Cop charged under street racing law.

[V A N Q U I S H]

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_22702.aspx

OPP Officer Charged Under Street Racing Law
Wednesday May 14, 2008
CityNews.ca Staff

As the Ontario Provincial Police scan the province's highways from the sky and the ground looking for dangerous and aggressive drivers there's word one of their own is facing charges under the new street racing law.

A 43-year-old Peterborough County OPP constable was allegedly clocked driving at least 50 kilometres over the sped limit on Highway 115, just south of Peterborough, on March 25 according to a published report. The officer was in his cruiser at the time.

Under the street racing law, which went into effect last September, a driver caught speeding 50 km/hr or more above the posted limit can have their licence and vehicle seized immediately. The maximum fine for the crime was also bumped up to $10,000.

On Tuesday police organizations from across the province gathered in Markham to kick off Project Erase (Eliminating Racing Activities on Streets Everywhere). Authorities say 42 people have been killed by speeders in the GTA since 1999.

Since the street racing law went into effect, more than 4,500 charges have been laid.

The officer charged in March has been moved to desk duty at his detachment and is scheduled to appear in court in June.

Lloyd Tapp is facing two charges under the street racing law.


Amidst my bag being lost with possibly my job on the line due to the contents, I can't help but smile at this one.

[camber]

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1025232&auth=SARAH+DEETH

Officer charged with racing; OPP constable taken off road
Posted By SARAH DEETH
Posted 12 hours ago
A Peterborough County OPP officer has been charged with two counts of racing a vehicle while on duty in a police cruiser.

Const. Lloyd Tapp, 43, was charged April 8 after an investigation into a March 25 incident.

Tapp is charged with driving at least 50 km/h over the speed limit on Highway 115 in Cavan Monaghan Township, court records state.

Const. Gord Klingspohn, media relations officer for Peterborough County OPP, said the public wasn't told about the charges because of the time lapse between March 25 and April 8.

"Due to the fact of the time lapse between the date of the offence and the actual date of the charge, a press release was not issued," Klingspohn said.

He said he couldn't get into specific details about the charges because the case is before the courts.

"It was relating to the on-duty operation of a police cruiser on March 25," Klingspohn said.

Tapp was charged by the OPP central region traffic and marine unit, he said.

The OPP cruiser wasn't impounded for seven days, he said.

"Roadside impoundment is only applicable if the charge is laid at the roadside," Klingspohn said.

He said he wasn't sure if Tapp's driver's licence was suspended for seven days, again citing the lapse in time between the alleged incident and the day charges were laid.
Under Ontario's new street racing laws, drivers face having their vehicles seized and the driver's licence suspended for seven days for speeding at more than 50 km/h over the speed limit.

Tapp has been moved to administrative duties at the detachment, Klingspohn said.

Insp. Mike Johnston, detachment commander of the Peterborough County OPP, was unavailable for comment yesterday.

Tapp made an appearance in Provincial Offences Court yesterday dressed in his OPP uniform, provincial prosecutor Alan Staples said. His next court appearance is June 9.

If convicted, Tapp faces a minimum fine of $2,000 and a possible jail sentence of six months


I like it when police don't follow this BS new law to a T, when it involves one of their own

It pretty much demonstrates that they themselves feel that any upfront penalites before due process is complete garbage...... I guess you wouldn't expect anyone on your side of the fence to intentionally violate your rights would you?

Police to require surrender of licence, detention of vehicle
(5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall,
(a) request that the person surrender his or her driver's licence; and
(b) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (b). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

[untaka]

CityNews is horrible, On Tuesday police organizations from across the province gathered in Markham to kick off Project Erase (Eliminating Racing Activities on Streets Everywhere). Authorities say 42 people have been killed by speeders in the GTA since 1999.

Can anyone confirm that these 42 people died because of the speed of the car and the speed they were going at? Can anyone else confirm there was nothing else involved? (Seat belt use, Alcohol, Drugs, Sleepy, Not paying attention, Illegal Turn/Changing Lane, occupied).


I'm getting sick of this activism against this supposed street racing.

[camber]

CityNews is horrible,

Can anyone confirm that these 42 people died because of the speed of the car and the speed they were going at? Can anyone else confirm there was nothing else involved? (Seat belt use, Alcohol, Drugs, Sleepy, Not paying attention, Illegal Turn/Changing Lane, occupied).


I'm getting sick of this activism against this supposed street racing.

I've contacted the head of E.R.A.S.E.

They don't even know where their own stats came from or if the people in their stats where every convicted of "street racing". However, they still see no problem in stating those stats everytime someone asks.

[untaka]

I've contacted the head of E.R.A.S.E.

They don't even know where their own stats came from or if the people in their states where every convicted of "street racing". However, they still see no problem in stating those stats everytime someone asks.

We as Canadians should be seriously questioning this new law, it seems the politicians are ignoring us.

[Nikita]

We as Canadians should be seriously questioning this new law, it seems the politicians are ignoring us.

Ya think? It takes more than complaining on RFD to get politicians to act.

[untaka]

Ya think? It takes more than complaining on RFD to get politicians to act.

That is insane I thought RFD was the center of the universe :D

[VorteC]

I thought on-duty police officers are exempt from the HTA..?

[Shaner]

I thought on-duty police officers are exempt from the HTA..?

Only in the course of their duties. Plus, he could very well have been off duty but for some reason had possession of the cruiser. It's not completely uncommon.

[cwb27]

I have a feeling there is more to this story than we're being told...

[jeeva86]

So how did he get caught if he was in his cruiser? Did they pull him over and ask if he was on duty?

[cwb27]

So how did he get caught if he was in his cruiser? Did they pull him over and ask if he was on duty?

"Roadside impoundment is only applicable if the charge is laid at the roadside," Klingspohn said.

Doesn't sound like he was pulled over.

[Tomy]

every cruiser i see on the street speeds, tailgate, change lanes without signal..

i always tell my friends, the best example of a bad drivers are the cops.

[gh05t]

Going 50kph above unnecessarily might be why he was ticketed although he may have been on duty and in his cruiser. That is,he wasn't trying to get to the scene of an emergency with flashing lights nor was he chasing someone.

This could just be a publicity stunt though, to gain the confidence of the public and convince most that the law is laid down equally though we know this isn't so, and while he may seem like a fall guy now, the 20hrs of community service he will be slapped with will hardly feel like a chain gang.

[kramerz80]

I'm getting sick of this activism against this supposed street racing.

Ya, because street racing never hurt anyone right? Lets get sick at the activism against murders, rapes and gangs as well... gimme a break...

[cwb27]

Going 50kph above unnecessarily might be why he was ticketed although he may have been on duty and in his cruiser. That is,he wasn't trying to get to the scene of an emergency with flashing lights nor was he chasing someone.

This could just be a publicity stunt though, to gain the confidence of the public and convince most that the law is laid down equally though we know this isn't so, and while he may seem like a fall guy now, the 20hrs of community service he will be slapped with will hardly feel like a chain gang.

Got your tin foil hat on?

[camber]

Going 50kph above unnecessarily might be why he was ticketed although he may have been on duty and in his cruiser. That is,he wasn't trying to get to the scene of an emergency with flashing lights nor was he chasing someone.

This could just be a publicity stunt though, to gain the confidence of the public and convince most that the law is laid down equally though we know this isn't so, and while he may seem like a fall guy now, the 20hrs of community service he will be slapped with will hardly feel like a chain gang.

How was the law applied evenly?

He did not get his licence suspended or car impounded. There have been multiple incidents of non law enforcement drivers having their cars and licence taken away after the fact and long after the infraction.

Also, this is the second incident that has been reported, where police haven't followed through on the mandatory licence suspension and car impoundment for one of their own. I find this trend quite troubling..

[camber]

"Roadside impoundment is only applicable if the charge is laid at the roadside," Klingspohn said.

Doesn't sound like he was pulled over.


It's a bit wierd that the police found reasonable and probable grounds to charge him with speeding in excess of 50 km/h over the posted speed limit. Especially, a week after the infraction occured. Usually, most measurments of speed are instantaneous.

However, what did you expect in this situation?

The OPP are flaunting the fact they aren't following the written law for one of their own.

[Nikita]

Only in the course of their duties. Plus, he could very well have been off duty but for some reason had possession of the cruiser. It's not completely uncommon.

The article states that he was on-duty while committing this offense.


"It was relating to the on-duty operation of a police cruiser on March 25," Klingspohn said.


CWB's right, there's obviously a whole lot of the story we're not getting, and that is a terribly written article. While it says he was on-duty in the cruiser, it doesn't say for which of the two offenses, or if both, doesn't say why he was clocked/arrested not on the roadside, etc. Seems to be more info missing than given.

[at1212b]

Talk about a interesting situation they are basically ordered to give no discretion to interpret this new law.

Backroom politics will definitely play a role here, and who knows, the Officer pulling the Offending officer over may start facing more pressure behind the scenes or the one pulled over may not have been liked in the first place.

that would have been a crazy scene. Seeing a Marked Cruiser pulled over by another cruiser... Probably looked like they were together targeting others, when it was far from it.

I wonder too if the Offending Officer had to notify the Officer that he was armed and authorized to carry the weapon (ok, that was cheesy).

But on a serious note, was the Cruiser actually towed when the charge was laid? How pays the impound Charge something like this and who would pay for it? Does the Car actually stay in the lot or does the OPP just take out and borrow it.

Sounds like dumb questions but maybe they should also have a specific section for officers getting pulled over in this case.

[professionaldude]

every cruiser i see on the street speeds, tailgate, change lanes without signal..

i always tell my friends, the best example of a bad drivers are the cops.

+1 :evil:

[65505201]

Ya, because street racing never hurt anyone right? Lets get sick at the activism against murders, rapes and gangs as well... gimme a break...

I may be inclined to agree with you...if this "anti-racing" bill was actually focused on racers, not speeders (amongst other things).

The problem is that there is already a perfectly good bill to deal with actual street racers - reckless driving. So the $2k+ fine is for....what again?

[jakeer]

This is pure speculation, but I thought of a possible reason for the delayed charge - what if they only found out about the speeding after it actually occurred? Do OPP cruisers have GPS locators installed? If they do (and I mean the trackable kind, where dispatchers can see where cars are located in real-time), then it's conceivable that he was actually caught later. Anyone who has a GPS nav system knows that it also tells you the speed you are travelling, and some car rental outlets in the US actually experimented with charging drivers extra if their GPS said that they had been speeding.

I seriously doubt another on-duty officer pulled over the cruiser for speeding or another officer reported the excessive speed, but I guess you never know. Anyway, just throwing that out there.

[VorteC]

Won't be a surprise if the charge was later dismissed by the court due to some "technicality"

Won't be a surprise if this case was a hoax..

[Tomy]

Won't be a surprise if this case was a hoax..

+10000000

[Ebola]

Don't believe everything you read.

This didn't actually happen as reported.

[Whitedart]

I have a feeling there is more to this story than we're being told...

Yes, as the newa rticle indicates "A Peterborough County OPP officer has been charged, by the OPP central region traffic and marine unit." and the time delay processing the charge of speeding, it would be safe to say there has been some internal investigation taking place here.

[camber]

Won't be a surprise if this case was a hoax..


So, mutliple news and media outlets are making up comments made by a OPP media official. The OPP hasn't said anything about it or the media is covering up the OPP response.

For the "hoax" theory to be true, is almost impossible.

[camber]

Don't believe everything you read.

This didn't actually happen as reported.

I'm not sure about the little details of this story.

However.....

Unless, you don't believe the OPP has released. We know that they were charge under section 172 of the Ontario HTA. Also, they gave a weak excuse not to hand out the mandatory licence suspension and vehicle impoundment, because of the length of time between the infraction and charge.


Section 172 of the Ontario HTA does not have a limitation that would allow the police to do what they did. The police could have charged the accused officer with a different charge. This leads me to believe that officer's infraction happened in a very public way and they couldn't cover it up. Just like the other example where the OPP didn't enforce the mandatory section of 172. The officer ran over and killed two privately own horses!

Also, there have already been multiple real world examples. Where police enforced these mandatory parts of the law, against ordinary citizens. Long after the infraction or the driver did not pose "an immediate threat to public safety."

[camber]

This is pure speculation, but I thought of a possible reason for the delayed charge - what if they only found out about the speeding after it actually occurred? Do OPP cruisers have GPS locators installed? If they do (and I mean the trackable kind, where dispatchers can see where cars are located in real-time), then it's conceivable that he was actually caught later. Anyone who has a GPS nav system knows that it also tells you the speed you are travelling, and some car rental outlets in the US actually experimented with charging drivers extra if their GPS said that they had been speeding.

I seriously doubt another on-duty officer pulled over the cruiser for speeding or another officer reported the excessive speed, but I guess you never know. Anyway, just throwing that out there.

Even if that were true. GPS records are available in almost real time. I doubt someone that caught the officer in middle of the infraction, would wait a week to report it.

[Ebola]

I'm not sure about the little details of this story.

However.....

Unless, you don't believe the OPP has released. We know that they were charge under section 172 of the Ontario HTA. Also, they gave a weak excuse not to hand out the mandatory licence suspension and vehicle impoundment, because of the length of time between the infraction and charge.


Section 172 of the Ontario HTA does not have a limitation that would allow the police to do what they did. The police could have charged the accused officer with a different charge. This leads me to believe that officer's infraction happened in a very public way and they couldn't cover it up. Just like the other example where the OPP didn't enforce the mandatory section of 172. The officer ran over and killed two privately own horses!

Also, there have already been multiple real world examples. Where police enforced these mandatory parts of the law, against ordinary citizens. Long after the infraction or the driver did not pose "an immediate threat to public safety."


I'm just saying from my own sources I know this story as reported is off base.

There have been charges laid, but the manner in which they say this came about is wrong.

[camber]

I'm just saying from my own sources I know this story as reported is off base.

There have been charges laid, but the manner in which they say this came about is wrong.

Maybe some of the details are off but are you saying what the quoted words of OPP media relations officer are wrong?

I think people are mad, at the fact that this is the second time. That the OPP have not followed the law, when charging one of their own. If they are going to lay a 172 HTA charge against one of their own. Then you better make sure you follow through with the mandatory licence suspension and impoundment. The details of story being wrong or right doesn't change the fact that the police did not follow madatory parts of section 172 of the Ontario HTA. When they laid a 172 charge.

Also, why are we hearing about this more then a month after the charge was laid(let alone when the original infraction occured)?

When normal citizens violates section 172 of the HTA. We have their names and vehicle up on evening news and Sgt. Cam Wooley patting himself on the back for a job well done:lol:

Its almost like someone was delaying talking about it . Probably, In hopes that it would blow over with little scrutiny.

[bluetroll]

"I am the law!" - Judge Dredd

[Nikita]

I don't see any reason why they should have impounded the vehicle. It was a police cruiser, not the cop's personal vehicle. Taking a cruiser off the road does nothing to accomplish the goals of this Act.

On the face of it (meaning the little bit we know about this case) I haven't read anything that justifies not suspending his license however.

I think everyone may also be making a bigger deal out of the lack of information we're getting or the fact that we got no info till a month later. You who know me know I rarely come to the defense of police (especially when it appears they're getting special treatment) but I can surely envision a situation where this cop may have been working an investigation that could have been compromised had this been made public during the investigation. Just a guess, but a plausible one.

[Tomy]

I'm just saying from my own sources I know this story as reported is off base.

There have been charges laid, but the manner in which they say this came about is wrong.

so can you tell us what relaly happened/

[65505201]

I don't see any reason why they should have impounded the vehicle. It was a police cruiser, not the cop's personal vehicle. Taking a cruiser off the road does nothing to accomplish the goals of this Act.

On the face of it (meaning the little bit we know about this case) I haven't read anything that justifies not suspending his license however.

I think everyone may also be making a bigger deal out of the lack of information we're getting or the fact that we got no info till a month later. You who know me know I rarely come to the defense of police (especially when it appears they're getting special treatment) but I can surely envision a situation where this cop may have been working an investigation that could have been compromised had this been made public during the investigation. Just a guess, but a plausible one.

If the cop was investigating and in a cop car, I highly doubt he would've been charged. As have been mentioned elsewhere, they're exempt when responding to a call, even when sirens are off.

[camber]

Well, his car should be impounded because its clearly stated in the law and he could not have been responding to an emergency event. The Ontario HTA has specific sections which allow police officers to "speed" when in an emergency response situation. If they didn't want to impound his patrol car, they could have criminally charge him under one of the federal street racing or dangerous driving charges;)

In my opinion... They can park the cruiser next to the impounded city garbarge truck:lol:. I'm sure that this act was not to go after "street racing" garbage trucks.

This vague and undefined law was campaigned and championed by Julian Fantino, Chief of the OPP. If they can't stand behind the police state law they pushed and help pass. Then maybe it was never a good idea to begin with. I don't think that asking police to follow the law is being unreasonable. That is their job and they did and still do openly endorse this law. Maybe frontline officer are trying to send a message, by not enforcing the mandatory licence suspension and impoundment against their own?


BTW - Law enforcement can't violate traffic laws at a whim. Here is what they CAN do:


ONTARIO REGULATION 556/07

PILOT PROJECT — EMERGENCY RESPONSE VEHICLES

Exemptions from rules of the road
5. (1) In addition to the vehicles listed in clause 128 (13) (c) of the Act, an emergency response vehicle, while being used to provide emergency response services, is not subject to the speed limits prescribed under section 128 of the Act or under any regulation or by-law passed under that section. O. Reg. 556/07, s. 5 (1).
(2) In addition to the vehicles listed in subsection 134 (4) of the Act, subsection 134 (3) of the Act does not apply to an emergency response vehicle while being used to provide emergency response services. O. Reg. 556/07, s. 5 (2). (drive on closed highway)

(3) In addition to the vehicles listed in subsection 150 (3) of the Act, subsection 150 (2) of the Act does not apply to an emergency response vehicle while being used to provide emergency response services. O. Reg. 556/07, s. 5 (3). (overtake by driving off roadway)

(4) In addition to the vehicles listed in subsection 157 (2) of the Act, subsection 157 (1) of the Act does not apply to an emergency response vehicle while being used to provide emergency response services. O. Reg. 556/07, s. 5 (4). (reverse on highway with a limit higher than 80 Kmh)

(5) Despite subsection 144 (1 of the Act, while an emergency response vehicle is being used to provide emergency response services, the driver, after stopping the vehicle, may proceed without a green indication being shown if it is safe to do so. O. Reg. 556/07, s. 5 (5).

Note that these all say "... while being used to provide emergency response services." That doesn't mean that they can do it whenever they feel like it. This is listed elsewhere in the HTA but the pilot project text provides a quick reference to the sections, so i used it instead of picking through the full text of the HTA.

This is the text of 128 (13), which is referenced in the above section of the HTA:

128: (13) The speed limits prescribed by this section or by a regulation or by-law passed under this section or set under section 128.0.1 do not apply to, See: 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, ss. 17 (6), 34 (2).
(a) a fire department vehicle as defined in section 61 while proceeding to a fire or responding to, but not returning from, a fire alarm or other emergency call;
(b) a motor vehicle while used by a person in the lawful performance of his or her duties as a police officer; or
(c) an ambulance as defined in section 61 while responding to an emergency call or being used to transport a patient or injured person in an emergency situation. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 128 (13).

[Nikita]

First of all, don't anybody waste your breath trying to convince me this is a bad law. If you've paid any attention at all, you'd know I think it's unconsitutional and will eventually be found to be so.

Second, I didn't say or mean that the cop might have been using the cruiser at the time he was 'racing' to conduct an investigation, or that he was speeding in the course of his duties. What I said, and I will try to simplify, is that during the period of time that these offenses occurred, the cop may have been investigating something that would be compromised if his name and position were made public at the time. An investigation who's integrity could only be maintained by keeping secret that he was a cop, where he was at any particular time, etc...as examples.

Camber, as to your statement "They can park the cruiser next to the impounded city garbarge truck", it's nice to know you would have gotten a kick out of that but the system isn't here for your entertainment. Maybe you can try telling me what benefit there would have been to impound a cruiser which isn't 'his car', as you put it. It's not his car and impounding it wouldn't have prevented him from driving. If he required a cruiser to do his job he simply would have been assigned another one and 7 days later your tax dollars would have had to pay the impound fee to get it out. To what end? There's certainly no hint that to do so would be in the interests of public safety, there's certainly no way this would have punished him, there's no way he would have been affected in any way. So again I ask, to what end?

[loritom]

anyone who thinks this cop is going to pay any penalties or suffer any consequences from this +50 charge is a damn fool.

you either have no clue how the whole police structure/mentality/culture works...probably no friends as cops or no idea what's involved in getting there.

this is just a news story for the purpose of illustrating a point that a few fools gobble up.

this law is bogus, this story is total fvckery, and that's a fact.

[camber]

Second, I didn't say or mean that the cop might have been using the cruiser at the time he was 'racing' to conduct an investigation, or that he was speeding in the course of his duties. What I said, and I will try to simplify, is that during the period of time that these offenses occurred, the cop may have been investigating something that would be compromised if his name and position were made public at the time. An investigation who's integrity could only be maintained by keeping secret that he was a cop, where he was at any particular time, etc...as examples.

I can see what you saying.... With the length of time between the offence and charging and compromising an ongoing investigation. However, that does not excuse the police from following the law in section 172 when it came time to charge the officer.

Also, in the other situation where a fully marked cruiser ran into and killed two horses, while exceeding the posted limit by 50 km/h. The OPP pulled the same stunt by waiting a while to release the information to public and charge the officer of the offence. They used this length of time between the offence and the charge, as an excuse not follow the law of section 172. Which casts serious doubts that the possible scenario you described, happened in this case. The OPP have already demonstrated the skirting of this law, in a very cut and dry public situation.



Camber, as to your statement "They can park the cruiser next to the impounded city garbarge truck", it's nice to know you would have gotten a kick out of that but the system isn't here for your entertainment. Maybe you can try telling me what benefit there would have been to impound a cruiser which isn't 'his car', as you put it. It's not his car and impounding it wouldn't have prevented him from driving. If he required a cruiser to do his job he simply would have been assigned another one and 7 days later your tax dollars would have had to pay the impound fee to get it out. To what end? There's certainly no hint that to do so would be in the interests of public safety, there's certainly no way this would have punished him, there's no way he would have been affected in any way. So again I ask, to what end?


Well, if police starting applying licence suspension and car impoundments or skirting laws for one of their own. Maybe it might curb this type public safety endangering behaviour in the future from other police officers.

Wouldn't that be directly beneficial to public safety?

That's what the OPP claimed when they lobbied for these vague and undefined laws.

Also, if it comes to light that police are engaging in this type of behaviour in droves and police departments can't function with a bunch of officers that can't drive. It's a good telltale sign to the public, that their police departments could have other systematic departmental problems which have a greater impact on public safety.

I don't see why tax money would get wasted on police officers with impounded cars and suspended licences. Just let the charged police officer cover those expenses. They all ready do this with other drivers, that drive company equipment.

Do you really want an officer that has demonstrated they cannot correctly apply the law, to protect you or "public safety"?

Police demonstarting that they can willingfully and knowingly, skirt the laws because it happens to be one of their own. Seems like a much more dangerous situation, then one officer and cruiser off the road for the week.

[camber]

BTW

I see no mentioned of this incident being investiaged by the SIU on their website. Which is leading me to believe that this didn't happen while being undercover or a senstive investigation.

http://www.siu.on.ca/home.html

[knapper]

It's not his car and impounding it wouldn't have prevented him from driving. If he required a cruiser to do his job he simply would have been assigned another one and 7 days later your tax dollars would have had to pay the impound fee to get it out. To what end? There's certainly no hint that to do so would be in the interests of public safety, there's certainly no way this would have punished him, there's no way he would have been affected in any way. So again I ask, to what end?

Then why do they impound a rental car? Or other work vehicles? I am not saying they should do it to the cruiser, just want your assessment of the difference.

[Nikita]

I can see what you saying.... With the length of time between the offence and charging and compromising an ongoing investigation. However, that does not excuse the police from following the law in section 172 when it came time to charge the officer.

Also, in the other situation where a fully marked cruiser ran into and killed two horses, while exceeding the posted limit by 50 km/h. The OPP pulled the same stunt by waiting a while to release the information to public and charge the officer of the offence. They used this length of time between the offence and the charge, as an excuse not follow the law of section 172. Which casts serious doubts that the possible scenario you described, happened in this case. The OPP have already demonstrated the skirting of this law, in a very cut and dry public situation.





Well, if police starting applying licence suspension and car impoundments or skirting laws for one of their own. Maybe it might curb this type public safety endangering behaviour in the future from other police officers.

Wouldn't that be directly beneficial to public safety?

That's what the OPP claimed when they lobbied for these vague and undefined laws.

Also, if it comes to light that police are engaging in this type of behaviour in droves and police departments can't function with a bunch of officers that can't drive. It's a good telltale sign to the public, that their police departments could have other systematic departmental problems which have a greater impact on public safety.

I don't see why tax money would get wasted on police officers with impounded cars and suspended licences. Just let the charged police officer cover those expenses. They all ready do this with other drivers, that drive company equipment.

Do you really want an officer that has demonstrated they cannot correctly apply the law, to protect you or "public safety"?

Police demonstarting that they can willingfully and knowingly, skirt the laws because it happens to be one of their own. Seems like a much more dangerous situation, then one officer and cruiser off the road for the week.

I think you've read into my comments a whole lot more than what was there. I am NOT justifying this cop's actions, or the department's actions or anything at all about this situation. I completely agree that he should be treated like any other individual charged under this law (except for impounding the cruiser) and have never implied anything else.

Let's face it, a cop is not going to, nor is he going to be forced to, pay impound fees for a police cruiser, no matter how much we think he should. The fact is, our tax dollars will pay that fee and it will have no effect whatsoever on this officer.

I agree that cops skirting the law when it's one of their own is despicable and only leads to less respect for cops in general. I agree that I don't want "an officer that has demonstrated they cannot correctly apply the law, to protect you or "public safety"?". But I still don't think impounding the cruiser would have protected me or ensure public safety in any way. I have no idea why they waited so long to lay this charge, I only mentioned that I could imagine perhaps why, but I don't really think it matters one way or the other that the charge was laid now rather than a month earlier. Just seems like a red herring being used to indicate something nefarious going on, but I don't see any practical benefit to the cop in waiting a month to get charged, so I'm not really bothered by that.

I think we're really more in agreement than you think about this law and this particular application of it. I merely gave the cops the benefit of the doubt in looking for a possible reason they would wait to charge him (which anyone who knows me knows is something I rarely, if ever do...in fact I'm probably known for holding cops to a higher standard than others...and which I could very well be wrong about). And I don't agree with impounding the cruiser simply because, as I said, I don't see doing that as having any effect on the cop anyway or achieving the goals of this legislation in any way, and it costs us the taxpayers, not the cop himself.

Then why do they impound a rental car? Or other work vehicles? I am not saying they should do it to the cruiser, just want your assessment of the difference.

Well in addition to my comments above, my tax dollars don't have to pay the impound fee for rental cars and other work vehicles (which I wouldn't even mind doing if some purpose was being met by doing so). Keep in mind, all forces have an entire fleet of cruisers, taking one off the road does nothing except cost us money.

[kleptodathief]

so did they impound the cruiser for 7 days??? dam popos always speed on the hiways!!! i always make sure if a fast car is approaching me at nitetime is NOT a cop bfore i go WOT :cheesygri

[Ebola]

Then why do they impound a rental car? Or other work vehicles? I am not saying they should do it to the cruiser, just want your assessment of the difference.

Because it's a dumb idea.

I believe the logic is, why impound any vehicle that is needed for emergency services.

It would be like impounding a fire truck for the driver going 50+ over. No reason for it, because now you've handicapped the legitimate delivery of emergency services.

[knapper]

Because it's a dumb idea.

I believe the logic is, why impound any vehicle that is needed for emergency services.

That would be a valid reason and agree with it. I was responding to the quote that said it wasn't his car and therefore should not be impounded.

my tax dollars don't have to pay the impound fee for rental cars and other work vehicles


It's likely the case that the cop wouldn't pay the fees, but shouldn't be. I pay speeding/parking tickets when I travel for work...

[camber]

Because it's a dumb idea.

I believe the logic is, why impound any vehicle that is needed for emergency services.

It would be like impounding a fire truck for the driver going 50+ over. No reason for it, because now you've handicapped the legitimate delivery of emergency services.


Police vehicles aren't always used for emergency services, unlike a fire truck. Also, if their in a bind, it's pretty easy to replace a police car for a temporary amount of time. They could just rent a car or give up their personal car for police use. The suspended officer could just flag down a taxi, most of them are decommissioned polce cars anyways:lol:

I forgot... The other incident(crashed into 2 horses) where the OPP did this, the car was undriveable and unrepairable. Police have been impounding cars that are undriveable from a collision of non law enforcement drivers. However, in that incident they didn't impound the wreckage, like they have been doing to others. In that incident, you couldn't use the argument that a wrecked cruiser. Would be needed for public safety and justify the police skirting the law.

[65505201]

Because it's a dumb idea.

I believe the logic is, why impound any vehicle that is needed for emergency services.

It would be like impounding a fire truck for the driver going 50+ over. No reason for it, because now you've handicapped the legitimate delivery of emergency services.

That's fine. Impound his personal vehicle then.

[cwb27]

That's fine. Impound his personal vehicle then.

The personal vehicle has nothing to do with the original offense.

[65505201]

The personal vehicle has nothing to do with the original offense.

Well, I agree that it would be stupid to impound a cruiser, seeing as it is a public resource that may be needed by other officers.

But, if the whole point of the 7 day impoundment is meant as a punishment (on top of $2k+, 6 pts, etc. etc.), why not impound his personal vehicle?

[Nikita]

That would be a valid reason and agree with it. I was responding to the quote that said it wasn't his car and therefore should not be impounded.


It's likely the case that the cop wouldn't pay the fees, but shouldn't be. I pay speeding/parking tickets when I travel for work...

Are you travelling in a company car? And if so, would you, besides having to pay your own speeding tickets, also have to pay impound fees.

And perhaps he should have to pay the fee himself, but that's a moot point because AFAIK there's no enabliing legislation requiring him to.



Police vehicles aren't always used for emergency services, unlike a fire truck. Also, if their in a bind, it's pretty easy to replace a police car for a temporary amount of time. They could just rent a car or give up their personal car for police use. The suspended officer could just flag down a taxi, most of them are decommissioned polce cars anyways:lol:

I forgot... The other incident(crashed into 2 horses) where the OPP did this, the car was undriveable and unrepairable. Police have been impounding cars that are undriveable from a collision of non law enforcement drivers. However, in that incident they didn't impound the wreckage, like they have been doing to others. In that incident, you couldn't use the argument that a wrecked cruiser. Would be needed for public safety and justify the police skirting the law.

The bolded part is exactly the point I've been making. As I said, all police have an entire fleet of cars, they will just use another one. So how does impounding one of them have any effect at all. Laws aren't made without a purpose, the purpose here isn't met when we simply put one cruiser out of commission for a week and replace it with another for that week. All it does it add cost, which our tax dollars pay...and we weren't the ones charged with racing/stunting/speeding.

And no, they cannot just use a rented car or a cop's personal car for police use...wherever did you get such an idea?

[knapper]

Are you travelling in a company car? And if so, would you, besides having to pay your own speeding tickets, also have to pay impound fees.

In lieu of a company vehicle I am paid mileage, very standard procedure. Yes I would have to pay impound fees. It is my fault, it is my cost. Why would it be different with a company vehicle?

Again I don't actually think a cop car should be impounded, I just think that it is hipicritical(sp). If it was another public vehicle, which would end up costing the tax payers, it would be impounded.

[camber]

The bolded part is exactly the point I've been making. As I said, all police have an entire fleet of cars, they will just use another one. So how does impounding one of them have any effect at all. Laws aren't made without a purpose, the purpose here isn't met when we simply put one cruiser out of commission for a week and replace it with another for that week. All it does it add cost, which our tax dollars pay...and we weren't the ones charged with racing/stunting/speeding.


Well, what's the point of suspending a non law enforcement car then?

Most people have access to more then one car or can go out and rent one. This officer never learned from the intent of this law because the police decided not to follow the law and let this "street racing" threat immediately back out on to the street with his car.

I still don't understand why you would think, that we would have to pay for the impoundment. If a police officer does something illegal while on duty, their personally responsible for all the fines and punishment. I haven't heard otherwise...

Does anyone have any examples of this?

If it was another public vehicle, which would end up costing the tax payers, it would be impounded.

+1

Although, I wouldn't be surprised if the police did impound a fire truck. I'm just waiting for the first horse to be impounded:lol:

[camber]

Well, I agree that it would be stupid to impound a cruiser, seeing as it is a public resource that may be needed by other officers.

But, if the whole point of the 7 day impoundment is meant as a punishment (on top of $2k+, 6 pts, etc. etc.), why not impound his personal vehicle?


It's not meant as a punishment per se... It's meant to keep the accused from going back out and street racing immediately again. The people that wrote this law, assumed that "street racers" operate under some wierd force. This undefined urge to "street race" apparently makes them a threat to the public for a week after recieving a ticket:lol:

Unfortunately, the police did not do their job and let this threat to drive during this most dangerous period(the "ticket rage period") for a street racer. :lol:

[Nikita]

It's not meant as a punishment per se... It's meant to keep the accused from going back out and street racing immediately again. The people that wrote this law, assumed that "street racers" operate under some wierd force. This undefined urge to "street race" apparently makes them a threat to the public for a week after recieving a ticket:lol:

Unfortunately, the police did not do their job and let this threat to drive during this most dangerous period(the "ticket rage period") for a street racer. :lol:

So on one hand you mock as wierd this 7-day street racing threat danger period, as you put it, yet on the other you insist that that 'wierd' threat should have been avoided by impounding a police cruiser.

On the on hand you say why bother impounding anyone's vehicle since most people could either borrow or rent another vehicle during this 'danger period', yet you denounce the Act for impounding vehicles at all (so do I, but at least I'm consistent).

You can't have it both ways, you seem to be arguing simply for the sake of arguing.

BTW, I doubt with an instant license suspension, one could rent a car. I'm sure car rental companies ensure they rent to only licensed drivers.

[camber]

So on one hand you mock as wierd this 7-day street racing threat danger period, as you put it, yet on the other you insist that that 'wierd' threat should have been avoided by impounding a police cruiser.

On the on hand you say why bother impounding anyone's vehicle since most people could either borrow or rent another vehicle during this 'danger period', yet you denounce the Act for impounding vehicles at all (so do I, but at least I'm consistent).

You can't have it both ways, you seem to be arguing simply for the sake of arguing.

BTW, I doubt with an instant license suspension, one could rent a car. I'm sure car rental companies ensure they rent to only licensed drivers.


I can argue both ways. It helps to illustrate the weaknesses and bad logic in this law and the people enforcing it.

The consistent message is that law enforcement should be upholding the law the way its written. No exceptions.

What happens when one of these officers that should have not been able to drive. Gets in the same cruiser and gets in an accident?

The taxpayers are going to pay way more then just one week of having a sidelined cruiser and officer. You're going to have multiple officers sidelined while we pay their salaries and they wait for trial. Would having multiple sidelined officers, be better for public safety?

Instead, of having law enforcement put themselves in a potentially precarious legal position. They should use these situations, to send the message that this law needs to be amended. You know.... Let the politicians do their job!

The OPP should have swallowed the tuff pill in these two known situations and then sent a message down to Queen's Park to get things changed.

BTW - Administrative License suspensions don't immediately show up in any searchable or accessible database that rental agents could use. It actually takes a while for things to get processed.

[Sepiraph]

anyone who thinks this cop is going to pay any penalties or suffer any consequences from this +50 charge is a damn fool.

you either have no clue how the whole police structure/mentality/culture works...probably no friends as cops or no idea what's involved in getting there.

this is just a news story for the purpose of illustrating a point that a few fools gobble up.

this law is bogus, this story is total fvckery, and that's a fact.

+1 ... unfortunately... >:(

[Nikita]

I can argue both ways. It helps to illustrate the weaknesses and bad logic in this law and the people enforcing it.

LOL..nice spin but no cigar. All you're illustrating is your inability to maintain a consistent position on an issue.

The consistent message is that law enforcement should be upholding the law the way its written. No exceptions.

What happens when one of these officers that should have not been able to drive. Gets in the same cruiser and gets in an accident?

The taxpayers are going to pay way more then just one week of having a sidelined cruiser and officer. You're going to have multiple officers sidelined while we pay their salaries and they wait for trial. Would having multiple sidelined officers, be better for public safety?

Instead, of having law enforcement put themselves in a potentially precarious legal position. They should use these situations, to send the message that this law needs to be amended. You know.... Let the politicians do their job!

The OPP should have swallowed the tuff pill in these two known situations and then sent a message down to Queen's Park to get things changed.

BTW - Administrative License suspensions don't immediately show up in any searchable or accessible database that rental agents could use. It actually takes a while for things to get processed.

Of course, the 'what happens if' argument....uggh. We could 'what if' every law and every situation till the cows come home, it doesn't mean crap! Except for another example of your inability to argue. And BTW, that's not the way laws are made, by sitting down and seeing how many 'what if's' we can cover.

One last unrelated thing...while you learn to argue, you might spend some time learning how to write. Periods go at the end of a sentence, not in the middle. Sentences start with caps, not phrases that are actually the end of the sentence prior to the misplaced period.
For example,

Instead, of having law enforcement put themselves in a potentially precarious legal position. They should use these situations, to send the message that this law needs to be amended.

That is not a sentence, this is:

Instead, of having law enforcement put themselves in a potentially precarious legal position, they should use these situations to send the message that this law needs to be amended.

What happens when one of these officers that should have not been able to drive. Gets in the same cruiser and gets in an accident?

Not a question, this is:

What happens when one of these officers that should have not been able to drive gets in the same cruiser and gets in an accident?

It just might make it a little easier to understand you if you use proper sentence structure.

Now, to answer the (corrected) question, the same thing happens that happens whenever somebody breaches an order, they get charged and go through the process anyone else will go through if they are caught driving with their license suspended. Seems pretty obvious to me.

[rosebud]

CityNews is horrible,

Can anyone confirm that these 42 people died because of the speed of the car and the speed they were going at? Can anyone else confirm there was nothing else involved? (Seat belt use, Alcohol, Drugs, Sleepy, Not paying attention, Illegal Turn/Changing Lane, occupied).


I'm getting sick of this activism against this supposed street racing.

+1

[rosebud]

We as Canadians should be seriously questioning this new law, it seems the politicians are ignoring us.

+1

[rosebud]

Ya, because street racing never hurt anyone right? Lets get sick at the activism against murders, rapes and gangs as well... gimme a break...

-1

[at1212b]

I would dare say that there should be somewhat of a double standard when it comes to the Police.

For example, a police officer who is off-duty is overall still expected to act like a 'cop' should something happen. For example, if there is a robbery in a bank, or of a similar emergency situation, the officer though not on duty is generally expected by society to at least do something above and beyond that is expected of any other civilians in that situation. Whether it be to take extra vigliance in his surroundings, note taking, or call his 'cop' buddies more directly in co-ordinating actions either during or immediately after the situation.

Even in some cases to intercept the situation if possible. I know in the U.S., they would even take it a step futher since officers are allowed to carry their firearms off duty, and would not hesitate to take control of a emergency situation. More often it would be expected of them.

Imagine a shooting in a mall, and a off-duty cop ran away instead of using his skills, training and even crowd control to 'better' the situation. There would be a uproar if it was known a off-duty officer was on the scene but did not do anything, especially if there were civilian deaths. Sometimes, they could be with their family, and they would or would be expected to take action for the greater good by letting his/her family to safety while the emergency is attended to.

So I know there is that 'a cop must obey all the laws too', I think for that reason, they would get some benefits (within reason) regarding being scrutinized under the law to the letter.


Further to this, I think Queen's Park should maybe address this situation regarding impounding emergency vehicles, such as this to avoid any future scrutiny or interpretation.

[nsx]

Hidden story; OPP 'oversight' claim is weak answer to special treatment

Claiming "administrative oversight" doesn't cover up the fact that Peterborough OPP failed to tell the public that an on-duty officer was charged with street racing.

Const. Lloyd Tapp was charged five weeks ago, on April 8. It's alleged he had his cruiser going more than 150 km-hr on Highway 115 when there was no reason to be speeding.

The incident actually happened on March 25. Based on the little OPP will say, it appears someone other than a police officer reported it. The OPP's regional office investigated and two charges of driving at least 50 km-hr over the speed limit - the province's "street racing" law - were laid on April 8.

Peterborough OPP should have included the charges in its daily media release back then, more than a month ago.

Instead, the public found out about the alleged racing incident on Monday when Const. Tapp appeared in provincial offences court. Had an Examiner reporter not heard about it the case might never have come to light.

That day, and again the following day, a Peterborough OPP spokesman said no announcement was made in April because of the two-week delay in laying the charges.

"Never will you see a press release on an issue like this two weeks later," said Const. Gord Kingspohn.

Not true, says Inspector Dave Ross of the OPP's corporate communications bureau. OPP policy is to always issue a release when an officer is charged. And the force has a special interest in publicizing street racing charges.

That's a responsible, absolutely necessary standard. On-duty police officers should be held to a higher standard than ordinary citizens, and public confidence in the police relies on the assurance that there will not be the slightest attempt to cover up possible wrongdoing.

But Ross's description of the failure to report the charges as "an administrative oversight" that had nothing to do with the two-week delay falls short of that standard. Local OPP insisted, not once but twice, that the delay justified not making the charges public.

If the local detachment wasn't aware of such a crucial policy as reporting all charges against officers, that gap was much more serious than an "administrative oversight."

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1031296

[Ebola]

Police vehicles aren't always used for emergency services, unlike a fire truck. Also, if their in a bind, it's pretty easy to replace a police car for a temporary amount of time. They could just rent a car or give up their personal car for police use. The suspended officer could just flag down a taxi, most of them are decommissioned polce cars anyways:lol:



Disagree.

The police car is constantly providing emergency services, unlike a fire truck that may the odd time stop being buffed and cleaned long enough to drive Mach 5 to an oil spill.

The point is, the impounding of the police car is pointless.

It's not of any personal deterrence, and the officer would have access to a whole detachment garage full of police vehicles, what is impounding one going to do? Short of making the shift short a road car, nothing.

[65505201]

Disagree.

The police car is constantly providing emergency services, unlike a fire truck that may the odd time stop being buffed and cleaned long enough to drive Mach 5 to an oil spill.

The point is, the impounding of the police car is pointless.

It's not of any personal deterrence, and the officer would have access to a whole detachment garage full of police vehicles, what is impounding one going to do? Short of making the shift short a road car, nothing.

Exactly. The whole point of the 7 day impound is to take away the "privilege" of driving, no? Like I said, impound his personal vehicle.

[Dots]

I'm getting sick of this activism against this supposed street racing.

Thank god for the new law!!! its about time.

[rosebud]

Thank god for the new law!!! its about time.

-1

[Ebola]

Exactly. The whole point of the 7 day impound is to take away the "privilege" of driving, no? Like I said, impound his personal vehicle.

Fair enough.

It's a hard stretch to make that an arguement however, as I think the 7 day impoundment is supposed to a removal of risk. The car is gone, the license is suspended.

It's rare cases like this that create a wack of case law however, so stay tuned.

[SkylineGTR]

every cruiser i see on the street speeds, tailgate, change lanes without signal..

i always tell my friends, the best example of a bad drivers are the cops.

Yeah that and turning on their sirens to get through traffic or a red light...once their through the sirens turn off....BS!!!

[profguy]

This is a sham. Yes., the guy was going fast/racing but at the trial he will get off because of weak evidence - and he remains on full pay (regardless of the charges or offense). In the end just a show.

To any cops on here - when does a cop get a speeding ticket? Or if he gets a ticket - how often does he/she get off? Nearly always (according to a cop friend).

All the cops and their supporters will tell you they are innocent .... hahahahha ... right.

BTW - I fully support the existing legislation (get the yahoos off the road) but equal justice not on your life.

[camber]

LOL..nice spin but no cigar. All you're illustrating is your inability to maintain a consistent position on an issue.


It's not spin. I'm sorry, if you get confused between discrediting this silly law and this incident. People have been flipping back and forth between the two issues in this thread. I'm sorry, if you haven't noticed yet.



Of course, the 'what happens if' argument....uggh. We could 'what if' every law and every situation till the cows come home, it doesn't mean crap! Except for another example of your inability to argue. And BTW, that's not the way laws are made, by sitting down and seeing how many 'what if's' we can cover.


:rolleyes:

Could say the same about you. You used the "what if" argument by claiming that having one cruiser off the road could be detrimental to public safety. My argument is as valid as yours.


One last unrelated thing...while you learn to argue, you might spend some time learning how to write. Periods go at the end of a sentence, not in the middle. Sentences start with caps, not phrases that are actually the end of the sentence prior to the misplaced period.
For example,


That is not a sentence, this is:

Instead, of having law enforcement put themselves in a potentially precarious legal position, they should use these situations to send the message that this law needs to be amended.,

Oh no! Correcting grammar on the internet forum:lol:

It seems someone is stretching to prop up their own weak arguments.:lol:





Now, to answer the (corrected) question, the same thing happens that happens whenever somebody breaches an order, they get charged and go through the process anyone else will go through if they are caught driving with their license suspended. Seems pretty obvious to me.


:rolleyes:

So, you're flip flopping now?

Should the police follow the law or not?

You can't argue both ways

They certainly didn't in this situation...

Also, it seems your ignoring the fact that by not upholding the law. The police leave us tax payers in a bad legal situation and public safety situation, if this officer gets in accident, when he was not supposed to be able to drive.

[camber]

Disagree.

The police car is constantly providing emergency services, unlike a fire truck that may the odd time stop being buffed and cleaned long enough to drive Mach 5 to an oil spill.

The point is, the impounding of the police car is pointless.

It's not of any personal deterrence, and the officer would have access to a whole detachment garage full of police vehicles, what is impounding one going to do? Short of making the shift short a road car, nothing.

Well, that's my point. When a fire truck is used, it's only used for emergency situations. Most police cruisers spend the majority of their shift, driving from point a to b, while providing no emergency services. Unless, you consider police presence an emergency service.

[camber]

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1031296

Someone, should mentioned to the OPP, this is the second time that one of their detachments has done something like this.

[Ebola]

This is a sham. Yes., the guy was going fast/racing but at the trial he will get off because of weak evidence - and he remains on full pay (regardless of the charges or offense). In the end just a show.

To any cops on here - when does a cop get a speeding ticket? Or if he gets a ticket - how often does he/she get off? Nearly always (according to a cop friend).

All the cops and their supporters will tell you they are innocent .... hahahahha ... right.

BTW - I fully support the existing legislation (get the yahoos off the road) but equal justice not on your life.

I've never been given a ticket, I'm not a cop, but I've been let off a couple times after they find out where I work.

[65505201]

Fair enough.

It's a hard stretch to make that an arguement however, as I think the 7 day impoundment is supposed to a removal of risk. The car is gone, the license is suspended.

It's rare cases like this that create a wack of case law however, so stay tuned.

The car itself is not a risk, the driver is - and the license is already suspended. The only reasonable argument for impounding a car is unsafe/illegal mods - and only up until the necessary repairs are made.

[untaka]

Ya, because street racing never hurt anyone right? Lets get sick at the activism against murders, rapes and gangs as well... gimme a break...

Look at it this way, the media is jumping on this bandwagon claiming that its "street racing". This is not true, when 1 person along on the highway goes over 50km, they are going against this violation. This isn't street racing, this is speeding. Also you mention intentional crimes, not traffic violations.

Thank god for the new law!!! its about time.

First off, God had nothing to do with this law, so no need to thank him/her/it. Second what about Education, training, forced certification? Why not change HOW people drive, or WHO drives, instead of dictating who is guilty on scene? I'm not against making harsh punishments for going 50km over the speeding limit.

What many fail to realize is that it isn't SPEEDING, that is the problem, those kids that died last year had nothing to do with their speed. It had everything to do with their reckless driving. Speeding does not equal reckless driving, and you cannot argue that, it can CONTRIBUTE, but so can many other things that we ALL see daily. More people get into accidents for drinking and driving, not paying attention, talking on cellphone/doing makup/eating, not signaling, not checking mirrors etc. Why isn't the media and everyone else getting bent out of shape on this?

This is about how can the government throw down law and get more profit out of it easily. This isn't about YOUR rights, if it was, they wouldn't charge you/take your car without trial first. If the government really cared, then wouldn't it be better to invest in education/training the drivers? Why not raise the driving age? Why not have it so you HAVE to take lessons from a certified driver? There are many available options out there, yet many people will obey any law dropped from the government, even if it means giving up their rights. This is the sad part about it, its not the about speeding, its about fairness and responsibility.

[smitty9999]

OPP officer cleared of stunt-driving charge

Racism behind allegation, constable says

Posted By GALEN EAGLE, EXAMINER COURT WRITER

Posted 2 days ago




Peterborough County OPP Const. Lloyd Tapp was found not guilty yesterday on charges of stunt driving and careless driving.

The 43-year-old officer had strong words for the fellow officer who made the allegations against him and those that investigated the case.

"Like I have been saying all along, the whole charge was a crock of lies," Tapp said. "The evidence you have heard today in court is a clear indication of the shoddy investigations of the Ontario Provincial Police."

Questioning why charges were laid against him, Tapp said he is a visible minority who has made four claims to the Ontario Human Rights Commission against the OPP since 2005.

"One might ask then, why were charges laid when such a strong prima facie case existed with a lack of evidence to even substantiate a charge?" he said. "What the public has heard today in court, the public should take heed to the type of so-called professional investigations and integrity of investigations by OPP."

Tapp was charged April 8 with driving at least 50 km/h over the speed limit and careless driving on Highway 115 in Cavan Monaghan Township on March 25.

Tapp was one of several Peterborough County OPP officers who agreed to provide security detail at Queen's Park during the release of the provincial budget March 25, court heard.

OPP Const. Brenda Donnelly travelled with Tapp to Toronto in a marked cruiser, she testified. The two left the Peterborough detachment at about 3:37 a. m. and arrived in Toronto for briefing at about 4:45 a. m., she said.
En route to Toronto, Donnelly said Tapp was driving 180 km/h along Highway 115, between 140 to 160 km/h on the 401 and was obeying the speed limit on the Don Valley Parkway.

"We started going fast, excessive speeds," she told court. "The speedometer was pointing in my direction ... it was at the 180 km/h mark. We travelled that speed for quite a ways, most of the 115."
Donnelly said she didn't say anything to Tapp because she had to work with him for the rest of the day. She made a formal police statement six days later, court heard.

Defence lawyer William MacKenzie questioned why Donnelly didn't stop Tapp if he was driving at such speeds.
"On your evidence, you sat there quietly while a member of the police service broke the law. You failed to uphold your duties as a sworn officer, correct," MacKenzie asked.

"Yes, yes I did," Donnelly replied.

Tapp testified he wasn't paying attention to the speedometer but was going
with the flow of traffic. He said he would never drive at such "ridiculous" speeds.

"Personally, it's against my code of ethics to travel at that speed," Tapp testified.

MacKenzie argued Donnelly was a poor witness who didn't take any notes of the incident. Her testimony also diverged from her police statement, court heard. She told police Tapp travelled 180 km/h the entire way to Toronto,
MacKenzie noted.

Given the 134 kilometres between the detachment and Queen's Park and the timeline Donnelly provided, MacKenzie said Tapp couldn't have driven more than 50 km/h over the speed limit.

"The mathematics don't lie here," MacKenzie said.
Justice of the peace Douglas Clark ruled the Crown did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[FrodoX]

just a raondom question... how many people have seen cops speeding without the emergency lights and sirens on? and you know its not an emergency because they wait on a red light or in traffic if it slows down (ie highway)?

do you think its right for a police officer to speed without indicating to the public that its an emergency?

[booblehead]

Seen this on a regular basis. In fact, just saw two Metro Toronto police cop cars doing that this morning @ York Mills/Leslie. Lights on when approaching traffic lights intersection and lights off once cleared. Looks like they were street racing with each other .. In my opinion.

just a raondom question... how many people have seen cops speeding without the emergency lights and sirens on? and you know its not an emergency because they wait on a red light or in traffic if it slows down (ie highway)?

do you think its right for a police officer to speed without indicating to the public that its an emergency?

[Octavius]

just a raondom question... how many people have seen cops speeding without the emergency lights and sirens on? and you know its not an emergency because they wait on a red light or in traffic if it slows down (ie highway)?

do you think its right for a police officer to speed without indicating to the public that its an emergency?

I can't even count how many times I've been at a light that just turn red, stopped, then saw a cop coming up from behind me, turn on it's emergency lights, fly through the intersection...and then shut them off afterwards.

I'm sure this isn't representative of the entire police force, but I've seen it happen enough times to make me sick to my stomach.