BristolUK

Well you could certainly make it sound like

Pulaski

In the moments after the wreck, the phone was "evidence" and the police were fully justified in holding it, at very least until it had been determined whether charges would be filed.

Alan2005

If you don't want the filth snooping at your phone, then p/w protect it and say you forgot how to unlock it.

Pulaski

Here's an idea, "get off the dämn phone and focus on driving, then you won't rear-end another vehicle."

sharkus

I'd say they should have obfuscated any personally identifying information and then posted the picture.

If there was a successful prosecution, ie; person found guilty, then also release their name. They deserve to be named and shamed. Perhaps it is the only way to make them realize how stupid they are for texting and driving,let alone being stupid enough to rear end a frigging police car.

caretaker

What successful prosecution? She got a ticket for $167 which means she signed it which means she admitted guilt. If there had been another charge laid regarding the collision and if she had chosen to plead not guilty I'm sure the first piece of evidence the prosecution would bring forth would be her confession "I just ran into a cop car, OMGGG"

dave_j

Let's have a canadian driver's intelligence test..
Q What do you do after you've just robbed a bank and been stopped by the cops at a roadblock.
A. Text your boyfriend. 'Have just robbed bank and now been stopped by the police. OOOoops just run into back of a police cruiser OMGGG didn't see it... Hope they don't publish my name or look at this phone.'

Anyone got any other questions?

Former Lancastrian

Some posters should acquaint themselves with the law before making claims about the Police had no authority to seize the phone

Seizure without warrant
(2) Every peace officer, and every public officer who has been appointed or designated to administer or enforce any federal or provincial law and whose duties include the enforcement of this or any other Act of Parliament, who is lawfully present in a place pursuant to a warrant or otherwise in the execution of duties may, without a warrant, seize any thing that the officer believes on reasonable grounds
(a) has been obtained by the commission of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament;
(b) has been used in the commission of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament; or
(c) will afford evidence in respect of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament.

scrubbedexpat091

I thought the signature on the ticket was just acknowledging you received it, but still had the right for court?

I've never gotten a ticket Canada, so no idea. The one ticket I did get in the US it said on it signing is not an admission of guilt and I still had the option to go to court. I opted to just pay it, the fine was small and wasn't worth going to court for.

Former Lancastrian

Correct you are signing for the ticket not admitting guilty to the offence.
You can dispute if you believe a ticket was issued unfairly, would like the fine to be reduced or the payment delayed.
How long you have to dispute:
You have 30 days to dispute a traffic ticket from the violation date.
You have 30 days to dispute a red light camera ticket that was served to you in person or 45 days to dispute a ticket received in the mail.
How to submit your dispute
In person
You or someone on your behalf can dispute in person. Bring your ticket to one of the following:
driver licensing office or
provincial court registry
http://www.icbc.com/driver-licensing...s/dispute.aspx

sharkus

In which case, if she has admitted guilt and there is no further case, then name and shame.

caretaker

As per the original link, the police removed her identity because people were leaving nasty comments on twitter and their objective was to inform, not promote vigilantism. In Regina a politician was caught talking on his phone at a spot check and he had to pay the fine and give interviews, but he was a good sport about it.

Alan2005

I'm surprised that people agree with the police making up punishments for things. It's a slippery slope - next they'll be shooting people for being mentally ill or black or something.

Oink

In the old days they just used to give you a thick ear and send you off home and that would deb the end of if it. Now all these liberal do-gooders are banging on about criminals rights and due process and stuff rather than protecting the public from their criminality. PC gone mad again and again.

neilg14

This new law that came in Jan1 has not made 1 iota of difference to the amount of people calling/texting.
I drive about 5 miles on the Deerfoot, 8 times a night and I can see down into cars from my cab and it's incredible how many people are still calling/texting/ FB/Youtube on their phones/tablets/laptops etc.
Most of them are more sneaky, having the device on their laps, passenger seats, or the centre console where a Police officer couldn't see it.
In the UK, more & more Police forces are hiring Tractor units and have 2 officers in the cab, 1 driving and 1 filming, they then radio to a patrol car that pulls the driver over.
They could do with that here.