[Merged] OPP officer charged with racing

[r0binh00d]

I just heard on Q107 that a female OPP officer was charged with RACING.

She was off duty in an unmarked car and was nailed doing 165kmh.

She has lost her licence and is now on desk duties.

Last year other cops nailed for the same thing

OPP officers charged under street racing law
Posted: May 15, 2008, 9:00 PM by Barry Hertz
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2008/05/15/opp-officers-charged-under-street-racing-law.aspx


This makes me laugh. Cops that don't follow the laws that they are tasked to enforce!

[Nikita]

They actually impounded the OPP cruiser for 7 days.

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/CanadaWorld/2009/02/10/8336621.html

Ont. cop charged with street racing
Allegedly doing 165 km/h while on duty

Tue, February 10, 2009

By SUN MEDIA



TORONTO - Brant County OPP charged an OPP officer and impounded her unmarked cruiser under the province's street racing legislation.

The OPP announced today that Brant County OPP caught one of its own officers on duty and speeding Jan. 31.

She was driving 165 km/h on Hwy. 403 – the posted speed limit is 100 km/h.

"The subsequent investigation found that the officer was not within the lawful execution of her duties at the time," the OPP stated in a release.

Det.-Const. Heidi Fischer is charged with driving 50 km/h or more over the posted speed limit, contrary to Section 172 of the Highway Traffic Act.

She'll be in court March 24.

The officer’s driver’s licence was suspended for seven days and the OPP unmarked cruiser was impounded for 7 days.

Fischer is a four-year member of the OPP posted to Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau at General Headquarters in Orillia.

[Psubs]

Wow, I never go over 145 km / hr, there's no reason to go THAT fast unless someone is dying in your car.

So, I guess she was "on" duty but not chasing someone.

[r0binh00d]

Sounds like she was not well liked.
If she was popular this incident would have "disappeared".
Funny that the cruiser was impounded.

[AmberMoon]

While I do not think going 165km is racing it is going excessively fast, Before I came to Canada our speed limit on Highways was 80 MPH and doing 90/95 mph was pretty normal. I do think they did the right thing though since she was going more then 65 km over the speed limit and there was no emergency for her actions

[Sepiraph]

Sounds like she was not well liked.
If she was popular this incident would have "disappeared".
Funny that the cruiser was impounded.

+1 The verdict would have been she would be found within the lawful execution of her duties at the time.

[Shaner]

I've been saying it since I joined this site, the "blue wall" came down a long time ago. Sure, some cops will still ignore certain offences committed by other cops, but over the last decade or so, the mentality that cops must protect each other has been slowly easing it's way out of policing.

It really doesn't make sense to impound that cruiser though. I know that will satisfy the demands of the police haters (many, but not all), but if you think rationally, it doesn't make any sense.

[r0binh00d]

If she was well liked it would have been:

"Jane you naughty girl - get out of here"

I know that will satisfy the demands of the police haters (many, but not all), but if you think rationally, it doesn't make any sense.

Noone here hates "the police". I think what people really mean is that they are afraid of police abusing their powers and ruining peoples lives "because they can". People are afraid of dirty/bad cops. People have on numerous occasions mentioned how cops lie in court. We all see how many innocent people go to jail. So I hope that you understand that it is not hate (these people are supposed to protect us) but fear of those that have ultimate power over us. The Vancouver Taser incident reminds us of what happens. We fear that it could be one of use one day.

[FazerRider]

what's point of impounding the cruiser..?

[Shaner]

Noone here hates "the police". I think what people really mean is that they are afraid of police abusing their powers and ruining peoples lives "because they can". People are afraid of dirty/bad cops. People have on numerous occasions mentioned how cops lie in court. We all see how many innocent people go to jail. So I hope that you understand that it is not hate (these people are supposed to protect us) but fear of those that have ultimate power over us. The Vancouver Taser incident reminds us of what happens. We fear that it could be one of use one day.

Actually, a lot of people on RFD hate the police. Just read the various posts and see for yourself.

As for innocent people going to jail, do tell, how many are there? Sorry to burst your bubble, but very, very few innocent people go to jail, and when it does happen, it's because of unfortunate circumstances where there's enough evidence for that person to be charged AND convicted. Sometimes just being in the wrong place at the wrong time is enough, although it's rare.

[Nikita]

I've been saying it since I joined this site, the "blue wall" came down a long time ago. Sure, some cops will still ignore certain offences committed by other cops, but over the last decade or so, the mentality that cops must protect each other has been slowly easing it's way out of policing.

It really doesn't make sense to impound that cruiser though. I know that will satisfy the demands of the police haters (many, but not all), but if you think rationally, it doesn't make any sense.

what's point of impounding the cruiser..?

I find that very odd too. Impounding the cruiser doesn't affect her in any way at all....mm hmm, odd indeed.

[Nikita]

Actually, a lot of people on RFD hate the police. Just read the various posts and see for yourself.

As for innocent people going to jail, do tell, how many are there? Sorry to burst your bubble, but very, very few innocent people go to jail, and when it does happen, it's because of unfortunate circumstances where there's enough evidence for that person to be charged AND convicted. Sometimes just being in the wrong place at the wrong time is enough, although it's rare.

Off the top of my head Morin, Milgaard and Marshall. Oh and Baltovich. And of course Stephen Truscott. And that's just off the top of my head. Collectively they spent approx. 40-50 years in jail....and they were all innocent. Morin is the worst case of police bungling I've ever seen in this country...and not accidental bungling. If you haven't read 'Redrum the Innocent', I highly recommend it. That case wasn't just a 'mistake', that was pure and unadultered police misconduct at it's finest.

[angekfire]

+1 for impounding the cruiser being ********. I think she got what she deserved in this case. I still think the cop in the drunk driving thread though got off relatively easy.

[Shaner]

Off the top of my head Morin, Milgaard and Marshall. Oh and Baltovich. And of course Stephen Truscott. And that's just off the top of my head. Collectively they spent approx. 40-50 years in jail....and they were all innocent. Morin is the worst case of police bungling I've ever seen in this country...and not accidental bungling. If you haven't read 'Redrum the Innocent', I highly recommend it. That case wasn't just a 'mistake', that was pure and unadultered police misconduct at it's finest.

You're absolutely right, I don't deny innocent people have and do go to jail, but my post was responding to r0binh00d making it sound like innocent people go to jail on a regular basis. Although it's impossible to determine how many innocent people have in fact gone to jail, I suspect it's a rare occasion when such a thing occurs, especially with the system that's in place today.

[Shaner]

+1 for impounding the cruiser being ********. I think she got what she deserved in this case. I still think the cop in the drunk driving thread though got off relatively easy.

A $2,000 fine, a $15,000 loss of pay, license suspension, a criminal record, court/lawyers fees (probably $2,000-$10,000 in total) and less of a chance of obtaining a promotion in the future.

If you think that's relatively easy, well then so be it, I won't argue this again, i just want to make sure you realize everything she received as part of her sentence/disciplinary action.

[r0binh00d]

Off the top of my head Morin, Milgaard and Marshall. Oh and Baltovich. And of course Stephen Truscott. And that's just off the top of my head.

If someone can be convicted of MURDER when they did not do it then just imagine how easy it is to get wrongfully convicted of lesser crimes. The worst part is people that are innocent and then the are forced to plea-bargain and accept a lesser conviction because it is more economically viable in the short term then to go through years and $10k's of legal expenses to go to court to fight.

The philosophy of our judicial system is that it is better to let 100 guilty people go free than to let one innocent person go to jail. Sadly today that is not the case. That is why people fear the police and the judicial system.

In the US people fear the police because they are the pit-bulls of the emerging fascist police state and people are losing their civil liberties. We are not there YET.... but we Canadians still have enough to fear from our own police.

Think of this - Police Officers get graded and promoted partly on their arrest and conviction rate. How far do you think a cop will go in order to improve his/her chances for promotion? That is why we fear them.

[AzN_RiverdaleCI]

justice served?

[JENOVA]

[Please merge if needed]

Previous charges against officers took place in Peterborough sometime last year as I recall. And yet another officer gets "nabbed for street racing" and I'd like to make a note here that although I do not pity their behaviour, I applaude the province for going after all motorists and not just the general public.

http://cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090210/090210_opp_streetracing/20090210/?hub=CP24Home

Tue Feb. 10 2009 12:37:11 PM

OPP officer nabbed for street racing
Maurice Cacho, cp24.com

An OPP officer has been charged under street racing legislation after she was pulled over for driving over the limit while on duty.


An officer from Brant County OPP pulled over an unmarked cruiser on Highway 403 that was going 165 kilometres per hour in a 100 zone on Jan. 31, 2009.


Following a police investigation, the officer was found to be not operating within the "lawful execution of her duties" at the time.


Det. Const. Heidi Fischer has been charged with driving 50 kilometres per hour over the limit.


Under law, her licence was suspended for seven days and the unmarked OPP cruiser was impounded for seven days.


OPP Insp. Dave Ross says Fischer is still a "full-standing" member of the police force.


Fischer has four years of experience with the OPP as a member of the Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau in Orillia.

[johnboy]

justice served?

Maybe.

But impounding the unmarked police cruiser for even a day was ********!

WTF?

[camber]

Well, the problem with police officers for the cases that we do know about, the penalties were not applied or weren't applied properly(ie. immediately). In this instance, it seems the penalties were not applied imediately on the roadside. It seems the police investigated the incident after the fact, to make sure that Detective Constable Heidi Fischer was not responding to an incident.

Why the charging officer could not just make a quick to call dispatch. To find out if Detective Constable Heidi Fischer was responding to something, at that time. Is beyond me....

If this was a member joe public, I doubt the police would have waited to do an investigation to find out the reason why the person was speeding. It's too bad that Detective Constable Heidi Fischer probably wasn't left at the side of the road like many other people charge under HTA 172.

In this situation, it seems that something else might be going on, it is very rare that police charge their own where a private citizen was not involved. It seems that police are now using HTA 172 charges to get back at other officers they don't like.


OPP officer charged for stunt driving at 165 km/h
February 10, 2009
By John Burman
Hamilton Spectator

Brantford – The OPP have charged one of their own with stunt driving.

The OPP said today an OPP intelligence officer has been charged with speeding after getting caught speeding 65 km over the limit.

Brant County OPP clocked the unmarked cruiser doing 165 km/h in a 100 zone on Highway 403 Jan. 31.

Detective Constable Heidi Fischer, who has been with the OPP four years, was on duty at the time.

But OPP Inspector Dave Ross said today an investigation found that the officer was not within the lawful execution of her duties at the time. Ross is the deputy director, of the OPP corporate communications bureau.

Ross did not say what time of day the car was stopped or if there was any other traffic on the highway.

Fischer is posted to the provincial operations intelligence bureau at OPP general headquarters in Orillia.

The officer’s driver’s licence was suspended for the required 7 days and the OPP unmarked vehicle was impounded for 7 days.

Fischer is charged with driving 50 km/h or more over the posted speed limit, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act.

She will appear in Brantford provincial court March 24.

Section 172 of the Highway Traffic Act covering high speeds is a law OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino has championed in a highly publicized bid to crack down on “stunt driving” in the province


http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/510889

[stuntman]

If the cop was speeding and not acting within their duties then how is the charging officer getting back at them? The law was broken. Maybe the charging officer would have let a buddy off but that is not the point and he is not the one in question.

The cop was speeding got caught and will be penalized. The charging officer may take some flak but I applaud him/her for doing their duty and not cowering.

[Chuck Chorus]

I've been saying it since I joined this site, the "blue wall" came down a long time ago. Sure, some cops will still ignore certain offences committed by other cops, but over the last decade or so, the mentality that cops must protect each other has been slowly easing it's way out of policing.

It really doesn't make sense to impound that cruiser though. I know that will satisfy the demands of the police haters (many, but not all), but if you think rationally, it doesn't make any sense.

Wow... dude..

I don't think anybody "hates" anybody really.

People are just losing confidence in the crooked one's who take their status wayyy too seriously and abuse their powers.

I mean its a tough job that they have imo.

Long borrrrrrrrrrring hours, 4-5 days in a row where you do morning-day shifts... and than the next 4-5 days in a row its the late overnight shifts.. lots and lots of paper work, dealing with the general population that has developed less and less trust towards you over the years, the challenge of balancing a family life on the side, etc etc.

So I'm sure somedays the boiling point reaches a maximum.

Anyways,

Just because people express views that may not be exactly to your liken,
doesn't automatically make them "haters" lol.

I mean, it seems like you take quick and irrational offense to anybody who happens to speak up about brutality or curruption of power when it comes to those in Authority. Whether or not they are for or against it(sometimes people are neither, they just feel the need to share)

Lol sometimes I feel you are being payed for what you do on here Shaner... j/k!! :D

[Jucius Maximus]

This makes me laugh. Cops that don't follow the laws that they are tasked to enforce!

Eh, cops are the same as everyone else.

Some good ones, some average ones, some bad ones.

[woobie]

Maybe.

But impounding the unmarked police cruiser for even a day was ********!

WTF?

Really it's no different that Junior getting busted and Moms car being impounded.

And yes I completely realize were talking about a police vehicle but really is there a difference? In both cases a vehicle is being kept from use by individuals that had nothing to do with the crime in question.

[Tomato_1]

If this was a member joe public, I doubt the police would have waited to do an investigation to find out the reason why the person was speeding. It's too bad that Detective Constable Heidi Fischer probably wasn't left at the side of the road like many other people charge under HTA 172.

Exactly. Pigs which don't get the seem treatment as joe public. It's a shame that Julian Fantino hasn't bother to take ownership of this blatant abuse of power by the people who wear the badge.

[camber]

If the cop was speeding and not acting within their duties then how is the charging officer getting back at them?

Maybe the charging officer didn't like the fact, that a woman that has been on the force for four years, has a higher position then they do and they're stuck on traffic duty.

Also, there was another previous incident where a "problem" police officer was charged and dragged through the media for a similar charge only for it to be thrown out. That officer alledged that other police where trying to get back at him.

If you were a police officer trying and wanted to extract some petty revenge, you might at well use the law that gives you the power to penalize someone before a trial.;)


The law was broken. Maybe the charging officer would have let a buddy off but that is not the point and he is not the one in question.

The cop was speeding got caught and will be penalized. The charging officer may take some flak but I applaud him/her for doing their duty and not cowering.

It seems the police officer was caught but the vehicle and license was not suspended immediately under the law. The police waited to investigate but really all the charging officer has to do is call dispatch. Being that the charging officer didn't do their duty and follow the law the way it was written and the investigation that followed afterwards. It doesn't appear to be a normal HTA 172 incident.

Then again, it seems in law, that police are more equal then others;)

[red120]

Wow.. I'm really surprised that the corruption that is the police force outted one of their own.

[untaka]

Kudos to the cop that busted her and didn't let her get away because she was a cop!

[stuntman]

A reason further investigation would be warranted: The cop was sticking his neck out by laying the charge. As people should know cops are allowed to exceed the speed limit in certain cases and it does not say what the charged officer's reasoning for speeding was. The charging officer wanted to make sure that they were doing the right thing because if they screwed it up it would be a whole lot of trouble. Calling dispatch on the spot would have been non-descrete and improper. It was the proper and smart thing to do.

A good move would have been to check with their sargent first. "can I charge them or would it cause to much of an uproar?"
There is not enough info in the article to draw conclusions.

Speculation based on gender is low end.
Speculation of revenge or pettiness is low end.


stuntman

[Chuck Chorus]

Kudos to the cop that busted her and didn't let her get away because she was a cop!

He did the right thing.

[iplom]

Actually, a lot of people on RFD hate the police. Just read the various posts and see for yourself.

As for innocent people going to jail, do tell, how many are there? Sorry to burst your bubble, but very, very few innocent people go to jail, and when it does happen, it's because of unfortunate circumstances where there's enough evidence for that person to be charged AND convicted. Sometimes just being in the wrong place at the wrong time is enough, although it's rare.

Not enough "guilty" cops go to jail thats for sure.

Put me down as a cop "disliker".

[SkylineR34X]

Call me skeptical if you want...

But whenever I see an article is, I see it as making the general public to shut up.

ie.

Public complains that police themselves are speeding without their lights on
Media publishes an article saying a police who's speeding gets caught and get charged
Public shut up and stop whining about police do not prosecute themselves

And I highly doubt that incidence as such will change the behavior of speeding officers on the road.

[Shaner]

Call me skeptical if you want...

But whenever I see an article is, I see it as making the general public to shut up.

ie.

Public complains that police themselves are speeding without their lights on
Media publishes an article saying a police who's speeding gets caught and get charged
Public shut up and stop whining about police do not prosecute themselves

And I highly doubt that incidence as such will change the behavior of speeding officers on the road.

So wait, are you saying that this is a completely fabricated story and there is in fact no officer that was charged with speeding 50 over? And you think the police service did this only to satisfy the demands of the public?

[Nikita]

Call me skeptical if you want...

But whenever I see an article is, I see it as making the general public to shut up.

ie.

Public complains that police themselves are speeding without their lights on
Media publishes an article saying a police who's speeding gets caught and get charged
Public shut up and stop whining about police do not prosecute themselves

And I highly doubt that incidence as such will change the behavior of speeding officers on the road.

Call you skeptical? LOL...no, I'll call you delusional if you think this was just a media-in-collaboration-with-police conspiracy...c'mon, give your head a shake! And loosen the tin-foil hat a little...:rolleyes:

[mazdubb]

And we all (as taxpayers) get to pay to get our police cruiser out of some shady tow truck companies impound lot?

[_Allan_]

Wow, I never go over 145 km / hr, there's no reason to go THAT fast unless someone is dying in your car.

So, I guess she was "on" duty but not chasing someone.

There is absolutely NO REASON to go over 115km/h unless you're running late, then even then 115km/h is the max you should do.

[camber]

A reason further investigation would be warranted: The cop was sticking his neck out by laying the charge. As people should know cops are allowed to exceed the speed limit in certain cases and it does not say what the charged officer's reasoning for speeding was.

How are they sticking there necks out?

Police have to follow the law and dispense the law as written. Being that this officer was speeding 65 km/h over the speed limit and knowing that a police officer can quickly verify with dispatch. There was no reason to circumvent the way that HTA 172 was written.


The charging officer wanted to make sure that they were doing the right thing because if they screwed it up it would be a whole lot of trouble. Calling dispatch on the spot would have been non-descrete and improper. It was the proper and smart thing to do.

How would it be "non-descrete and improper"?

Do all charges regarding on duty officer, require the charging officer to wait for senior officials to launch an investigation in the matter?:lol:

A good move would have been to check with their sargent first. "can I charge them or would it cause to much of an uproar?"
There is not enough info in the article to draw conclusions.

Speculation based on gender is low end.
Speculation of revenge or pettiness is low end.


stuntman


"can I charge them or would it cause to much of an uproar?":lol:

What about a police officer doing there duty and following the law, the way it was written.

What's wrong with that concept?

As far as the speculation is concerned.....

If you know LE, you know its very hard to get a traffic ticket from your own kind. Being that their was already one recent case where an officer point out that an HTA 172 charge was used to single him out. Why would you not speculate the same thing isn't happening here?;)

[camber]

The last time we saw a cop charged, the court case was a he said, she said battle. The charged officer making allegations of race based bias against him. He was found not-guilty of the HTA 172 charge:rolleyes:

IMO, this is just more OPP dysfunction, making it's way into the media courtesy of a right's violating law!

[kingsley]

Actually, a lot of people on RFD hate the police. Just read the various posts and see for yourself.

As for innocent people going to jail, do tell, how many are there? Sorry to burst your bubble, but very, very few innocent people go to jail, and when it does happen, it's because of unfortunate circumstances where there's enough evidence for that person to be charged AND convicted. Sometimes just being in the wrong place at the wrong time is enough, although it's rare.

Alright don't try to be the victim here. Like the guy said nobody hates the police. They just hate having to follow laws they don't like and, like he said, people are afraid of cops abusing their powers.

And, not that I care either way, how do you know how many innocent people go to jail? It's not like there's a big "innocent" stamped on their forehead during court proceedings.

[Digital_Domain]

what's point of impounding the cruiser..?
I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this.
There is absolutely NO REASON to go over 115km/h unless you're running late, then even then 115km/h is the max you should do.
Anything over the speed limit is speeding, there's no right or wrong about it. As for the 145km/h... well, I know going up north around Sudbury you could safely do it (dual highway, two lanes, almost no cars on the road, great visibility), although it's still illegal.

[SkylineR34X]

Call you skeptical? LOL...no, I'll call you delusional if you think this was just a media-in-collaboration-with-police conspiracy...c'mon, give your head a shake! And loosen the tin-foil hat a little...:rolleyes:

First of all, I have never claimed that it is a conspiracy...

The point that I try to make here is: let it be street racing laws or gun control laws, many of them are placed so that the government can say to the public that they are aware of the issue, and they are doing something about it.
Hence whether if they are effective is questionable.
Many laws are there so that the public will stop whining, not because whether if they are actually effective.

Point in case:
OPP is aware of the fact that they can get charged...
Have their habit changed? no.... otherwise you would not have stories like this.

[Rishi]

Off the top of my head Morin, Milgaard and Marshall. Oh and Baltovich. And of course Stephen Truscott. And that's just off the top of my head. Collectively they spent approx. 40-50 years in jail....and they were all innocent. Morin is the worst case of police bungling I've ever seen in this country...and not accidental bungling. If you haven't read 'Redrum the Innocent', I highly recommend it. That case wasn't just a 'mistake', that was pure and unadultered police misconduct at it's finest.
Morin was not only screwed by the police, but also by Crown prosecutors who blatantly violated disclosure rules, and the courts who allowed the farcical second trial to go ahead.

Frankly, he got screwed by almost every aspect of the criminal justice system.

[stuntman]

How are they sticking there necks out?

Police have to follow the law and dispense the law as written. Being that this officer was speeding 65 km/h over the speed limit and knowing that a police officer can quickly verify with dispatch. There was no reason to circumvent the way that HTA 172 was written.



Because, often, cops do not charge cops. The higher ups might not like it. Every hear of a whistle blower being harassed? Of course you have.



How would it be "non-descrete and improper"?


"Hey everybody I am checking up officer X they said they were on a call. Are they lying?"

possible response: "Yes, they are on a call. You look like a total ass now and have created distrust between you and your peers"

possible response: "No, they are on a call. Don't worry about that though we will change the logs to cover their butts. BTW you look like an ass now"


Do all charges regarding on duty officer, require the charging officer to wait for senior officials to launch an investigation in the matter?:lol:

"can I charge them or would it cause to much of an uproar?":lol:

What about a police officer doing there duty and following the law, the way it was written.

What's wrong with that concept?

1)cops generally do what their sargent directs them to do when it comes to enforcing the law. Sargents do what they are told to do by their higher ups. I guess you have never read one of the many news reports where the cops as an organization decide what laws they enforce.

2)Have you ever heard of the pressure to keep things in house and avoid embarrassment?

3)Seeking the counsel of the people your report to in touchy/problematic situations is wise.

What is lol about that?


As far as the speculation is concerned.....

If you know LE, you know its very hard to get a traffic ticket from your own kind. Being that their was already one recent case where an officer point out that an HTA 172 charge was used to single him out. Why would you not speculate the same thing isn't happening here?;)

How do you know LE? do you?
Because it is premature and I found the comments low end. There is so little information that all sorts of speculation can be made.......how about this for low end speculation:
the cop that issued the ticket was probably seeking revenge because that other cop turned his wife lesbo.

let the low end speculation fly!:cheesygri

sm

[Shaner]

Alright don't try to be the victim here. Like the guy said nobody hates the police. They just hate having to follow laws they don't like and, like he said, people are afraid of cops abusing their powers.

And, not that I care either way, how do you know how many innocent people go to jail? It's not like there's a big "innocent" stamped on their forehead during court proceedings.

How am I trying to be the victim? I'm not a cop and I don't know anyone that has anything to do with this situation. I'm simply pointing out the fact that there are a lot of police haters on this site. I don't see how you can deny such thing, just read some of the threads on this site that are about cops. You'll see a lot of posts that do nothing but call them "pigs", "oink" talk about them doing nothing but eating donuts all day, etc. That to me sounds like hate, but you can call it whatever you want I guess.

Like I said in this thread, i don't know how many innocent people have gone to jail, but due to the checks and balances in our system, I'm pretty confident innocent people aren't going to jail all the time. I'm confident it's a rare occasion when such a thing occurs.

[at1212b]

This was highly publicized before therefore the order was given from the top (Fantino) to go after/publicize any excessive speeding by police. So it could be a real straight forward case.

But there's a chance, that there is some kind of friction here (could be a departmental thing, even within the OPP) or some kind of discriminnation/revenge thing. Like the previous case, there had been many problems between other OPP officers and the OPP officer that was pulled over, with charges of racism going back and fourth (the previous cop was brown).

As for not being charged/penalized right away, the issue is, the other officer that was pulled over (Officer B) was also on duty. Therefore officer B also has legal powers to enforce the same laws the 'pulling' over officer (A) has. Officer B could have contended that she was responding to a call, emergency, catching up with another motorist, etc (some other reason given for speeding that is 'related' to her job function).

So to be certain, I also assume A would have needed to clear with a dispatcher or other methods (including a investigation) to follow-through and make sure A was in proper position and justification to do so.

Also, In essense, Officer B could have by virtue of her position/authority of being a Cop could have tried to have flexed her muscles and charge/threaten or attempt to charge Officer A with a form of interference. Or could have given that impression that could have happened which then Officer A would also have to take seriously because of B's legal authoritative power.

A officer can essentially do anything at a moment and others would have to listen, but obviously would get in trouble by their superiors or courts afterwards if it wasn't warranted.

[kendrew]

what's point of impounding the cruiser..?

Wait... they're impounding the police car, which is public property. Making the current OPP not able to use that vehicle, costing taxpayer money... well there are better ways to waste money...

[iplom]

Wait... they're impounding the police car, which is public property. Making the current OPP not able to use that vehicle, costing taxpayer money... well there are better ways to waste money...

I believe they are bound by law to impound the vehicle, it may not be the right move but they likely don't have a choice in the matter, the legislation written probably never considered police vehicles being impounded for violating the law.

[Kommander_KornFlakes]

what's point of impounding the cruiser..?

It's just a sham to make people believe that they are "tough" with their own kind.... yeah right :rolleyes:

P.S. the only reason why this female cop was busted was because she was fat & ugly, if she had been a pretty blonde officer believed me we wouldn't even have heard about it.


-

[Nikita]

First of all, I have never claimed that it is a conspiracy...

The point that I try to make here is: let it be street racing laws or gun control laws, many of them are placed so that the government can say to the public that they are aware of the issue, and they are doing something about it.
Hence whether if they are effective is questionable.
Many laws are there so that the public will stop whining, not because whether if they are actually effective.

Point in case:
OPP is aware of the fact that they can get charged...
Have their habit changed? no.... otherwise you would not have stories like this.

Point in case:
The general public is aware of the fact they can get charged...
Have they all changed their 'habits'? No...otherwise we would not have any stories of anybody being charged.

See why I'm having a hard time getting your point?

I could maybe understand your position that this law was passed only to satisfy the public if nobody was ever charged under it, but the fact that they've laid charges kinda tells me it's about as effective as any other law. I guess it all depends on how you measure effectiveness. You could say the same about any law, that they were passed only to let the public think the government is aware of a problem and is doing something about it. If people, including cops, are being charged under any laws, I don't know how you can say they aren't effective. So, sorry, but I'm just not getting your point at all...:confused: Maybe you can give me an example of a law that, in your opinion, is effective and not just meant to fool the public??

[Chuck Chorus]

It's just a sham to make people believe that they are "tough" with their own kind.... yeah right :rolleyes:

P.S. the only reason why this female cop was busted was because she was fat & ugly, if she had been a pretty blonde officer believed me we wouldn't even have heard about it.


-

hahahahhahaha!

you know, I never thought about it that way you know lol

[edgedamage]

It's just a sham to make people believe that they are "tough" with their own kind.... yeah right :rolleyes:

P.S. the only reason why this female cop was busted was because she was fat & ugly, if she had been a pretty blonde officer believed me we wouldn't even have heard about it.


-
You still live in your parents basement?

[Ebola]

hahahahhahaha!

you know, I never thought about it that way you know lol

That's because your not a idiotic troll.

[camber]

Because, often, cops do not charge cops. The higher ups might not like it. Every hear of a whistle blower being harassed? Of course you have.

Right... So when should the police follow the law:lol:




"Hey everybody I am checking up officer X they said they were on a call. Are they lying?"

possible response: "Yes, they are on a call. You look like a total ass now and have created distrust between you and your peers"

possible response: "No, they are on a call. Don't worry about that though we will change the logs to cover their butts. BTW you look like an ass now"

Remind what a police officer's job is?

Don't the same rules apply to everyone?

:lol:


1)cops generally do what their sargent directs them to do when it comes to enforcing the law. Sargents do what they are told to do by their higher ups. I guess you have never read one of the many news reports where the cops as an organization decide what laws they enforce.

2)Have you ever heard of the pressure to keep things in house and avoid embarrassment?

3)Seeking the counsel of the people your report to in touchy/problematic situations is wise.

What is lol about that?


:lol:

Have you ever heard of following the law?

Do you know that police are supposed to follow the law is written?



How do you know LE? do you?
Because it is premature and I found the comments low end. There is so little information that all sorts of speculation can be made.......how about this for low end speculation:
the cop that issued the ticket was probably seeking revenge because that other cop turned his wife lesbo.

let the low end speculation fly!:cheesygri

sm

You're are correct that the information is low.

However, from recent cases we have seen that the OPP has purposely kept information to a minimal on contentious cases/issues. We won't know the grizzly details until the court case comes about.

In the meantime, I see no reason why not to fill in the blanks. If it such a clear cut case, they should be much more forthcoming with information;)

[dealmeone]

This only proves that the police are NOT above the law. If any would-be officers are thinking about getting on the job just so they can break the law and get away with it, then they had better think twice and become a judge instead.....or an American financial advisor or ex-football player (they get away with murder).

[camber]

This only proves that the police are NOT above the law.

They didn't follow the law. If you're going to charge someone under HTA 172 the license suspension and impoundment are immediate. Their are no special limitations written in for police.

The charging officer could have used another law, if they didn't want to enforce HTA 172, the way it was written.

[Shaner]

They didn't follow the law. If you're going to charge someone under HTA 172 the license suspension and impoundment are immediate. Their are no special limitations written in for police.

The charging officer could have used another law, if they didn't want to enforce HTA 172, the way it was written.

You just don't get it do you. The law was followed exactly as it was written. As per HTA 172, the car shall be impounded and the license shall be suspended immediately upon the charge being filed. Considering there was an investigation first to determine whether charges should be brought forth, the officer wasn't charged at the time she was pulled over. When charges were brought forth, the car was impounded and her license was suspended immediately, just like the law states shall happen.

No where does the law state that an officer must charge someone immediately upon pulling them over. If the officer needs to do an investigation first, then so be it, as long as the license is suspended immediately upon the charges being brought forth, then the law was followed exactly as it is written, despite what you are trying to have people believe.

It's actually pretty simply to figure out.

[stuntman]

Right... So when should the police follow the law:lol:

Remind what a police officer's job is?
Don't the same rules apply to everyone?
:lol:
:lol:

Have you ever heard of following the law?
Do you know that police are supposed to follow the law is written?


The police officers job: to keep the peace and uphold the law as they are instructed to. The job is NOT to enforce the law as written.

We are talking about enforcing the law, not following the law. We all know they are supposed to follow the law, but, like much of society to not follow all rules 100%

It is clear that you not taking into account workplace dynamics and political considerations. Law enforcement is not black and white. Your argument is excessively idealistic and does not work in the real world.

Keep this in mind. Stick with your principles/ideals:
If you ever get caught (you were doing it) and a ticket for jay walking, speeding, parking or any offence no matter how petty don't complain about it. Not a single word, not an excuse to the cop either. Plead guilty right on the spot.

I am out.

SM

[camber]

The police officers job: to keep the peace and uphold the law as they are instructed to. The job is NOT to enforce the law as written.

Well, unfortunately when you decide to charge someone under a specific law. You have to enforce the the law the way it was written!

We are talking about enforcing the law, not following the law. We all know they are supposed to follow the law, but, like much of society to not follow all rules 100%


It is clear that you not taking into account workplace dynamics and political considerations. Law enforcement is not black and white. Your argument is excessively idealistic and does not work in the real world.

Keep this in mind. Stick with your principles/ideals:
If you ever get caught (you were doing it) and a ticket for jay walking, speeding, parking or any offence no matter how petty don't complain about it. Not a single word, not an excuse to the cop either. Plead guilty right on the spot.

I am out.

SM

:lol:

You gave me a good laugh. I love the fact that you are dismissing a law due to, "workplace dynamics and political considerations."

If I ever get charged with HTA 172 violation will you come to my defense and argue that the immediate license suspension shouldn't apply to me "workplace dynamics and political considerations." :lol:

So, I guess don't support HTA 172;)

[Whitedart]

You just don't get it do you. The law was followed exactly as it was written. As per HTA 172, the car shall be impounded and the license shall be suspended immediately upon the charge being filed. Considering there was an investigation first to determine whether charges should be brought forth, the officer wasn't charged at the time she was pulled over. When charges were brought forth, the car was impounded and her license was suspended immediately, just like the law states shall happen.

No where does the law state that an officer must charge someone immediately upon pulling them over. If the officer needs to do an investigation first, then so be it, as long as the license is suspended immediately upon the charges being brought forth, then the law was followed exactly as it is written, despite what you are trying to have people believe.

It's actually pretty simply to figure out.

Yes, and everyone is very quick to forget that the charging officer has up to 30 days under Part1, or up to 6 months under Part 3, of Ontario's Provincial Offences Act to lay that charge.

This does not require the charge to be laid at the time of the offence, but it is usually more convenient to do so.

[camber]

You just don't get it do you. The law was followed exactly as it was written. As per HTA 172, the car shall be impounded and the license shall be suspended immediately upon the charge being filed.

:confused:

Where's that part in HTA 172?

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.


It literally takes seconds to call dispatch and find out if someone is responding to something. If this was a clear cut case, it wouldn't take an investigation after the fact to determine if the car was responding or not.

While it is legal, to wait to charge someone with an offence. I've never seen or heard this be done to an ordinary citizen for an HTA 172 charge. The only people that have these delayed charges are police and it completely reeks of a double standard.

The charging officer has many real time ways, of confirming if the other officer was responding or not.

[Whitedart]

:confused:

It literally takes seconds to call dispatch and find out if someone is responding to something. If this was a clear cut case, it wouldn't take an investigation after the fact to determine if the car was responding or not.

While it is legal, to wait to charge someone with an offence. I've never seen or heard this be done to an ordinary citizen for an HTA 172 charge. The only people that have these delayed charges are police and it completely reeks of a double standard.

The charging officer has many real time ways, of confirming if the other officer was responding or not.

No, it is not that clear and simple.

Read the original post again.

>>>>>
The OPP said today an OPP intelligence officer has been charged with speeding after getting caught speeding 65 km over the limit.

Brant County OPP clocked the unmarked cruiser doing 165 km/h in a 100 zone on Highway 403 Jan. 31.

Detective Constable Heidi Fischer, who has been with the OPP four years, was on duty at the time.
>>>>>


For the charging officer, an Intelligence officer that claims to be on duty, driving a non standard leased police vehicle as many of the intell officers do, and not on regular radio bands, cannot be as easily verified as you indicate.

[stuntman]

If I ever get charged with HTA 172 violation will you come to my defense and argue that the immediate license suspension shouldn't apply to me "workplace dynamics and political considerations." :lol:

So, I guess don't support HTA 172;)

So much for your argued principle of following the law 100%.
Through this whole thread you have been talking out of your butt. Either you don't have a clue or are just trying to stir it up.

Are you a regular troll or are you just acting like one on this thread?

thats it from me.....I think your being a troll and should not be responding to you. You are lacking in credibility today and likely in the future.

sm

[Whitedart]

I've been saying it since I joined this site, the "blue wall" came down a long time ago. Sure, some cops will still ignore certain offences committed by other cops, but over the last decade or so, the mentality that cops must protect each other has been slowly easing it's way out of policing.

It really doesn't make sense to impound that cruiser though. I know that will satisfy the demands of the police haters (many, but not all), but if you think rationally, it doesn't make any sense.

The car has very likely been impounded in their own compound, and any related costs will be attributed to that officer.

What everyone seems to forget here as well is that this speeding charge and suspension will apply to the officer's drivers license and personal car insurance.
Given the comments in the car insurance threads about convictions on RFD, I would expect she will be sent off to Facility insurance if convicted on this charge.
Police officers do not receive any breaks on personal car insurance because they are officers.

[camber]

No, it is not that clear and simple.

Read the original post again.

>>>>>
The OPP said today an OPP intelligence officer has been charged with speeding after getting caught speeding 65 km over the limit.

Brant County OPP clocked the unmarked cruiser doing 165 km/h in a 100 zone on Highway 403 Jan. 31.

Detective Constable Heidi Fischer, who has been with the OPP four years, was on duty at the time.
>>>>>


For the charging officer, an Intelligence officer that claims to be on duty, driving a non standard leased police vehicle as many of the intell officers do, and not on regular radio bands, cannot be as easily verified as you indicate.

Really?

What should a police officer do when responding to an emergency situation 65 km/h?

What would be appropriate time to find out this kind of information?

Minutes, hours, days, a week?

[camber]

So much for your argued principle of following the law 100%.
Through this whole thread you have been talking out of your butt. Either you don't have a clue or are just trying to stir it up.

Are you a regular troll or are you just acting like one on this thread?

thats it from me.....I think your being a troll and should not be responding to you. You are lacking in credibility today and likely in the future.

sm

:lol:

I' m just applying your logic. If the police can delay handing out a charge that should have been given out on the roadside to one of their own. Why can't they do this for the average joe?

I'm sure the average joe would appreciate having the charging officers work, checked over and verified in a more exhaustive way. To make sure the charge is valid;)

[camber]

Anyways, you guys are missing the big picture.

Fantino came out and said that they wanted to be more accountable then they had in the with other police and HTA 172 charges. Basically, Fantino wanted to show that the law was being applied evenly to all people.

Face value, it appears that the OPP has stuck to its words. However, the OPP have left out key details on how they investigated this offence.

Why did it 10 days from the time of the original offence, to figure out and charge a police officer for driving over 65 km/h over the posted speed limit?

Does it really take 10 days to figure out, if an officer was responding to an event which required exceeding the speed limit by 65 km/h?

Sure Fantino wants to show that their is parity in the system and that people are being treated equally. However, its kind of hard to that when your taking 10 days to figure out what to do to one of your own. When that decision probably takes less then a second, when it is a regular citizen.

BTW - Why didn't the police release when the incident occured and the highway conditions? When HTA 172 was first used, the OPP would paint offenders with most negative brush they could.

[Chuck Chorus]

That's because your not a idiotic troll.

Come on now.

Theres no reason to simply dismiss what Kommander has to say simply because he is straight up about it.

He doesn't pull any punches when voicing his observations/opinions

At least give him some credit for not beating around the bush about things.

In fact... I gotta say there is a trace of reality in what he says sometimes

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17369873/

[WontonTiger]

I've been saying it since I joined this site, the "blue wall" came down a long time ago. Sure, some cops will still ignore certain offences committed by other cops, but over the last decade or so, the mentality that cops must protect each other has been slowly easing it's way out of policing.

They just didn't like this woman. Well liked cops still enjoy the "blue wall."


It really doesn't make sense to impound that cruiser though. I know that will satisfy the demands of the police haters (many, but not all), but if you think rationally, it doesn't make any sense.

Sounds like you're saying this law doesn't make any sense? This law isn't rational.

[wiggy]

It's just a sham to make people believe that they are "tough" with their own kind.... yeah right :rolleyes:

P.S. the only reason why this female cop was busted was because she was fat & ugly, if she had been a pretty blonde officer believed me we wouldn't even have heard about it.-

How is it a sham that they're following the law? If they'd have released the vehicle the whigning would be from the other direction.

It may or may not be a fatal, but she did a big time dumbass thing. She has seriously compromised her career and will be years recovering from this. And she's probably in a worse off position than the average citizen because of the nature of her work. Dumb choice, serious consquences.

Your remark is mindlessly cynical. And your comment about the cop and her appearance is hugely off base.

[Nikita]

:confused:

Where's that part in HTA 172?




It literally takes seconds to call dispatch and find out if someone is responding to something. If this was a clear cut case, it wouldn't take an investigation after the fact to determine if the car was responding or not.

While it is legal, to wait to charge someone with an offence. I've never seen or heard this be done to an ordinary citizen for an HTA 172 charge. The only people that have these delayed charges are police and it completely reeks of a double standard.

The charging officer has many real time ways, of confirming if the other officer was responding or not.

Y'know, I really don't understand why you're so pissed about a delay in laying the charge or the fact that the police decided to investigate first. She got charged, she got the same penalty as anyone else. Who cares if it was 10 days later, hell maybe the supervisor was on vacation or something, could have been any number of reasons. But why are you hanging your every word on the fact that the charge was delayed. She didn't benefit in any way from a delay in laying the charges. I just don't get why you find this so problematic. If they were trying to play favourites, they would have found a way to not charge her at all. She got charged, who cares if it was 10 days after the fact?

[Krox]

Y'know, I really don't understand why you're so pissed about a delay in laying the charge or the fact that the police decided to investigate first. She got charged, she got the same penalty as anyone else. Who cares if it was 10 days later, hell maybe the supervisor was on vacation or something, could have been any number of reasons. But why are you hanging your every word on the fact that the charge was delayed. She didn't benefit in any way from a delay in laying the charges. I just don't get why you find this so problematic. If they were trying to play favourites, they would have found a way to not charge her at all. She got charged, who cares if it was 10 days after the fact?

Exactly. The cop laying the charges maybe had other duties to attend to first. Maybe he had to go to court or follow up on other investigations.

Imagine if the cop dropped everything just to pursue this, people would be complaining that the cops are wasting time on this law instead of catching 'real' criminals.

[UncleSteve]

P.S. the only reason why this female cop was busted was because she was fat & ugly, if she had been a pretty blonde officer believed me we wouldn't even have heard about it.

-

Theres no reason to simply dismiss what Kommander has to say simply because he is straight up about it.

He doesn't pull any punches when voicing his observations/opinions

In fact... I gotta say there is a trace of reality in what he says sometimes


Then KKF should have no problem finding an actual picture of Det. Con. Heidi Fischer to back up his claim that she's fat & ugly. If not, he should just STFU.

[weedb0y]

You're absolutely right, I don't deny innocent people have and do go to jail, but my post was responding to r0binh00d making it sound like innocent people go to jail on a regular basis. Although it's impossible to determine how many innocent people have in fact gone to jail, I suspect it's a rare occasion when such a thing occurs, especially with the system that's in place today.

But at the same time, you will judge them as criminals while those folks have lost all of their lives for a crime that they never committed. I think this OPP officer should've been punished harder to set a detterrent. Cops are the examples of how it should work.

[Nikita]

It's just a sham to make people believe that they are "tough" with their own kind.... yeah right :rolleyes:

P.S. the only reason why this female cop was busted was because she was fat & ugly, if she had been a pretty blonde officer believed me we wouldn't even have heard about it.


-

A sham? You mean they didn't really take her cruiser and they didn't really suspend her license, and they didn't really charge her? It's all one big lie to look like they are being tough on their own? Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds.

As for your second paragraph, well what can I say, it's what I've come to expect from you when you have nothing of substance to say but feel compelled to say something anyway...:rolleyes:...which seems to be most of the time.

[camber]

:lol:Y'know, I really don't understand why you're so pissed about a delay in laying the charge or the fact that the police decided to investigate first. She got charged, she got the same penalty as anyone else. Who cares if it was 10 days later, hell maybe the supervisor was on vacation or something, could have been any number of reasons. But why are you hanging your every word on the fact that the charge was delayed. She didn't benefit in any way from a delay in laying the charges. I just don't get why you find this so problematic. If they were trying to play favourites, they would have found a way to not charge her at all. She got charged, who cares if it was 10 days after the fact?

Really?

It's problematic because it is not how regular citizens get treated and Fantino wants to show parity on this charges. The OPP had bungled 2-3 known charges before this..

What do the people that have been left on the side of road by the OPP?

That instantly have to find alternative transportation, to where ever their going because they suddenly have no vehicle or license. I'm sure they would have appreciated being able to drive home and to work for 10 days. Also, this would have given more the enough time to make alternative transportation arrangements, in case they get charged.

Also, its against the spirit of this law, the licence suspension and vehicle impoundment were sold by OPP to be like impaired driving charges. To protect the public from an immediate threat.

It's complete bull, that the police took 10 days to figure out that if they should charge this officer. IMO, the police need to clear up what happened in those 10 days. That is far to long to investigate something of this nature.

However, I have already mentioned that something seems off.

[camber]

Exactly. The cop laying the charges maybe had other duties to attend to first. Maybe he had to go to court or follow up on other investigations.

Imagine if the cop dropped everything just to pursue this, people would be complaining that the cops are wasting time on this law instead of catching 'real' criminals.


How long does it take to call someone to get confirmation, write a ticket and wait for a tow truck on a 400 series highway?

It has happen over 10,000 times and the police never seemed to have a problem. Unless, of course it is one of their own:lol:

[Krox]

How long does it take to call someone to get confirmation, write a ticket and wait for a tow truck on a 400 series highway?

It has happen over 10,000 times and the police never seemed to have a problem. Unless, of course it is one their own:lol:

For the general public there is really no legitimate reason for driving that fast. So there is no reason to investigate. Either the police caught you speeding or didn't. In this case there is the possibility that the offending officer had a legitimate reason. They could have lied and said they were responding to some incident. Maybe they were off duty but were called at home and needed to respond.

There are a number a reasons which may take more than a couple of minutes to verify. Should the cop wait at the side of the road for what 1 hour, 2 hours, 4 hours 24 hours for this one case? At this point it is not going to be a priority. Maybe the officer went away on vacation for 9 of the those 10 days? I don't think 10 days is really that long, especially since I don't know the details.

[camber]

For the general public there is really no legitimate reason for driving that fast. So there is no reason to investigate. Either the police caught you speeding or didn't.

Sure there is... An emergency situation.

There are a number a reasons which may take more than a couple of minutes to verify. Should the cop wait at the side of the road for what 1 hour, 2 hours, 4 hours 24 hours for this one case? At this point it is not going to be a priority. Maybe the officer went away on vacation for 9 of the those 10 days? I don't think 10 days is really that long, especially since I don't know the details.

Police wait all the time at the side of the road for hours. It is not an uncommon thing.

As far as the wait is concerned, being that the police have pubically bungled two of these charges already. You would think they would want to show more transparency and give a reason for taking 10 days to lay a speeding ticket;)

[Mayoo]

lol how hard is the "Administrative duties" ? if there is no pay-cut, they are doing this on purpose to get it :D

[Shaner]

Camber - You're absolutely hell bent on insisting that her license should have been suspended on the spot and the cruiser should have also been impounded on the spot. So try this one on for size.

Cop A sees an unmarked cruiser going 65 km over the speed limit. He pulls Cop B over and asks why she's driving so fast. Perhaps she says she's on a call, which depending on the nature of the call, could be verified with dispatch. But then again, perhaps she's part of a special task force (many cops are) and dispatch wouldn't be aware of what she was doing, nor would any regular constables be privy to such information. So in this case, Cop A would not be able to determine on his own whether or not Cop B was speeding as part of her duties.

Or another possible scenario. Cop B claims she saw a speeding motorist and was trying to catch up to it. Cop A asks for the license plate number, but cop B says she never got close enough to get it. At this point, there's just no way whether Cop A could verify the story or not.

In either of these scenarios, a formal investigation would need to be conducted in order to determine whether Cop B was speeding while in the course of her duties. A formal investigation would be done with a supervisor(s) present and union representation (as is her right) and it would be done at a later time so that she could receive disclosure of any information/evidence being used against her (as is also her right).

This is a necessary protocol in a situation like this because cops are permitted to speed in certain circumstances. Regular citizens are not permitted to speed under any circumstances, including emergency situations.

So that easily explains the 10 day period.

[stuntman]

Camber - You're absolutely hell bent on insisting that her license should have been suspended on the spot and the cruiser should have also been impounded on the spot. So try this one on for size.
.

The guy is playing everyone. Why bother. Either that or they are still in grade school...but at this point even if they are they are, they are still playing you.

sm

[jjzzbb]

Just curious, can she keep her job?

[Tomy]

Just curious, can she keep her job?

probably gets transferred to administrations or something similar.

to shaner's point, if she was chasing or on call to a situation in an unmarked vehicle, how come she can't turn the sirens on? all unmarked opp cars have those flashing lights in the front.. so i highly doubt she was doing something relating to protecting the safety..

i've seen too many cops doing dangerous manuvers, driving like a maniac, yet everytime they're caught, they have some type of excuse to get away with.

just the other night, i saw a cop gunning it towards a red jetta going approx 120ish.. he/she almost hit the car when he gunned it.. then turned on the siren to stop the jetta.. i see no reason why he had to ride his bumper to stop him...

[Nikita]

probably gets transferred to administrations or something similar.

to shaner's point, if she was chasing or on call to a situation in an unmarked vehicle, how come she can't turn the sirens on? all unmarked opp cars have those flashing lights in the front.. so i highly doubt she was doing something relating to protecting the safety..
i've seen too many cops doing dangerous manuvers, driving like a maniac, yet everytime they're caught, they have some type of excuse to get away with.

just the other night, i saw a cop gunning it towards a red jetta going approx 120ish.. he/she almost hit the car when he gunned it.. then turned on the siren to stop the jetta.. i see no reason why he had to ride his bumper to stop him...

Well we already know that she wasn't engaged in her lawful duties when she was speeding. Shaner's point was simply to point out a couple scenarios to explain why it might not have been known at the time she was caught. And, one of those scenarios was being part of a special task force that other police, including dispatch, wouldn't know about at the time she was caught. In those kind of a scenarios, in fact in any kind of undercover scenario, I can imagine plenty of reasons why a cop might not be using their siren or cherries.

[Whitedart]

to shaner's point, if she was chasing or on call to a situation in an unmarked vehicle, how come she can't turn the sirens on? all unmarked opp cars have those flashing lights in the front.. so i highly doubt she was doing something relating to protecting the safety..

With an intelligence officer getting caught here, my first thoughts were she was driving a non police vehicle (Accord, Pathfinder, BMW, or something similar), with no lights, no siren, no police radio. If police radio equipped, it would have been a non standard radio frequency that is not accessible to uniformed officers, and with different dispatch centers that are not connected, in the same manner that Toronto and the regional units are set up. But she was most likely using a cell phone.

The dispatch center would likely not know where she was or what she was doing, although it was indicated she was on duty. For the uniformed officer involved, that information would have to be confirmed later through their supervisor.


Well we already know that she wasn't engaged in her lawful duties when she was speeding. Shaner's point was simply to point out a couple scenarios to explain why it might not have been known at the time she was caught. And, one of those scenarios was being part of a special task force that other police, including dispatch, wouldn't know about at the time she was caught. In those kind of a scenarios, in fact in any kind of undercover scenario, I can imagine plenty of reasons why a cop might not be using their siren or cherries.

Yes, Shaner's is very likely correct here, but OPP's communication staff are not going to release details. I was surprised of the press release that she was even caught.

[Nikita]

With an intelligence officer getting caught here, my first thoughts were she was driving a non police vehicle (Accord, Pathfinder, BMW, or something similar), with no lights, no siren, no police radio. If police radio equipped, it would have been a non standard radio frequency that is not accessible to uniformed officers, and with different dispatch centers that are not connected, in the same manner that Toronto and the regional units are set up. But she was most likely using a cell phone.

The dispatch center would likely not know where she was or what she was doing, although it was indicated she was on duty. For the uniformed officer involved, that information would have to be confirmed later through their supervisor.




Yes, Shaner's is very likely correct here, but OPP's communication staff are not going to release details. I was surprised of the press release that she was even caught.

And I can understand their reluctance to do so...any undercover or other investigation she might currently be involved in could be compromised if further details were made public. How does that help anybody? And since they've already determined she wasn't engaged in her lawful duties at the time, any case that she was/is involved in is irrelevant.

[thrifty1]

Well we already know that she wasn't engaged in her lawful duties when she was speeding. Shaner's point was simply to point out a couple scenarios to explain why it might not have been known at the time she was caught. And, one of those scenarios was being part of a special task force that other police, including dispatch, wouldn't know about at the time she was caught. In those kind of a scenarios, in fact in any kind of undercover scenario, I can imagine plenty of reasons why a cop might not be using their siren or cherries.


"...we already know..." what ever happened with innocent till ?? Huh ? I do enjoy reading but we surely "know" nothing of this case, yet. :)
Not trying to pick, just reminding that it's not over till she sings.
Policing has become very political. I think that I have mentioned here before that from stories that you read you can usually believe the date to be correct, as to the rest ... something about three monkeys comes to mind.

[at1212b]

Its also highly possible that one department or unit really has no ideas what another unit does, or what their specific 'allowances' in response to how they handle their business and emergencies, thus requiring confirmation at a higher level also requiring more time.

Given such a strong focus on things from the brass, they will likely try to make a example of making sure procedures, notes, etc, are also above par to make sure the case does stick against one of their own.

[camber]

Camber - You're absolutely hell bent on insisting that her license should have been suspended on the spot and the cruiser should have also been impounded on the spot. So try this one on for size.

Cop A sees an unmarked cruiser going 65 km over the speed limit. He pulls Cop B over and asks why she's driving so fast. Perhaps she says she's on a call, which depending on the nature of the call, could be verified with dispatch. But then again, perhaps she's part of a special task force (many cops are) and dispatch wouldn't be aware of what she was doing, nor would any regular constables be privy to such information. So in this case, Cop A would not be able to determine on his own whether or not Cop B was speeding as part of her duties.

Or another possible scenario. Cop B claims she saw a speeding motorist and was trying to catch up to it. Cop A asks for the license plate number, but cop B says she never got close enough to get it. At this point, there's just no way whether Cop A could verify the story or not.

In either of these scenarios, a formal investigation would need to be conducted in order to determine whether Cop B was speeding while in the course of her duties. A formal investigation would be done with a supervisor(s) present and union representation (as is her right) and it would be done at a later time so that she could receive disclosure of any information/evidence being used against her (as is also her right).

This is a necessary protocol in a situation like this because cops are permitted to speed in certain circumstances. Regular citizens are not permitted to speed under any circumstances, including emergency situations.

So that easily explains the 10 day period.

That's interesting speculation. If this was the case, why not just say so?

Is it that really that hard?

I'm sorry even after reading your scenarios, it would not take almost two weeks to figure out if she was responding or not. The process just doesn't take that long, for something like a speeding ticket.

While it is still breaking the law for a normal citizen to speed in a true emergency situation, do you really think a judge would convict them?

[spf1971]

Well we already know that she wasn't engaged in her lawful duties when she was speeding.

I'm sure you meant to say "if she was speeding", seeing as how it hasn't been proven in court yet.

[camber]

Anyways, this goes back to my original point. This was poor case for the OPP to use to demonstrate parity with HTA 172 charges.

What happened to the OPP's media flare?

You know... Hang 'em out to dry, like they have done on so many to oridinary citizens.

They could have CP24 taping at the side of the highway, taking away their car and a pouty police officer. Cam Wooley going on a rant and Fantino patting himself on the back at a press conference.

There hasn't been one known HTA 172 against a police officer, where they were not treated differently then normal citizens facing the same charge.

[Nikita]

"...we already know..." what ever happened with innocent till ?? Huh ? I do enjoy reading but we surely "know" nothing of this case, yet. :)
Not trying to pick, just reminding that it's not over till she sings.
Policing has become very political. I think that I have mentioned here before that from stories that you read you can usually believe the date to be correct, as to the rest ... something about three monkeys comes to mind.

My bad indeed....I don't think there's a bigger fan of 'innocent till proven guilty' than me....which is why I haven't commented at all on her guilt or innocence. I don't think though that whether or not she was engaged in her duties at the time is even an issue. If it were, I doubt the police would have released any comment or information that she wasn't. They're not going to jeopardize a charge by commenting on an issue that's in dispute, at least not intentionally.

I'm sure you meant to say "if she was speeding", seeing as how it hasn't been proven in court yet.

Yikes, I got called out on that twice in such a few minutes...lol. Yes, I agree she hasn't been proven guilty of anything yet and I'm the first one to always insist on waiting till a person is actually proven guilty of something before assuming...so again, my bad!

[camber]

For the general public there is really no legitimate reason for driving that fast. So there is no reason to investigate. Either the police caught you speeding or didn't. In this case there is the possibility that the offending officer had a legitimate reason. They could have lied and said they were responding to some incident. Maybe they were off duty but were called at home and needed to respond.



Wanted to get back to this point. HTA 172 charges just don't deal with speed. There are many non speed gray area calls by charging police officer that would have benefitted from a 10 day investigation before laying a charge.

[camber]

I wonder what impound lot the car was towed too and what the fee was/is going to be?

Could always try submitting a Freedom of Information request;)

I'm sure the cruiser is being kept safely at the fantasyland impound lot:lol:

[Ebola]

probably gets transferred to administrations or something similar.

to shaner's point, if she was chasing or on call to a situation in an unmarked vehicle, how come she can't turn the sirens on? all unmarked opp cars have those flashing lights in the front.. so i highly doubt she was doing something relating to protecting the safety..

i've seen too many cops doing dangerous manuvers, driving like a maniac, yet everytime they're caught, they have some type of excuse to get away with.

just the other night, i saw a cop gunning it towards a red jetta going approx 120ish.. he/she almost hit the car when he gunned it.. then turned on the siren to stop the jetta.. i see no reason why he had to ride his bumper to stop him...


Not all OPP cars have light packages. Intel officers do alot of surveillance, which would require nothing on the car to give away the fact that it is a police car.

Edit : See Whitedart already beat me to it.

In the spirit of RFD I hope it's long and drawn out and she files an 11(b) charter challenge and gets off.

[camber]

In the spirit of RFD I hope it's long and drawn out and she files an 11(b) charter challenge and gets off.

IIRC, from known cases, not one OPP officer has been successfully convicted with a HTA 172 charge.

[thrifty1]

My bad indeed....I don't think there's a bigger fan of 'innocent till proven guilty' than me....which is why I haven't commented at all on her guilt or innocence. I don't think though that whether or not she was engaged in her duties at the time is even an issue. If it were, I doubt the police would have released any comment or information that she wasn't. They're not going to jeopardize a charge by commenting on an issue that's in dispute, at least not intentionally.



Yikes, I got called out on that twice in such a few minutes...lol. Yes, I agree she hasn't been proven guilty of anything yet and I'm the first one to always insist on waiting till a person is actually proven guilty of something before assuming...so again, my bad!

Reading this conjured up thoughts of the fourth monkey... no , not related to the hearno-seeno-speakno brothers, but " The Thinker " . I think that he was Darwin's but I could be wrong. He often comes to mind when reading about someone championing this or that in the field of medicine but I'll make an exception here and include him with one in law and politics ? :)
It's enjoyable to read that which even though it might be nasty put forth in a positive and thoughtful way.

[Nikita]

Not all OPP cars have light packages. Intel officers do alot of surveillance, which would require nothing on the car to give away the fact that it is a police car.

Edit : See Whitedart already beat me to it.

In the spirit of RFD I hope it's long and drawn out and she files an 11(b) charter challenge and gets off.

HA! Well well Ebola! Aren't you just a little ****disturber...lol!

[Whitedart]

In the spirit of RFD I hope it's long and drawn out and she files an 11(b) charter challenge and gets off.

Yes, she could be lurking here on RFD already reading all those threads about how to beat your ticket. This is one of the first sites that appears on a Google search.

[camber]

The car was not impounded. Well, are there any police run impound lots in Ontario?:lol:

Ross said the cruiser is impounded in a police facility rather than a public pound for security reasons.


http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/02/12/8362726-sun.html

So, it is sitting at a station being used right now:lol:

I'm sure may high end car owners, would have loved to have their car stored in the same fee-less impound lot, where they wouldn't have to fear their car being torn apart. Of course for "security reasons":lol:

[speedway84]

I'm surprised that no one is wondering if this person will lose their job.

Say you work for a company and you are caught speeding at 165 KM/H in a company car. The company car is impounded for a week. Do you get to keep your job?

I'd say no - since you had a company car, part of your job description / requirements requires you to have valid driver's license which is now suspended. If I owned a company that promoted public safety, and found out (let alone it hits the news) that an employee and your company car were caught speeding at at 165KM/H, I would fire the employee.

[camber]

Exactly!

Alot of jobs that require you to drive, you would loose you license over a charge like this.

Anyways, it is a bit worrying that the police publicly advertised circumvention of this law. HTA 172 specifies quite clearly that the car has to go to an impound lot. A "police facility" is not an impound lot.

If you ever get an HTA 172 charge, remember to get the vehicle towed to the "police facility".

[fastlayne]

I'm surprised that no one is wondering if this person will lose their job.

Say you work for a company and you are caught speeding at 165 KM/H in a company car. The company car is impounded for a week. Do you get to keep your job?

I'd say no - since you had a company car, part of your job description / requirements requires you to have valid driver's license which is now suspended. If I owned a company that promoted public safety, and found out (let alone it hits the news) that an employee and your company car were caught speeding at at 165KM/H, I would fire the employee.

And if that company vehicle was a specialized service truck/van - I would think the employer would be suing the employee for lost revenue.

[camber]

Also, just because the person is an intelligence officer, its speculation on many previous posters to assume that they were undercover.

http://www.opp.ca/Organization/InvestigationsOrganizedCrime/opp_000458.html

Can anyone tell me which division of the intelligence bureau she was with?

Also, it is speculation on other previous posters(Whitedart) that the car was a special unmarked, undercover car. In fact, from the press release the OPP describe it as just an "unmarked OPP vehicle." Here is the official OPP news release:

OPP officer charged
ORILLIA, ON, Feb. 10 /CNW/ - The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) has
charged a member of the OPP for driving a police vehicle while on duty in
excess of the posted speed limit.
On January 31, 2009 Brant County OPP stopped the unmarked OPP vehicle on
Highway 403 for driving 165 km/hour in a posted 100 km/hour zone. The
subsequent investigation found that the officer was not within the lawful
execution of her duties at the time.
Detective Constable Heidi Fischer was charged with Driving 50 km/hour or
more over the posted speed limit, contrary to Section 172 of the Highway
Traffic Act.
The officer's driver's licence was suspended for the required 7 days and
the OPP unmarked vehicle was impounded for 7 days.
Detective Constable Fischer is a 4 year member of the OPP posted to
Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau at General Headquarters in Orillia
and will appear in Provincial Offences Court in Brantford on March 24, 2009.




For further information: Inspector Dave Ross, Deputy Director, Corporate
Communications Bureau, Phone: (705) 329-6874



http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2009/10/c7132.html

[Whitedart]

Also, just because the person is an intelligence officer, its speculation on many previous posters to assume that they were undercover.

Can anyone tell me which division of the intelligence bureau she was with?

Also, it is speculation on other previous posters(Whitedart) that the car was a special unmarked, undercover car. In fact, from the press release the OPP describe it as just an "unmarked OPP vehicle."

Yes, it may all be speculation, but if OPP's Communications Bureau felt the general public needed to know all the intricate details of this incident, they would have included those details in their press release.

Further detail may or may not come out once a court disposition has been completed. As an officer, she would be familiar with the case law on Canlii, and the various charter arguments available to her defence.

And what difference does it make what division of the intelligence bureau she was with? Again, if it impacted the general public, that information would have been included in the press release, otherwise it would be released on a need to know basis.

[stuntman]

hahahahahaha.

One day there is going to be a newspaper article that in its entirety will say:

Cops arrested. Details to follow.

that one article will result in a thread that is 350 pages long!

[camber]

Yes, it may all be speculation, but if OPP's Communications Bureau felt the general public needed to know all the intricate details of this incident, they would have included those details in their press release.

They kept details out of the media for previous HTA 172 cases involving OPP officers. However, when the details came out in court, in those two cases, it wasn't something extraordinary. Granted, the details of those two cases were embarassing to the OPP and the way they conducted themselves.

Further detail may or may not come out once a court disposition has been completed. As an officer, she would be familiar with the case law on Canlii, and the various charter arguments available to her defence.

That what happened in the previous two HTA 172 cases involving OPP officers. There, was nothing secret or nothing that would mess up an on going investigation in those instances. We still had the same vague OPP media briefings, with a slip of information here and there(we impounded the car! errr... wait... no it is sitting at the OPP HQ in Orilla. Last time I checked that wasn't an impound lot!)

And what difference does it make what division of the intelligence bureau she was with?

That was to point out that most of what the Intelligence bureau does is super secret undercover stuff. Therefore, if you were to speculate what this officer's duty was, it is probably not something that remarkable or need to know level.

Again, if it impacted the general public, that information would have been included in the press release, otherwise it would be released on a need to know basis.

Again, that is not in line with the OPP handling of HTA 172 charges in the media with normal citizens. When the OPP puts these charge out there, they seem to air out all of that driver's details. Why stop when its a police officer?

If Fantino/OPP truly wanted to show parity when charging an officer. They would have gone to the same lengths to paint a negative brush as they do with other drivers. They didn't impound the car, it took them 10 days to figues out something simple and they haven't hammered this officer in the media, like they do to regular drivers facing the same charge.

C'mon, don't want to hear Fantino throwing around the old tombstones and bragging about how they took one more crazy street racer off the road?;):lol:

[camber]

hahahahahaha.

One day there is going to be a newspaper article that in its entirety will say:



that one article will result in a thread that is 350 pages long!

Blame that on the OPP. It's in the OPP's best interest to be as transparent as possible.

Where there's smoke there's fire.....

In the two previous cases of HTA 172 charges against one of their own, they did the same thing.

Even though Fantino/OPP wanted to show they were getting tough on their own, unlike the previous two cases. From what little information we do know, it looks like more of the same when handling with these types of charges. The OPP, when one of their own is involved, are still not handling these charges with any kind of parity.

So much for Fantino's word, on treating his officers the same as everyone else.