And You Think You Have Problems With Traffic Wardens...

[FalcoColumbarius]

ticket-500x1457.png (520.36 KiB) Viewed 4501 times

[Green1]

unfortunately, this sounds suspiciously like what has been happening in Calgary since the "park plus" system was introduced, several people have complained that they have been ticketed while dropping off a passenger (taking under 30 seconds) because of the automated enforcement system

You park, and then walk to a machine and enter your license plate number, parking "zone", and pay your money, for enforcement various vehicles with cameras drive around and match license plates to the ones entered in the machines, and mail tickets to anyone who doesn't match.

The problem is, if it catches your plate, it doesn't matter if you actually parked or not, or if you got out of the car, or any of that, if you happen to be at the curb in that area when the camera drives by and you have not paid the machine, you get a ticket, even if you were stopped only long enough to check your map or let out a passenger. In addition, there are many areas where the machine will happily sell you 4 or 6 or more hours worth of parking, even though it is only a 2 hour parking zone, so you think you're ok for 4 because it took your money for that long, but you can still get a ticket because it's only a 2 hour zone! There was also a situation recently where a woman tried to pay for parking but none of the 4 machines she could find were working, she called parking control while at the machines to inform them of the problem, and yet still got a ticket for not paying.

[FalcoColumbarius]

That is contrary to the Constitution of Canada, the Charter and I'll wager the Bill Of Rights. I'll bet the Calgary government is thinking that most people won't spend the time fighting it. If you guys fight it then it will go the way of photo radar.

Falco.

[Green1]

That is contrary to the Constitution of Canada, the Charter and I'll wager the Bill Of Rights.

would you care to quote a section of the constitution, charter, or bill of rights that is infringed by this? I don't like it, but I can't see any legal way out of it.

I'll bet the Calgary government is thinking that most people won't spend the time fighting it. If you guys fight it then it will go the way of photo radar.

Photo radar? the city operates at least 4 or 5 mobile photo radar vehicles and now has up to 40 fixed locations... I don't think that's the way I want it to go.




(Green, my sincere apologies: when I went to quote your post to respond in my own I somehow edited your post. I have tried to return your post to how it was when I quoted from it. If you find anything inconsistent let me know. Again, my apologies. Falco)

[FalcoColumbarius]

would you care to quote a section of the constitution, charter, or bill of rights that is infringed by this? I don't like it, but I can't see any legal way out of it.

Section 11: Proceedings in criminal and penal matters.

Photo radar? the city operates at least 4 or 5 mobile photo radar vehicles and now has up to 40 fixed locations... I don't think that's the way I want it to go.

My apologies. I was one of the last cases in which the Photo Radar lost before the authorities withdrew Photo Radar from BC. I thought it was Canada wide. Everyone was contesting it and the courts were getting so far behind. In my case I was driving a Chevy 3/4 tonne with a 305 in it. I had just turned a corner from a stop sign and travelling up a hill. They clocked me at 64 kliks (which is absolute horse feathers as a Maserati would have a hard time pulling that off let alone the old van). But when people were pointing out facts like the one I just stated the courts would come back with "yes, but your picture is on the ticket, the radar gun doesn't lie" (although they have clocked brick walls doing 50KPH, but that's beside the point). So I told them I would fight it. They didn't get back to me for quite a while. Then some six or seven months later a deputised individual knocked at my door, asked if I was home then handed this writ to me, summoning me to the provincial courthouse. I appeared before His Worship and explained that if I had turned and gunned it down the hill I wouldn't have been able to have reached that speed in that short of a distance, let alone trying to do it up a hill. This wasn't going to cut it, the constable representing the deputised civilian who held the radar gun was present and swearing on his granny's grave that both the gun and the civilian were infallible and what evidence did I have apart from my speculation. So I brought up how long it took the crown to call me back and organise this hearing and that according to 11.b of the Charter I am entitled "to be tried within a reasonable time". As by this time it had been close to a year from the alleged offence (I wasn't even driving the van any more, it was so old and decrepit) how was I able to defend myself? His Worship looked to the representative of the crown and said that this case was dismissed.

Are you sure you guys still have it in Alberta? There was a big media event in BC and I really thought they had to take it out of service in the rest of Canada as it had failed in BC, thereby setting a president.

Falco.

[drrod]

Are you sure you guys still have it in Alberta?

Oh yeah!!!! In fact it seems to be on an exponential rise. Given the fiscal atmosphere of cities and the province, I won't hold my breath for the cessation of its use. Too much of a cash cow! In fact Calgary is in the process of combining speed cameras with their 40+ red light cameras.

Back when BC had photoradar, I used to wave at the camera as I went by since it was usually set up to take a picture of the front of the car and Alberta only has rear plates. BC may not use photoradar anymore, but it seems to have been replaced by an increased use of "fishing holes" by the police.

Rod

[delicove]

Hey Falco,

That is not Fair!!!
Setting up a president,that should not be, Prime minister,maybe

[Green1]

Photo Radar has the same calibration issues as conventional radar, that part doesn't change whether they pull you over or simply take your picture. If you contest the ticket, they will show the calibration records for the particular unit to show that it passed it's calibration tests both before and after your incident.
The person signing off on the photo radar tickets is a peace officer, and not a civilian (they learned that lesson early on after loosing a few cases)
The crime is not breaking the speed limit, it is being the owner of a motor vehicle that broke the speed limit (I believe this was a legislative change required to make the photo radar work)

BC didn't pull the photo radar units because they were unconstitutional, they pulled them because they were politically unpopular.

Section 11: Proceedings in criminal and penal matters.

I can see nothing in there that would conflict with the use of photo radar or photo parking enforcement, they present evidence, it is up to you to present counter evidence (they do allow you your day in court) (It should also be noted that these are not criminal matters, as only a ticket is issued)

[FalcoColumbarius]

Green..... it says: criminal and Penal matters. Anything that requires a hearing. You can justify your rights away all you want. The spirit of my post was to share my experience with you, not to prove my legal prowess ~ I was quite worried when I went into the courtroom and going up against the man, as it were. As far as "unconstitutional" goes ~ I suppose one could consider that to be a matter of interpretation, however it was all over the news and the majority of the people in BC interpreted the matter as unconstitutional. Is it possible that I am imagining all this because I am losing my mind? Perhaps.
I'm not telling you this for the sake of being right.

There was this Polish guy, who suffered an anxiety attack in Vancouver International Airport. Four RCMP officers jumped on him and tasered him five times. There was a big media event about that, too. The RCMP originally argued that the officers were only doing their job. Everyone presented evidence supporting their claims. Just recently it was mentioned in the news that the RCMP have offered an apology to the mother and have announced that there will be procedural changes regarding the use of tasers (http://www.calgaryherald.com/Taser+last ... story.html) due to the twenty or so taser related deaths in the country.

Do you think this is a constitutional matter or just a matter of political popularity? When a citizen's constitutional rights begin to be challenged by the authorities themselves of course it involves political popularity ~ but you can't just write it off as only that.

HST is another item on the public agenda.

As my father's and grandfather's generations put it: Lest We Forget.

Falco.

[Green1]

When a citizen's constitutional rights begin to be challenged by the authorities themselves of course it involves political popularity ~ but you can't just write it off as only that.

Until you can show me where in the constitution it says we can't use photo radar, I definitely can write it off as just that.

Please elaborate on what part of that section is violated by photo radar because I just don't see it.

[FalcoColumbarius]

Hey Falco,

That is not Fair!!!
Setting up a president,that should not be, Prime minister,maybe

Aha, you caught me! I meant "precedent". Thanks for pointing that out, Delicove.

Falco.

[FalcoColumbarius]

Until you can show me where in the constitution it says we can't use photo radar, I definitely can write it off as just that.

Okay Green, I'm not here to change your mind.

The Constitution was originally written in 1867 so you are right ~ there will be nothing in there saying that you cannot use photo radar. Even in the latest update, i.e.; the Charter in 1982: I don't think they had invented photo radar by that time so there will be nothing in there either. There is, however, a section about habeas corpus, a legal tool that protects the individual from arbitrary state action...

Falco.

[Green1]

. There is, however, a section about habeas corpus, a legal tool that protects the individual from arbitrary state action...

And show me where in there it indicates anything that would stop you from using photo radar? There's nothing in there that would prohibit the cops from using evidence of a crime to prosecute the person who committed it. Or would you also throw out evidence found on a store security camera of a person robbing the place? how is it any different?

[loki]

. There is, however, a section about habeas corpus, a legal tool that protects the individual from arbitrary state action...

And show me where in there it indicates anything that would stop you from using photo radar? There's nothing in there that would prohibit the cops from using evidence of a crime to prosecute the person who committed it. Or would you also throw out evidence found on a store security camera of a person robbing the place? how is it any different?

just a question, I know red light cameras in Victoria all take shots of the rear plate what plate does the photo radar in Alberta take a pic of? if it is also the rear then it is not enough evidence on it's own to prove guilt, if you have video from a convenience store robbery but all you see is the back of the robbers head it's not exactly conclusive now is it?

[Green1]

just a question, I know red light cameras in Victoria all take shots of the rear plate what plate does the photo radar in Alberta take a pic of? if it is also the rear then it is not enough evidence on it's own to prove guilt, if you have video from a convenience store robbery but all you see is the back of the robbers head it's not exactly conclusive now is it?

The crime in question is not exceeding the speed limit, it is being the owner of a vehicle that has exceeded the speed limit, just as is the case with parking (hence why you can get a parking ticket without them watching you get out of the car), they don't need to prove who was driving because the crime is owning the vehicle and nothing to do with driving. The plate is plenty of proof of who owns the vehicle.
I don't see anything in the constitution that would contradict this.