreciate your input as always.  Some of these laws are tricky. 

Have you healed up enough for joyriding, I mean, trail patrol yet? 

LMFAO!!!  I have... but all trails are goon in my jurisdiction now...  sigh...and by the time they're back I will be off with another surgery...  Nose and tonsils this time.  2018...that's gonna be my year!!!!!

[reelpro]

Question Regarding Proof of documentation ?

Who in the OPP organization is responsible for procedures on the OFSC trails ?  I would like to speak with him/her

The Ontario OPP have emplaced a "Document Check" procedure on our snowmobile trails that has become over the top. I was "document checked" 36 times last 2 seasons  - most of that the prev yr, and have been "document checked" once this yr already on the only day of riding. 

I have driven a vehicle on Ontario roads and highways over 4 million kms and have never once had an OPP randomly stop me and ask to see documents.

I asked the OPP on the trail if this was a RIDE check, why did I need to pull out all my paperwork ? He claimed it was not a RIDE check, but rather a "document check"

I do not mind if the OPP wants to perform RIDE check programs, when on a road in your vehicle and you come to a RIDE check they do not ask every vehicle to show all paperwork. If they did the general public would be up in arms, WE would not stand for it.

Why are sledders being picked on in this manner ?

I believe this is strictly a financial program to pay for the OPP SAVE program - they justify their existence by the volume of petty tickets they give out for failure to provide ins,, DL, Ownership 

The Officer on the trail can see if the machine has a valid plate number and sticker, and trail pass. If not then there is justification to pull over the sled, OR if it is a RIDE check and the officer smells booze, as in an onroad vehicle check, then again justification. 

The method now of creating line-ups of sleds to file through and pull out their "DOCUMENTS" is BS

When I am finally not working and have some holiday time to enjoy the outdoors, I really don't need to be sitting in a "document check" lineup liek I am a criminal.

 

[Boered]

17 minutes ago, reelpro said:

Question Regarding Proof of documentation ?

Who in the OPP organization is responsible for procedures on the OFSC trails ?  I would like to speak with him/her

The Ontario OPP have emplaced a "Document Check" procedure on our snowmobile trails that has become over the top. I was "document checked" 36 times last 2 seasons  - most of that the prev yr, and have been "document checked" once this yr already on the only day of riding. 

I have driven a vehicle on Ontario roads and highways over 4 million kms and have never once had an OPP randomly stop me and ask to see documents.

I asked the OPP on the trail if this was a RIDE check, why did I need to pull out all my paperwork ? He claimed it was not a RIDE check, but rather a "document check"

I do not mind if the OPP wants to perform RIDE check programs, when on a road in your vehicle and you come to a RIDE check they do not ask every vehicle to show all paperwork. If they did the general public would be up in arms, WE would not stand for it.

Why are sledders being picked on in this manner ?

I believe this is strictly a financial program to pay for the OPP SAVE program - they justify their existence by the volume of petty tickets they give out for failure to provide ins,, DL, Ownership 

The Officer on the trail can see if the machine has a valid plate number and sticker, and trail pass. If not then there is justification to pull over the sled, OR if it is a RIDE check and the officer smells booze, as in an onroad vehicle check, then again justification. 

The method now of creating line-ups of sleds to file through and pull out their "DOCUMENTS" is BS

When I am finally not working and have some holiday time to enjoy the outdoors, I really don't need to be sitting in a "document check" lineup liek I am a criminal.

 

many people are as sick of it as are you. I know some that gave up sledding because of it.

[odot1]

24 minutes ago, reelpro said:

Question Regarding Proof of documentation ?

Who in the OPP organization is responsible for procedures on the OFSC trails ?  I would like to speak with him/her

The Ontario OPP have emplaced a "Document Check" procedure on our snowmobile trails that has become over the top. I was "document checked" 36 times last 2 seasons  - most of that the prev yr, and have been "document checked" once this yr already on the only day of riding. 

I have driven a vehicle on Ontario roads and highways over 4 million kms and have never once had an OPP randomly stop me and ask to see documents.

I asked the OPP on the trail if this was a RIDE check, why did I need to pull out all my paperwork ? He claimed it was not a RIDE check, but rather a "document check"

I do not mind if the OPP wants to perform RIDE check programs, when on a road in your vehicle and you come to a RIDE check they do not ask every vehicle to show all paperwork. If they did the general public would be up in arms, WE would not stand for it.

Why are sledders being picked on in this manner ?

I believe this is strictly a financial program to pay for the OPP SAVE program - they justify their existence by the volume of petty tickets they give out for failure to provide ins,, DL, Ownership 

The Officer on the trail can see if the machine has a valid plate number and sticker, and trail pass. If not then there is justification to pull over the sled, OR if it is a RIDE check and the officer smells booze, as in an onroad vehicle check, then again justification. 

The method now of creating line-ups of sleds to file through and pull out their "DOCUMENTS" is BS

When I am finally not working and have some holiday time to enjoy the outdoors, I really don't need to be sitting in a "document check" lineup liek I am a criminal.

 

Money for the SAVE team like many other teams comes from a specific budget.  Ticket revenue does not go back to the OPP its divided up amongst the municipality its written in, the victims of violent crime fund as well as back to the province to fund various social programs, support infrastructure etc..  There is no way a bunch of tickets would fund the teams and there is no financial incentive for an officer to lay a ticket. I'm sure you have all your paperwork in order but many don't.  At least 50% are riding without documentation, proper insurance, proper validation tags etc as well as no trail pass, or fraudulent trail pass.  Further to this, there is a high rate of theft amongst recreational vehicles and sleds in general.  Checking documentation ensures that everybody is playing by the same rules.  Val tags and trail pass monies fund the trail system.  The checks help to ensure a good steady stream of funding for the trails so sledders like yourself can enjoy them.  Alcohol is another serious issue.  By engaging the driver and watching as he/she retrieves documents gives an officer a chance to asses fine motor skills.  Simply having booze on your breath does not mean you are impaired.  Most helmets have pieces covering the mouth and nose making it difficult to detect the odour as well.  I'm sorry you feel this is BS, I'd suggest that you if you want to write someonbe, contact the commissioner directly.  Just look on the OPP website and you will find many ways to contact us.  In my experience it is rare that someone gets checked that often or gets stuck in line ups as you describe.  I. like many other officers usually check off the list as the sledder rolls to a stop and they are there for about 10 seconds...  Of course having numbers so small, or similar in colour to the sled, in the wrong place etc or having your trail pass in behind the windshield or some other place will cause you to be delayed a little longer.

[02sled]

I've only been checked that closely once and that coincided with a break in and that of a bunch of trail permits. They were looking for specific permit numbers and while at they covered your documents as well.

[Puzzleboy]

They also might have pulled 02 over because even though he was wearing the requisite helmet, etc..... there was no indication of registration numbers or a trail pass on his snowblower. 

[Frostynuts]

Reelpro, you have got so stop following the trail cops around. How do you know where they are going to set up so often ? Have you got a scanner or something else to track where they are going to be ? LOL

I would say our group ride as much, or more, than the average trail rider. We ride trails from Mattawa, all the way to the eastern Ontario border.

At the most, we,ve been checked 3 times per year. The cops have always been very courteous, and actually when not busy with a bunch of sleds, very chatty, which is fine by our group. We even got to learn a lot about tasers.

Personally, I don,t mind seeing them out on the trails, and checking for anything and everything.

 

 

Edited January 8, 2017 by Frostynuts

[BTbt]

The last few seasons most checks have a quick visual check for trail permit and license sticker.

[reelpro]

"Alcohol is another serious issue.  By engaging the driver and watching as he/she retrieves documents gives an officer a chance to asses fine motor skills.  Simply having booze on your breath does not mean you are impaired.  Most helmets have pieces covering the mouth and nose making it difficult to detect the odour as well."

I guess this is my "beef"

Officers are using the "document check" to get time to evaluate each sledder for impaired. At least in a lot of areas I ride. 

If it is a RIDE check - says its a RIDE check - ask the sledder to pull their helmet off .

We do not have "document checks" on our roadways for vehicles. To have these on our trails is BS. 

If the sled has trail permit, licence numbers and val tag displayed correctly it should be waived on.  To ask for all paperwork with no visible cause to suspect an otherwise "LEGAL" sledder is HARASSMENT !

"At least 50% are riding without documentation, proper insurance, proper validation tags etc as well as no trail pass,"

I think your numbers are wacked. Perhaps 25 years ago when I was a groomer operator and Trail Warden, helping to build the network of trails we have today, we saw numbers in that range, as groomed trails and trail passes were kind of a new thing in a lot of areas, but in 2017 I would say numbers are way less than that. 

From the LINEUPS I go through every other day - I see about 1 in 15 or 20 pulled aside and ticketed.

 

[gtserider]

I'm not sure where do your snowmaching.But in my 48 years on a sled I have been asked ONCE for papers.Thousands and more thousands of klicks.Sean is just doing his job. He was hired to uphold the laws,he didn't make them.That was you and me that voted in present and previous governments.Ya I don't like it either but  it is what it is.Maybe you could laminate your documentation,stick it on your windshield drive to front of the LINEUPS.

[Puzzleboy]

Wrong.  Police now have the right to pull you over at any time, including in your car, for a document check.  This passed several years ago.  I don't like it and believe it's unconstitutional, but it is legislated.  They no longer need PC to pull you over. 

 

2 hours ago, reelpro said:

"Alcohol is another serious issue.  By engaging the driver and watching as he/she retrieves documents gives an officer a chance to asses fine motor skills.  Simply having booze on your breath does not mean you are impaired.  Most helmets have pieces covering the mouth and nose making it difficult to detect the odour as well."

I guess this is my "beef"

Officers are using the "document check" to get time to evaluate each sledder for impaired. At least in a lot of areas I ride. 

If it is a RIDE check - says its a RIDE check - ask the sledder to pull their helmet off .

We do not have "document checks" on our roadways for vehicles. To have these on our trails is BS. 

If the sled has trail permit, licence numbers and val tag displayed correctly it should be waived on.  To ask for all paperwork with no visible cause to suspect an otherwise "LEGAL" sledder is HARASSMENT !

"At least 50% are riding without documentation, proper insurance, proper validation tags etc as well as no trail pass,"

I think your numbers are wacked. Perhaps 25 years ago when I was a groomer operator and Trail Warden, helping to build the network of trails we have today, we saw numbers in that range, as groomed trails and trail passes were kind of a new thing in a lot of areas, but in 2017 I would say numbers are way less than that. 

From the LINEUPS I go through every other day - I see about 1 in 15 or 20 pulled aside and ticketed.

 

[Boered]

3 hours ago, Puzzleboy said:

Wrong.  Police now have the right to pull you over at any time, including in your car, for a document check.  This passed several years ago.  I don't like it and believe it's unconstitutional, but it is legislated.  They no longer need PC to pull you over. 

 

True, but they rarely do it. Cops do not want to bother pulling cars over if they suspect nothing is wrong. yet on sleds they do it all the time. You are pretty much guaranteed to be pulled over on a sled if you are riding on a trail and the cops are coming at you in the other direction, on go the lights every time. Imagine if they behaved that way on the roads.

 

[Puzzleboy]

Well, that would suck, as it sucks on a sled also.  All I'm saying is, it is now legal.  I was pulled over downtown one day.  Wasn't doing anything wrong, and everything was good. 

It is what it is. 

[02sled]

I have passed countless OPP checks over the years and virtually all of them have been slow down and then continue. We did get stopped once for over the speed limit but not outrageous. He checked our ownership insurance and license then said having everything else in order earned just a caution on the speed. His partner was dealing with a couple of others that weren't so lucky. Being way over the limit, they flew past us, giving the cops attitude and not having all the other documents was resulting in multiple tickets 

[odot1]

The Highway Traffic Act as well as the Motorized  Snow Vehicle act have allowed for years the stopping of the vehicle for the purposes of verifying documentation as well as lacemaking.  This does violate the constitution as driving is not an entrenched right, it is deemed a privilege and not guaranteed under the Charter. This is one of the reasons why the RIDE stop has stood up to many charter challenges over the years.  Not saying its right or wrong, just a fact.

 

Sean

[Boered]

1 hour ago, odot1 said:

The Highway Traffic Act as well as the Motorized  Snow Vehicle act have allowed for years the stopping of the vehicle for the purposes of verifying documentation as well as lacemaking.  This does violate the constitution as driving is not an entrenched right, it is deemed a privilege and not guaranteed under the Charter. This is one of the reasons why the RIDE stop has stood up to many charter challenges over the years.  Not saying its right or wrong, just a fact.

 

Sean

While I will fight for our rights under the charter I do not mind ride. Still too many that do not get it.

[Puzzleboy]

Even Sean is not immune to a Freudian slip.  Could it be that you DO believe it violates the Charter?   

 

3 hours ago, odot1 said:

The Highway Traffic Act as well as the Motorized  Snow Vehicle act have allowed for years the stopping of the vehicle for the purposes of verifying documentation as well as lacemaking.  This does violate the constitution as driving is not an entrenched right, it is deemed a privilege and not guaranteed under the Charter. This is one of the reasons why the RIDE stop has stood up to many charter challenges over the years.  Not saying its right or wrong, just a fact.

 

Sean

[odot1]

46 minutes ago, Puzzleboy said:

Even Sean is not immune to a Freudian slip.  Could it be that you DO believe it violates the Charter?   

 

LO!!  Thanks for pointing out my slip!!  Should've read DOES NOT...   

[Boered]

2 hours ago, odot1 said:

LO!!  Thanks for pointing out my slip!!  Should've read DOES NOT...   

it does violate the charter, that is a fact accepted by all. It is allowed under the notwithstanding clause in the charter.