To brief you in the story: was driving my car without a front license plate. Was stopped at the roadblock and had a conversation with an officer, who mentioned that I don't have a front license plate number and asked me to install it asap and wished me a good way. Next officer which was in 2 meters down the road stopped me too and asked me why don't a have a license plate number and issued my a ticket. I decided to dispute the allegation.
Was wondering if my idea to claim that I didn't have a chance to do what the first officer told me to do and got a ticket from a second one immediately makes sense and could be a reason to either reduce the ticket or dismiss it.
I found its pretty hard to dispute this ticket because I had no front plate and it is quite obvious.
Well, at its simplest, you are correct. If you did not display a front licence plate as required you are guilty of what the ticket was written for. However, in the world of real people, the outcome of the dispute could be a bit different.
Back in the days when the Notice and Order was known as a Traffic Notice, it was printed with the advice that it did not authorize the operation of the vehicle with the identified defects. It was to be repaired immediately and then presented within X days to show that the repair had been made. I watched a provincial court judge dismiss a traffic ticket issued on a subsequent date but before the expiry of the number of days to report.
If you have been a BC resident for any amount of time, I suspect that you would have trouble convincing the justice that you did not know the front plate was required. If you knew it was wrong in the first place, not getting time to comply with the order is not a strong argument.
Goodness knows, your dispute may be successful even though legally it should not.
Given the circumstances as you describe them, the second officer should have considered waiting to see if you ignored the repair order rather than issuing the ticket. If he had issued a repair order or ticket in past for this that you had not complied with, then he was perfectly within reason to do what he did.
- Log in to post comments
... that the first officer decided to show some discretion, but the second one didn't.
But what's the point of disputing the allegation, when you know that it's true?
- Log in to post comments
Regarding the issue of "officer discretion", I have the following questions.
What law or legal policy, if any, authorizes a police officer to exercise discretion as to whether or not s/he will enforce all laws or specific laws?
Who has the legal authority to authorize a police officer to exercise discretion as to whether or not s/he will enforce the law? Does a judge, attorney general or police chief have this authority?
Do all police officers have the discretion as to whether or not they will enforce the law? If not, which police officers have this discretion?
Under what conditions, if any, does a police officer have the discretion as to whether s/he will enforce a law?
What laws, if any, may a police officer exercise discretion in enforcing and what laws, if any, must be enforced without any discretion by a police officer?
Comment: If one police officer exercises discretion and another does not, this leads to inconsistancy in enforcement which does not appear to be fair to those upon whom the law is being enforced.
- Log in to post comments
Discretion is exercised by more than the officer at the roadside. Crown Counsel exercises discretion every day when they decide which cases are likely to succeed and which are not. They enter a stay of proceedings on those that are not, regardless of the fact that after a trial it is possible that there would be a conviction. I cannot say for certain, but I expect that this would be part of what is called Common Law.
Some legislation such as our Motor Vehicle Act specifically removes discretion. Vehicle impounds are one case in point:
...the peace officer or another peace officer must
(g) cause the motor vehicle to be taken to and impounded at a place directed by the peace officer, and
If it said may instead of must, then the officer would be able to exercise discretion in the circumstances.
- Log in to post comments
Cut and dried, you have no front plate. You know, that the law in BC says you must. You get lucky and a cop doesn't give you a ticket. The next cop does.
So your problem is that the second cop gave you the ticket too soon after the first one let you off.
So if the second cop had issued the ticket later that day, or the next day it wouldn't have been OK ? Or should you be exempt from having a front plate for, a week ?, a month ?
- Log in to post comments
Why, oh why, do people insist on clogging up our courtrooms and wasting the very valuable time and cost of law enforcement, judges, administrative staff, janitorial staff, clerks, etc. to dispute a ticket for something they know they did wrong? Does everyone think they should get off on some ridiculous technicality (and this one is beyond ridiculous). Educate yourself on the laws of the land and live by them, or pay up when the fine is due.
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
Answer