Justice and fairness are becoming more and more mutually exclusive. A tilting of the scales unfairly on the side of police is never a good thing; especially when BC is on the verge of implementing OSMV (Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) appointed arbitrators to replace the courts for traffic ticket disputes. In the last few years, police in BC have been given incredible power, culminating with their authority (and obligation) to seize motor vehicles for the charge of an offence such as excessive speed which is defined in the MVA as 40 kph over the posted speed limit (limits which most drivers on many BC highways indicate with their right feet they cannot comply with). A police officer now, more than ever, can ruin your life on a simple charge (not a conviction). He (or she) can say what he wants. He or she can do it simply because the motivation is, shall we say, less than pure... and there is virtually not a damn thing you can do about it. It is your word against theirs.
Many people are surprised to learn that, with respect to speeding infractions, police don't need to provide any empirical or objective evidence to support a charge. All they need to do is say that you were speeding and that they made a visual speed estimate; and the courts are accepting this to convict drivers. This being the case, it kind of begs the question why we spend all this money to equip police with equipment to measure evidence.
Just over a year ago, I was driving a lone vehicle on Hwy 99, heading into Whistler Village late at night in a 60 kph zone when an RCMP cruiser rounded a corner 200 meters in front of me in the pitch black. The emergency lights went on before she passed me and she made a U turn to pull me over before I had even completed the 200 meters. It was obvious to me she was on a fishing trip, as she asked me if I'd been drinking (I found out she is a member of Alexa's Team which gets recognized for their efforts in collaring drunks). Then, satisfied that I was not impaired, she produced a ticket for 80 k in a 60 k zone and told me she was citing me for speeding. When I asked her for corroborative proof of her charge (I knew she didn't have it because I was not speeding), she told me, no surprise, there was none. Funny that she had no objective evidence, as nearly all RCMP cruisers are equipped with RADAR; but I digress and the subject of why we supply police with expensive evidence gathering equipment if it's now not necessary is a subject for another blog post. I then expressed my surprise that she would be able to produce an accurate visual speed estimate for a vehicle directly approaching her in the pitch black.
She (RCMP accuser) was a no show when I went to court, which ironically the presiding JP was the same one who convicted me for unnecessary noise. I had my defense ready, however I knew going into it there was a better than 50 per cent chance she would be successful in making the charge stick as the burden of proof required by BC courts these days has been getting lower and lower.
So back to my case which you can read about in my blog Motorcycle Noise: Never let the facts get in the way of a good story (containing links to The Province story and editorial). I was virtually idling down Beach Avenue on a sunny fall day in 2009, when a motorcycle cop did a u-turn, followed me, apprehended me and then refused to tell me why he had stopped me. It was only after he'd got off his motorcycle, walked around the other side of my bike and remarked at the make of my exhaust that he told me he was going to test my pipes. Subsequently, he asked me to rev my bike roughly 30% louder than anything he had previously heard from me for an "objective" roadside noise test. The noise test was conducted while using a personal (and prohibited) noise meter while ignoring VPD published guidelines for testing.
Two courts have now confirmed that VPD Constable John Bercic's evidence was sufficient to levy a fine and penalty points under S 7a.01 of the MVA. His evidence, the courts convicted me with, consisted of the following statement: "... my attention was drawn to a loud exhaust noise..." and "... it sounded at least twice as loud as a stock exhaust system."
That's it. Nothing else was required, according to a Provincial Court JP and a Supreme Court Justice.
But since the charge referred to the operation of the motor vehicle (and I had not made any noise to attract Bercic's attention) and not an equipment deficiency, I attempted FIVE TIMES to cross examine Bercic to get him to qualify his accusation to find out exactly what he thought he heard, but I was repeatedly shut down by Judicial Justice Lim, who told me it was not relevant.
To me, that a cop would charge and the courts convict on evidence like that, while preventing qualification through cross examination, is bad enough. But wait, there's more. Bercic swore other corroborative evidence (again you can read about it here) that was at best useless, but at worst misleading (to put it politely) which I had to put significant time and effort into refuting. The JP in his Reasons for Judgement, I think, recognized Bercic's bad evidence but rather than recognize him to be the lousy witness that he was, with by now questionable credibility, and take my and my witness's evidence to the contrary, Lim simply ignored it by saying it wasn't relevant and referred back to the original subjective observation about "loud exhaust noise".
So I'd shown Bercic to be a bad witness by refuting his objective evidence. I then swore my own evidence to the contrary and produced a witness (riding with me at the time) who corroborated my version of the facts that there was no vehicle operation to produce any noise. Under these circumstances one might reasonably expect a dismissal of the charge. Yet I was convicted.
I know I am on the wrong side of public opinion where loud pipes are concerned. My dad (a retired lawyer) told me I was done the moment the court heard I had "Screamin' Eagle" pipes on my bike. However, let's not let biases get in the way of a fair trial. I believe JP Lim could not see the forest for the trees on this one. Before there was any decision from the Supreme Court, The Province editors got hold of this story and made me their poster boy for all that annoys them about loud pipes (all of it wrong about me). And, I am in a weird place because, oddly I don't like loud noise either. In fact I cringe when I hear it.
However, in BC the scales have been badly tipped in favour of police when it comes to evidence and this is not a good thing for either law enforcement or for those on the receiving end of police who abuse their power. This power and the abuses one might expect as a result will prove counter productive for all concerned.
