> “I feel for the individual that was charged here. If he was literally in the … drive-thru area and not on a public roadway,” criminal lawyer Brian Pfefferle told CTV News.
And didn't complete the quote that is rather significant to the story. Was he or was he not on the public roadway? and what are the implications of that?
Can't determine that with the facts presented. Loads of drive-through lines back up into the street (which is a separate problem in itself) and the article doesn't say either way.
I have to think RCMP would know enough not to try and write tickets where they don't have jurisdiction, no? And if the guy wasn't in the street he would have said so to the reporter pretty quickly? Just dumb that the article didn't say either way, it's pretty important...
The article was recently updated with the RCMP's version of events:
> In a statement to CTV News, the Saskatchewan RCMP disagreed with Prima's version of events.
>"RCMP can confirm that on May 13, 2024 the individual was observed driving a vehicle on a public roadway while using a cellphone. A Combined Traffic Services Saskatchewan RCMP officer initiated a traffic stop with the individual. The individual then pulled in the McDonald’s parking lot, where the traffic violation was issued," the statement said.
Anything that does not use a single exit/ entrance point. Not one large enough for two way travel. On commercial property is considered part of the highways act. Cell phones, stop signs, yield signs, direction signs etc. all fair game. IN BC, probably everywhere.
His best and possible only defence is to go back to McDonald’s at the same time same day of the week. And count how many people don’t get tickets. Give that information to the Judge/JP. Then ask the officer how many cell phone tickets are issued in a drive through.
However I don’t think this was an accident. Probably more a case of, oh now I can catch him and give him a ticket for everything else? Because how many people go through drive through every day at every restaurant, bank machine and pinch/grab their phone. Which is the actual problem with this in BC. Or possibly his restrictions about cell use while driving at all. Based on the level of his license. Good story but hardly complete.
Yes, in the jurisdiction contracts with the RCMP to provide provincial/local policing services.
In this case, the RCMP are the provincial police force of Saskatchewan and can enforce provincial traffic laws - the same way the OPP can enforce laws in Toronto.
The OPP will not give you a ticket for driving the wrong way in a Walmart parking lot. It's private property and provincial traffic laws do not apply. By the logic of this officer, farm kids can be pulled over in the back forty for operating a farm truck without a license.
Yeah because different provinces and different traffic laws.
If the Highway Traffic Act or equivalent legislation indicates a section is enforceable in a parking lot, then it will be. For example, in Ontario, stunt driving laws were recently changed to apply on private property.
Well, if it's the case that that phone laws apply in the drive-through lane in Sask., there should be a permanent officer assigned to every drive-through lane in the province. The province's finances will immediately be boosted.
Or, they could change the legislation.
McDonald's is partially to blame here as well. They require you to open the app and give the cashier a temporary code in order to get rewards on drive thru orders. It's not like the Tim's rewards or literally any other rewards app where they scan a bar or QR code just before paying. You have to verbally give the person taking your order a temporary code before placing your order and you can only see that code when you open the app.
Dude... pitch this idea to the CBC as a limited series. Rookie homicide detective from Vancouver, BC gets caught up investigating a criminal conspiracy in Dildo, NL.
Sure, but keep in mind plenty of people walk away from charges all the time in Vancouver because the Transit Police investigated off transit property. You also don't need to be a cop to stop an ongoing crime.
According to this, any RCMP officer can issue any citation anywhere in Canada, and any police officer can issue a citation within their province:
https://www.xcopper.com/blog/driving-tips/ontario-driving-myths/
> Another example may be a Toronto Police officer pulling someone over for speeding in Ottawa. As it stands, a Toronto Police officer has full power to exercise the law should they see someone violating traffic ordinances throughout Ontario.
I don't know about the rules for constables. And you're right, any person can stop a crime but you have to follow citizen's arrest rules whereas a police officer still acts as a police officer.
This only applies to Ontario. Although in Saskatchewan, where this incident took place the RCMP do have the ability as you pointed out to write a ticket as that aspect is true across Canada.
https://pubsaskdev.blob.core.windows.net/pubsask-prod/archived/33602/1940-CH-97.pdf
> The commissioner and every other member of the force shall, unless the contrary shall appear in the instrument appointing him, be a constable for and have jurisdiction in and may perform his duties and execute process in any part of Saskatchewan.
Nope. Opp has no jurdisictipn outside of Ontario without prior approval unless for example the police chase started in Kenora and the chase went over the Ontario Manitoba border.
Then cops wonder why people think poorly of the service they provide.
- Ban quotas
- Audit arrests
- Force cops off the beat every 5 years, have them do community outreach to regain their humanity
- Require 4 year degree for officers
This would be very helpful. Insurance company actuaries would have the bad cops identified quickly. The only issue is that the union would want cities to pay for the insurance which would render the concept null. It’ll only work if the cops themselves had to pay the fees.
Also solvable. Increase pay by the amount of the median liability insurance. If an individual officer has a lower liability insurance, they effectively got a little bit of a pay raise. In not...
You might still run into desk jobs vs. traffic vs. other roles, but if you wanted to, you could address those issues as well. Build the median liability compensation into the pay on a per role basis or whatever.
Police do not have a union, because they are not workers bargaining with capital owners. They are mercenaries arguing over how much the elite are willing to spend for them to shoot the poors if they get too rowdy
I'm pro-union too, but if police are going to be treated as a special class in our system (and they are currently - don't know about you, but I'm not allowed to murder people on the job and then go on paid leave), then they need special rules applied.
Police officers have a monopoly on government allowed violence against other people. It might be better to treat that job a little differently than a bus driver, a teacher or a factory worker, no?
> The only issue is that the union would want cities to pay for the insurance which would render the concept null
Not necessarily. If a cop is "too expensive" they won't want to keep them on the force... and other forces won't want to keep them on as that cop's "risk level" would presumably carry over if they wanted to get hired at a different PD.
> The only issue is that the union would want cities to pay for the insurance which would render the concept null.
I’m 100% pro union, except for cops. Police Unions, fraternal organizations, or whatever else, should be outlawed. IMHO, this can be justified under section 1.
Make it a benefit, 50/50 split on paying for it, deducted from paycheck, 100% on holder (cop) when insurance doesn't cover the incident. That way unavoidable accidents the cop/city are equally hit with premium increase, but the cops on the hook if they fuck the dog.
Not completely null. A bad individual would cost the city alot in liability insurance. As long as the increases for bad cops are significant enough, they will have to get rid of the bad cops or dump a bunch of money into the department.
Frankly, the real issue is that being ‘on the beat’ is something different from community outreach in the first place.
Two of the Peelian principles are:
> To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, **by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour**, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
and
> To maintain at all times **a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police**, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to **duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence**.
Being “on the beat” *should in itself be outreach*, not just zooming around in a car looking for ne’er-do-wells or chatting with other cops in a parking lot.
I know a few cops and you can see the psychological impact of the job. They went from pretty down to earth people to very cynical and agressive. Seeing the worst of people day in and day out, and some the power imbalances they get from the badge changes their psychology. Getting them out of that mentality for a year, engaging with people and seeing the struggle and humanity of people again. They need a break from the flood of negative people.
The only reason I ever had a positive perception of cops was in the village I went to elementary school the two local RCMP that got assigned to the area made an effort to do outreach I.e they were my combo boy/girl scout leaders, it was a kinda a shock when I grew up to realize most cops are insulated in there own little pseudo military "us vs them" sphere, and that a decent chunk are just overgrown bullies
I think we would see massive reform if we implemented Liability Insurance, Centralized, and Nationwide Professional Licensing and Accreditation, and made Policing require a four-year degree with focuses on civic law, ethics, and criminology.
Losing your license = losing your insurance = can't be a cop.
Becoming uninsurable because fucking moron = can't be a cop.
Either we as a province/country get serious with actually making policing effective or we're just admitting that they're just state-sanctioned enforcers.
Sadly, the implication of this is that SunLife can do a better job of overseeing law enforcement than our government institutions, legal system or political class.
It's absurd, but true.
Just like they love the carbon tax, or would if conservatism was a coherent economic ideology and not just a kneejerk reaction against government existing.
Police officers are already barred from joining or forming a union (in Ontario, at least) but they just form Police Associations and somehow that's fine?
There is literally no difference between these police associations and a union. They just can’t use the word union - as if that makes a difference. They don’t have the right to strike but they do work to rule BS every once in awhile. In right wing Provinces they get everything they want as far as wage demands anyway. Under Ford they got a raise while he screwed over all other Prov workers using the opting out clause.
In my City there is a Police Service Board- which has 7 members (3 appointed by Lieutenant Governor General in Council; 3 members of City Council; 1 member of the citizenship).
It is independent and they run the investigations and the police budget and make the recommendations to City Council.
So there is a bit of a difference, not sure it is much better- but there is a difference.
I think there should be more representation from the Citizenship and the Mayor is compelled to serve (or assign a delegate)- which I think is a conflict of interest- as the Mayor passes the City budget which includes the Police budget.
To the absolute surprise of no one- whenever the police want an increase they seem to get either all of what they want or a significant portion of it. I don't remember a year where the police did not ask for an above COLA increase in their budget which is what the vast majority of city departments get.
And importantly, cops can never be in solidarity with the larger labour movement because part of their job is strikebreaking and punishing radical union activity
I agree that the current model for policing is fascist as fuck;however, all labour deserves to have union representation. I cannot and will not support busting of collective labour unions. They need to be tied to their communities and other workers. Unions should not be allowed to form if they serve ONLY one profession. iE there shouldn’t be a teachers union, it should be a public servants union tied with nurses, police, firefighters, etc etc. no individual group of professions would have power over the others and would require broad support for changes. Reduce the echo chamber
Protecting capital is not labour, and it needs to be kept separate. You cannot be the violent arm of property owners and pretend you're the same as the ones you enact violence on.
> cops are class traitors who serve no purpose but enacting state violence
Respectfully, have you ever stepped outside? Police can and will help you in lots of bad situations. You are no different than the delusional bootlickers who thinks cops can do no wrong.
Police show up after crimes have happened to (maybe) record things and then shrug and move on with their day.
Statistically they "solve" approx. 2% of crimes.
The rest of their time is spend abusing minority groups and enforcing the political status quo to prevent any actual progress from "disrupting" society (i.e. violent union-busting).
They're a waste of resources that does no good for the communities they occupy.
> Also professional college with licensing body.
What you’re describing is a self-governing profession, which is just about the last thing the police should be.
In Ontario you are correct. Can only get a cellphone ticket like this if you are driving on a highway as defined by the Highway Traffic Act. There are only a few offences under the HTA that apply to private property like parking lots.
For the unaware:
>“highway” includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; (“voie publique”)
[https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK233](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK233)
People comparing ignoring traffic markings in an empty parking lot on private property to blowing through a four way stop on a public street are very interesting
If we're talking a completely empty parking lot, like at an abandoned building or something, then I'd make a rolling stop. But overall, yeah, in case I'm not seeing a pedestrian and they expect me to stop, I stop at all stop signs. It's also a good idea to stay consistent with stopping at stop signs anywhere.
Here, in Alberta at least, a private road/parking lot that has public access is covered by the traffic laws. If it's a gated lot that has no public access, then no.
They're not supposed to be able to, but I'm sure they can come up with some bullshit reason to get you if you piss them off or they're having a bad feelings day.
It depends on what the applicable legislation says. In Ontario, you have to check each HTA provision to see if it applies generally or if it applies only on roads. I suspect Saskatchewan is the same. And you absolutely cannot trust the cops to know (but the roadside is not the place to argue the point with a power tripping cop - you challenge the ticket and either hope the Crown drops it or go to court). I do not know the law for Saskatchewan, I do for Ontario.
In Ontario, this particular provision applies to “highways”. Highway is defined (and I am simplifying) a public road used by (or intended to be used by) the public. It shouldn’t include areas like parking lots or drive thrus. For this specific section. Other sections do apply to private property though. As does criminal law (ex. it is an offence to be drunk in control of your vehicle in the drive thru or otherwise on private property).
This is my question too. Road rules basically don't apply on private property whether using your phone or obeying a stop sign.
Same reason insurance companies assign 50/50 blame if you collide with a car in a parking lot.
a lot of cops will try this shit on younger people because they think they dont know any better
just fight the ticket and it gets thrown out, if the cop even shows up to begin with
In the article it is not clear whether he was on the public roadway or in the drive through area on private property. RCMP says he was on the public roadway, driver says not.
The driver also admits that the vehicle was in motion, but promises he was going real slow at the time.
TBH I think this should be enforced far more. As a runner I nearly get hit in crosswalks and driveways pretty much every week - even wearing a high-visibility reflective vest.
People need to put their phones down while driving.
I checked, the Saskatchewan cellphone distracted driving law applies “while driving a motor vehicle on a highway”.
I wonder if the cop ticketed him because he was rolling (driving, not actually stopped) while getting the cellphone app open in the drive through. ESH, kid should have waited until he was completely stopped. I expect he’ll get off, unless the Saskatchewan HTA definition of highway includes the drive through.
ETA: “(k) “highway” means a road, parkway, driveway, square or place designed and intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, but does not include any area, whether privately or publicly owned, that is primarily intended to be used for the parking of vehicles and the necessary passageways on that area;”
Looks like the ticket was valid.
Except that you can argue that's a parking lot with a fast food in the middle, and the drive thru is a passageway to the parking lot, which happens to be facing the drive thru. No?
~~Yet another example of why so many people think so poorly of cops. Absolute asshat.~~
(Actually, seems like the driver was ticketed for actions prior to entering McD's)
This was 100%, because he was young. The cop was like a dog bullying the younger pups. The cop was on his way to get an obesity inducing meal that he likely eats every day and saw the kid in the drive thru. His mere existence irritated him, so he bullied him and flexed his authority over the youth.
He'll successfully contest this in court if he wanted to. On private property. Not in traffic. Was asked for an app code by staff.
Either toss the ticket, or they'll have to ban McDonalds from asking for the code on drive through orders.
I wondered about this.
Here in NS i remember a few years ago when the distracted driving laws got updated, i remember news reports of a couple people getting tickets in drive throughs. This was before the phone apps for points. Haven't heard anything since.
I'm not aware of all local laws, but here you can't get moving violations on non licensed roadways like parking lots. I had a cop pull me over once for failing to stop and a stop sign in a parking lot and I rightfully pointed it out that it's not going to stand up in court as it's not a valid ticket. He tried to let me "off with a written warning", and I rejected that as well under the same basis.
I wonder how many people get caught on that and don't bother contesting .
How is this any more distracted than if the guy pulled out his wallet?
And if that's the case, don't you dare even adjust your underwear while driving, you'll get a distracted driving fine?
Don’t get me wrong I’m against and testing and driving but that’s fucking stupid, and a power trip. All these companies have their stupid apps you need to have on your cellphone, literally everyone does this. This just reflects super poorly on the police when there’s actual crimes going on and also the vast vast majority of people when those whom are against texting and driving probably find this stupid as well. Bad look on the cops.
The McDonalds app takes so long to load or even get to the point screen to scan too. Sometimes I'll just park in a spot first just so I can open the fucking thing so I'm not waiting at the order box while the person on the other end keeps asking me what I want when I already told them I'm waiting for the app to load.
Private lot in a McDonald drive thru, use your phone however you like. What am I missing here? How is this not ridiculed by the news🤷🏽♂️
SASK TRAFFIC SAFETY ACT 241.1(2) No driver shall hold, view, use or manipulate electronic communications equipment while driving a motor vehicle on a ‘HIGHWAY’🤦🏽♂️
Definition of Highway: means a road, parkway, driveway, square or place designed and intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, but ‘DOES NOT INCLUDE’ any area, whether PRIVATELY or publicly owned, that is primarily intended to be used for the parking of vehicles and the ‘NECESSARY PASSAGEWAY’ on that area 🤦🏽♂️
This makes no sense. You can't be ticketed unless you're on a public road. It's not possible to ticket in a parking lot / drive through. The exception might be care and control (drinking driving).
Not true. Here in Ontario there are a few things in the HTA that do apply to private property.
We can no longer practice snow driving in parking lots, for example, for risk of a stunt driving ticket (which is a big deal).
It’s bullshit, IMO, but unfortunately true.
Oh really? When did that change? I'm a newcomer to Canada so I've been told to go practice snow driving in a parking lot, but apparently that's not okay anymore? Do I have to practice on the highways??
Good point. I forgot to take into account the jurisdiction. I would still be chomping at the bit to take this to court, though. Since there's no safety implication in this situation and it's on private property there could well be a good case to contest the law. That's what the lawyer in the article was getting at, too. I mildly suspect that kid was also wasting the cop's time by reading reddit and holding up the line and not paying attention and the cop was pulling a "fuck you, kid" ticket on him that he has no intention of showing up to court for.
It’s not McDonald’s fault. Also he may lose in court if it technically broke the law but it usually gets ignored. Same as if I J walk I may be able to do it infront of a cop 100 times they don’t care but all it takes is that one time and I technically broke the rules so I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in a court setting. I do agree though it’s absolute power trip and super pathetic.
How are the police allowed to ticket on private property? Pretty sure the drive through isn't on public land, and therefore exempt from this sort of thing.
Same reason why stop signs in parking lots are actually proof of fault (when someone gets hit, it's split between both parties insurance irregardless of fault)
I'm guessing this dude was on his phone before he pulled into the lot, and that's been committed from his story
If a mobile phone owner deletes the phone app from their phone, is it still a phone?
I think these things long ago stopped being phones with added extras, and are now just pocket computers that can run different apps - one of which just happens to be an app that can connect to a phone network to make and receive calls and texts.
I can't help but think that this officer is going to have a very rough few months.
I think every major that offers drive through service including but definitely not limited to McDonalds, Tim Hortons and Starbucks; cell phone majors like Apple and Google and banks and credit card companies like Visa and Mastercard are all going to be lining up to run a train on this guy.
They are going to be asking the RCMP and the province, not very politely, for clarification on whether drive through customers are:
* Allowed to use loyalty apps
* Allowed to pay using phone-based payment
* Allowed to confirm credit card payment with a mobile device.
because as this guy reads it, the answers seem to be "No", "No" and "Hell no".
This is why he was fined, from the article:
"RCMP can confirm that on May 13, 2024 the individual was observed driving a vehicle on a public roadway while using a cellphone. A Combined Traffic Services Saskatchewan RCMP officer initiated a traffic stop with the individual. The individual then pulled in the McDonald’s parking lot, where the traffic violation was issued," the statement said.
Kid is lying. He was on the phone on a public roadway PRIOR to entering the drive thru. As per the police statment they processed the ticket at the drive thru.
Just another example of how smoothbrained canadian law "enforcers" are, can't be arsed to chase real criminals or investigate all the MMIW but can write tickets like this to fulfill their quotas and keep their funding.
Take his fucken badge away.this man is on a serious power trip.give him a job at the drive thru.the sask.police department has to revisit they're entire hiring process
>[The ticket] was issued by an RCMP officer. >We reached out to Saskatoon police for comment on this case. Great investigative reporting /s
They also misspelled ‘brake’ in the article 🤦
Copy editors are the first to get laid off when there are cuts. This is the end result.
I blame ChatGPT
ChatGPT would probably use the correct spelling lol
> “I feel for the individual that was charged here. If he was literally in the … drive-thru area and not on a public roadway,” criminal lawyer Brian Pfefferle told CTV News. And didn't complete the quote that is rather significant to the story. Was he or was he not on the public roadway? and what are the implications of that?
Yeah. There's a strong argument to be made that this "offense" occurring in a private laneway means RCMP has no jurisdiction, isn't there?
Can't determine that with the facts presented. Loads of drive-through lines back up into the street (which is a separate problem in itself) and the article doesn't say either way. I have to think RCMP would know enough not to try and write tickets where they don't have jurisdiction, no? And if the guy wasn't in the street he would have said so to the reporter pretty quickly? Just dumb that the article didn't say either way, it's pretty important...
>I have to think RCMP would know enough not to try and write tickets where they don't have jurisdiction, no? Lol. Lmao even.
If so the court will toss it pretty quick. Would be shitty for the kid if he had to go to court just to prove the point though
Whoa, that happens in your region?
The article was recently updated with the RCMP's version of events: > In a statement to CTV News, the Saskatchewan RCMP disagreed with Prima's version of events. >"RCMP can confirm that on May 13, 2024 the individual was observed driving a vehicle on a public roadway while using a cellphone. A Combined Traffic Services Saskatchewan RCMP officer initiated a traffic stop with the individual. The individual then pulled in the McDonald’s parking lot, where the traffic violation was issued," the statement said.
Too late, pitchforks are out, we march at sundown
Anything that does not use a single exit/ entrance point. Not one large enough for two way travel. On commercial property is considered part of the highways act. Cell phones, stop signs, yield signs, direction signs etc. all fair game. IN BC, probably everywhere. His best and possible only defence is to go back to McDonald’s at the same time same day of the week. And count how many people don’t get tickets. Give that information to the Judge/JP. Then ask the officer how many cell phone tickets are issued in a drive through. However I don’t think this was an accident. Probably more a case of, oh now I can catch him and give him a ticket for everything else? Because how many people go through drive through every day at every restaurant, bank machine and pinch/grab their phone. Which is the actual problem with this in BC. Or possibly his restrictions about cell use while driving at all. Based on the level of his license. Good story but hardly complete.
Also a question… can RCMP do ‘(traffic) enforcement’ in a jurisdiction that has its own police force?
Yes, in the jurisdiction contracts with the RCMP to provide provincial/local policing services. In this case, the RCMP are the provincial police force of Saskatchewan and can enforce provincial traffic laws - the same way the OPP can enforce laws in Toronto.
The OPP will not give you a ticket for driving the wrong way in a Walmart parking lot. It's private property and provincial traffic laws do not apply. By the logic of this officer, farm kids can be pulled over in the back forty for operating a farm truck without a license.
Yeah because different provinces and different traffic laws. If the Highway Traffic Act or equivalent legislation indicates a section is enforceable in a parking lot, then it will be. For example, in Ontario, stunt driving laws were recently changed to apply on private property.
Well, if it's the case that that phone laws apply in the drive-through lane in Sask., there should be a permanent officer assigned to every drive-through lane in the province. The province's finances will immediately be boosted. Or, they could change the legislation.
McDonald's is partially to blame here as well. They require you to open the app and give the cashier a temporary code in order to get rewards on drive thru orders. It's not like the Tim's rewards or literally any other rewards app where they scan a bar or QR code just before paying. You have to verbally give the person taking your order a temporary code before placing your order and you can only see that code when you open the app.
so what? if you're stopped at the ordering mic what is the difference?
Yes
I believe so. Don’t quote me on it but they’re essentially our FBI.
Pretty sure any Canadian police officer can enforce the law anywhere in Canada, regardless of jurisdiction.
uhh.. no. A Transit cop from Vancouver can't just do police work in Halifax just because they feel like it.
Dude... pitch this idea to the CBC as a limited series. Rookie homicide detective from Vancouver, BC gets caught up investigating a criminal conspiracy in Dildo, NL.
...and the rookie homicide detective is a tabby cat. Think Littlest Hobo meets Due South.
Voiced by Dan Levy. This fall, on CBC Gem
The cop is the ghost of Mr. Lahey.
the original Dildo, NL. Before it was moved from near Athol, Mass. because people were uncomfortable.
"Police work" can mean lots of things; if a Vancouver cop witnesses a crime in Halifax they are still a cop and can arrest the suspect.
Sure, but keep in mind plenty of people walk away from charges all the time in Vancouver because the Transit Police investigated off transit property. You also don't need to be a cop to stop an ongoing crime.
According to this, any RCMP officer can issue any citation anywhere in Canada, and any police officer can issue a citation within their province: https://www.xcopper.com/blog/driving-tips/ontario-driving-myths/ > Another example may be a Toronto Police officer pulling someone over for speeding in Ottawa. As it stands, a Toronto Police officer has full power to exercise the law should they see someone violating traffic ordinances throughout Ontario. I don't know about the rules for constables. And you're right, any person can stop a crime but you have to follow citizen's arrest rules whereas a police officer still acts as a police officer.
This only applies to Ontario. Although in Saskatchewan, where this incident took place the RCMP do have the ability as you pointed out to write a ticket as that aspect is true across Canada.
https://pubsaskdev.blob.core.windows.net/pubsask-prod/archived/33602/1940-CH-97.pdf > The commissioner and every other member of the force shall, unless the contrary shall appear in the instrument appointing him, be a constable for and have jurisdiction in and may perform his duties and execute process in any part of Saskatchewan.
Nope. Opp has no jurdisictipn outside of Ontario without prior approval unless for example the police chase started in Kenora and the chase went over the Ontario Manitoba border.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Police really just want to be hated don’t they
They're basically a cult, so yeah, kinda.
Gang. A violent gang.
I mean, sure, that too.
They sure seem to put in the work, to deserve it.
I suspect they don't care if they're loved or hated. They want to be feared.
Then cops wonder why people think poorly of the service they provide. - Ban quotas - Audit arrests - Force cops off the beat every 5 years, have them do community outreach to regain their humanity - Require 4 year degree for officers
[удалено]
This would be very helpful. Insurance company actuaries would have the bad cops identified quickly. The only issue is that the union would want cities to pay for the insurance which would render the concept null. It’ll only work if the cops themselves had to pay the fees.
Also solvable. Increase pay by the amount of the median liability insurance. If an individual officer has a lower liability insurance, they effectively got a little bit of a pay raise. In not... You might still run into desk jobs vs. traffic vs. other roles, but if you wanted to, you could address those issues as well. Build the median liability compensation into the pay on a per role basis or whatever.
Insurance improving police departments is a real phenomenon https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/03/22/705914833/episode-901-bad-cops-are-expensive
Easy solution - ban cop "unions"/associations :)
I am probably too pro union for that, but it needs much better oversight.
The police don't have a union, they have an organized crime ring that is propped up by the government.
Police do not have a union, because they are not workers bargaining with capital owners. They are mercenaries arguing over how much the elite are willing to spend for them to shoot the poors if they get too rowdy
This is also true.
I'm pro-union too, but if police are going to be treated as a special class in our system (and they are currently - don't know about you, but I'm not allowed to murder people on the job and then go on paid leave), then they need special rules applied.
Police officers have a monopoly on government allowed violence against other people. It might be better to treat that job a little differently than a bus driver, a teacher or a factory worker, no?
> The only issue is that the union would want cities to pay for the insurance which would render the concept null Not necessarily. If a cop is "too expensive" they won't want to keep them on the force... and other forces won't want to keep them on as that cop's "risk level" would presumably carry over if they wanted to get hired at a different PD.
> The only issue is that the union would want cities to pay for the insurance which would render the concept null. I’m 100% pro union, except for cops. Police Unions, fraternal organizations, or whatever else, should be outlawed. IMHO, this can be justified under section 1.
Make it a benefit, 50/50 split on paying for it, deducted from paycheck, 100% on holder (cop) when insurance doesn't cover the incident. That way unavoidable accidents the cop/city are equally hit with premium increase, but the cops on the hook if they fuck the dog.
Not completely null. A bad individual would cost the city alot in liability insurance. As long as the increases for bad cops are significant enough, they will have to get rid of the bad cops or dump a bunch of money into the department.
Wow no beat for a while and engage with the community? Fuck the minister of safety give THIS man the 100000 they don't deserve.
Frankly, the real issue is that being ‘on the beat’ is something different from community outreach in the first place. Two of the Peelian principles are: > To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, **by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour**, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life. and > To maintain at all times **a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police**, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to **duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence**. Being “on the beat” *should in itself be outreach*, not just zooming around in a car looking for ne’er-do-wells or chatting with other cops in a parking lot.
I know a few cops and you can see the psychological impact of the job. They went from pretty down to earth people to very cynical and agressive. Seeing the worst of people day in and day out, and some the power imbalances they get from the badge changes their psychology. Getting them out of that mentality for a year, engaging with people and seeing the struggle and humanity of people again. They need a break from the flood of negative people.
I have nothing to add to this well thought out response.
The only reason I ever had a positive perception of cops was in the village I went to elementary school the two local RCMP that got assigned to the area made an effort to do outreach I.e they were my combo boy/girl scout leaders, it was a kinda a shock when I grew up to realize most cops are insulated in there own little pseudo military "us vs them" sphere, and that a decent chunk are just overgrown bullies
Also professional college with licensing body. Outlaw police unions.
I think we would see massive reform if we implemented Liability Insurance, Centralized, and Nationwide Professional Licensing and Accreditation, and made Policing require a four-year degree with focuses on civic law, ethics, and criminology. Losing your license = losing your insurance = can't be a cop. Becoming uninsurable because fucking moron = can't be a cop. Either we as a province/country get serious with actually making policing effective or we're just admitting that they're just state-sanctioned enforcers.
Sadly, the implication of this is that SunLife can do a better job of overseeing law enforcement than our government institutions, legal system or political class. It's absurd, but true.
It's a market based solution. Conservatives should love the idea.
Just like they love the carbon tax, or would if conservatism was a coherent economic ideology and not just a kneejerk reaction against government existing.
Police officers are already barred from joining or forming a union (in Ontario, at least) but they just form Police Associations and somehow that's fine?
There is literally no difference between these police associations and a union. They just can’t use the word union - as if that makes a difference. They don’t have the right to strike but they do work to rule BS every once in awhile. In right wing Provinces they get everything they want as far as wage demands anyway. Under Ford they got a raise while he screwed over all other Prov workers using the opting out clause.
Toronto cops have been working to rule for the last 30 years and no one has really noticed
Because they never have to protest. They get what they want and more.
In my City there is a Police Service Board- which has 7 members (3 appointed by Lieutenant Governor General in Council; 3 members of City Council; 1 member of the citizenship). It is independent and they run the investigations and the police budget and make the recommendations to City Council. So there is a bit of a difference, not sure it is much better- but there is a difference. I think there should be more representation from the Citizenship and the Mayor is compelled to serve (or assign a delegate)- which I think is a conflict of interest- as the Mayor passes the City budget which includes the Police budget. To the absolute surprise of no one- whenever the police want an increase they seem to get either all of what they want or a significant portion of it. I don't remember a year where the police did not ask for an above COLA increase in their budget which is what the vast majority of city departments get.
Unions should be there, but should be tied to local public service unions. Not giant corporations hiding as a union.
Nah, cops are class traitors who serve no purpose but enacting state violence on those whose actions threaten capital. No unions for the bastards.
And importantly, cops can never be in solidarity with the larger labour movement because part of their job is strikebreaking and punishing radical union activity
I agree that the current model for policing is fascist as fuck;however, all labour deserves to have union representation. I cannot and will not support busting of collective labour unions. They need to be tied to their communities and other workers. Unions should not be allowed to form if they serve ONLY one profession. iE there shouldn’t be a teachers union, it should be a public servants union tied with nurses, police, firefighters, etc etc. no individual group of professions would have power over the others and would require broad support for changes. Reduce the echo chamber
Cops aren't labour.
They get paid to provide a service with their labour. The working class is labour.
Protecting capital is not labour, and it needs to be kept separate. You cannot be the violent arm of property owners and pretend you're the same as the ones you enact violence on.
They don't provide any service. They enact violence against the communities they allegedly "protect".
> cops are class traitors who serve no purpose but enacting state violence Respectfully, have you ever stepped outside? Police can and will help you in lots of bad situations. You are no different than the delusional bootlickers who thinks cops can do no wrong.
Police show up after crimes have happened to (maybe) record things and then shrug and move on with their day. Statistically they "solve" approx. 2% of crimes. The rest of their time is spend abusing minority groups and enforcing the political status quo to prevent any actual progress from "disrupting" society (i.e. violent union-busting). They're a waste of resources that does no good for the communities they occupy.
> Also professional college with licensing body. What you’re describing is a self-governing profession, which is just about the last thing the police should be.
I have yet to hear anyone start a "Fuck the Firefighters" chant... Or see signs that read "All Paramedics Are Bastards"...
What services?
Holy power trip Batman.
Bro they’re just a kid! They don’t need a fine.
Isn’t the drive thru on private property? Can a cop ticket me for being on my phone while driving on my own property?
In Ontario you are correct. Can only get a cellphone ticket like this if you are driving on a highway as defined by the Highway Traffic Act. There are only a few offences under the HTA that apply to private property like parking lots.
For the unaware: >“highway” includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; (“voie publique”) [https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK233](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK233)
So, basically, any public road
yes, and you can use your phone while *parked* not just stopped
This is why I never stop at stop signs in parking lots when the coast is clear. No harm no foul
People comparing ignoring traffic markings in an empty parking lot on private property to blowing through a four way stop on a public street are very interesting
neat, link to said comments?
Oh, you're one of those "If there wasn't a law against it, I would totally do that illegal thing" kind of people.
I'm just here to stir the pot
You drive through an empty parking lot and stop because it says "stop" written on the ground?
If we're talking a completely empty parking lot, like at an abandoned building or something, then I'd make a rolling stop. But overall, yeah, in case I'm not seeing a pedestrian and they expect me to stop, I stop at all stop signs. It's also a good idea to stay consistent with stopping at stop signs anywhere.
You disrespect the rules or guidelines of the place whose services you're using just because you can get away with it?
You probably don't stop at real stop signs either lol
Here, in Alberta at least, a private road/parking lot that has public access is covered by the traffic laws. If it's a gated lot that has no public access, then no.
So a regular driveway that has no gate, you can sit in your car and get ticketed for using your cellphone? That's absurd.
No. Cell phone laws say that you can use them if you are legally parked.
Can't park in a drive-thru.
Okay so my foot is on the brake and the car is in drive. Now I have crossed some threshold? Still completely absurd.
They're not supposed to be able to, but I'm sure they can come up with some bullshit reason to get you if you piss them off or they're having a bad feelings day.
It actually depends on the province.
It depends on what the applicable legislation says. In Ontario, you have to check each HTA provision to see if it applies generally or if it applies only on roads. I suspect Saskatchewan is the same. And you absolutely cannot trust the cops to know (but the roadside is not the place to argue the point with a power tripping cop - you challenge the ticket and either hope the Crown drops it or go to court). I do not know the law for Saskatchewan, I do for Ontario. In Ontario, this particular provision applies to “highways”. Highway is defined (and I am simplifying) a public road used by (or intended to be used by) the public. It shouldn’t include areas like parking lots or drive thrus. For this specific section. Other sections do apply to private property though. As does criminal law (ex. it is an offence to be drunk in control of your vehicle in the drive thru or otherwise on private property).
This is my question too. Road rules basically don't apply on private property whether using your phone or obeying a stop sign. Same reason insurance companies assign 50/50 blame if you collide with a car in a parking lot.
The insurance part is definitely not true (in Ontario anyway)
Depends on the province, actually
If this ticket is disputed, it will definitely be dropped.
a lot of cops will try this shit on younger people because they think they dont know any better just fight the ticket and it gets thrown out, if the cop even shows up to begin with
Yeah, I suspect a judge would throw this out in an instant.
In the article it is not clear whether he was on the public roadway or in the drive through area on private property. RCMP says he was on the public roadway, driver says not. The driver also admits that the vehicle was in motion, but promises he was going real slow at the time. TBH I think this should be enforced far more. As a runner I nearly get hit in crosswalks and driveways pretty much every week - even wearing a high-visibility reflective vest. People need to put their phones down while driving.
I checked, the Saskatchewan cellphone distracted driving law applies “while driving a motor vehicle on a highway”. I wonder if the cop ticketed him because he was rolling (driving, not actually stopped) while getting the cellphone app open in the drive through. ESH, kid should have waited until he was completely stopped. I expect he’ll get off, unless the Saskatchewan HTA definition of highway includes the drive through. ETA: “(k) “highway” means a road, parkway, driveway, square or place designed and intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, but does not include any area, whether privately or publicly owned, that is primarily intended to be used for the parking of vehicles and the necessary passageways on that area;” Looks like the ticket was valid.
Except that you can argue that's a parking lot with a fast food in the middle, and the drive thru is a passageway to the parking lot, which happens to be facing the drive thru. No?
That’s how you build community trust /s
“Another life saved, don’t thank me.”
~~Yet another example of why so many people think so poorly of cops. Absolute asshat.~~ (Actually, seems like the driver was ticketed for actions prior to entering McD's)
This was 100%, because he was young. The cop was like a dog bullying the younger pups. The cop was on his way to get an obesity inducing meal that he likely eats every day and saw the kid in the drive thru. His mere existence irritated him, so he bullied him and flexed his authority over the youth.
They call those chickenshit cops. Too scared to face down a real criminal.
The long flabby arm of the law.
[удалено]
Going to be visiting there soon. Thanks for the speed trap heads up.
Meanwhile https://thestarphoenix.com/news/crime/which-vehicles-are-targeted-for-theft-in-saskatoon-and-other-things-to-know-about-stolen-autos
That would require actual police work though, when we know they want to do as little as possible and make as much as possible.
Too many police if that's the best way to use their time. Is there no other crime.
ACAB.
ACAB
What about those pay for meals on their phone lmao
Straight to jail.
He'll successfully contest this in court if he wanted to. On private property. Not in traffic. Was asked for an app code by staff. Either toss the ticket, or they'll have to ban McDonalds from asking for the code on drive through orders.
Cops have always treated corporate parking lots as private property, not roadways...this cop was just being a total dick.
Nah, they treat it as private property when they might have to do actual *work*. This was just an opportunity to flex and pad his quota.
I wondered about this. Here in NS i remember a few years ago when the distracted driving laws got updated, i remember news reports of a couple people getting tickets in drive throughs. This was before the phone apps for points. Haven't heard anything since.
I'm not aware of all local laws, but here you can't get moving violations on non licensed roadways like parking lots. I had a cop pull me over once for failing to stop and a stop sign in a parking lot and I rightfully pointed it out that it's not going to stand up in court as it's not a valid ticket. He tried to let me "off with a written warning", and I rejected that as well under the same basis. I wonder how many people get caught on that and don't bother contesting .
Where is "here"?
One among many reasons people have for disliking cops.
Shouldn’t McDonald’s be fined for creating a system that requires drive-thru clients to “break the law” in order to use their rewards?
Fuck you Saskatchewan. Fucking morons.
[удалено]
What's the wage at? When I lived in sask, (13 years ago tbf) it was considerably cheaper than bc
[удалено]
I remember those winters! That's why I left! Haha, I could only handle one. I lived in NB, and one of my friends had a 3 bdrm 2 floor house for 70k.
[удалено]
NB as in North Battleford! And it was terrible lol. Crime was really ramping up around then.
Saskatchewan's awesome. Their cops however...
And your Premier....
Well I'm from Ontario. so yes, our premier...
Ah, I assumed by your comment you were from Sask.
How is this any more distracted than if the guy pulled out his wallet? And if that's the case, don't you dare even adjust your underwear while driving, you'll get a distracted driving fine?
Don’t get me wrong I’m against and testing and driving but that’s fucking stupid, and a power trip. All these companies have their stupid apps you need to have on your cellphone, literally everyone does this. This just reflects super poorly on the police when there’s actual crimes going on and also the vast vast majority of people when those whom are against texting and driving probably find this stupid as well. Bad look on the cops.
The McDonalds app takes so long to load or even get to the point screen to scan too. Sometimes I'll just park in a spot first just so I can open the fucking thing so I'm not waiting at the order box while the person on the other end keeps asking me what I want when I already told them I'm waiting for the app to load.
Private lot in a McDonald drive thru, use your phone however you like. What am I missing here? How is this not ridiculed by the news🤷🏽♂️ SASK TRAFFIC SAFETY ACT 241.1(2) No driver shall hold, view, use or manipulate electronic communications equipment while driving a motor vehicle on a ‘HIGHWAY’🤦🏽♂️ Definition of Highway: means a road, parkway, driveway, square or place designed and intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, but ‘DOES NOT INCLUDE’ any area, whether PRIVATELY or publicly owned, that is primarily intended to be used for the parking of vehicles and the ‘NECESSARY PASSAGEWAY’ on that area 🤦🏽♂️
[удалено]
Makes sense!
This makes no sense. You can't be ticketed unless you're on a public road. It's not possible to ticket in a parking lot / drive through. The exception might be care and control (drinking driving).
Not true. Here in Ontario there are a few things in the HTA that do apply to private property. We can no longer practice snow driving in parking lots, for example, for risk of a stunt driving ticket (which is a big deal). It’s bullshit, IMO, but unfortunately true.
Oh really? When did that change? I'm a newcomer to Canada so I've been told to go practice snow driving in a parking lot, but apparently that's not okay anymore? Do I have to practice on the highways??
2021, just do it at your own risk in a huge empty parking lot. A ticket is better than crashing on the actual road, etc.
Thanks, kinda frustrating that this advice is still out there but I guess it'll take a few years to change the public idea
Good point. I forgot to take into account the jurisdiction. I would still be chomping at the bit to take this to court, though. Since there's no safety implication in this situation and it's on private property there could well be a good case to contest the law. That's what the lawyer in the article was getting at, too. I mildly suspect that kid was also wasting the cop's time by reading reddit and holding up the line and not paying attention and the cop was pulling a "fuck you, kid" ticket on him that he has no intention of showing up to court for.
IF McDonalds were smart they'd give the driver free food for a year.. What a fucking power trip. IN THE DRIVE THRU. I'd take this to court and SUE.
So how do you use your iPhone Wallet to pay? How do you tap your smart phone at a drive thru window? This makes no sense.
These apps usually require a credit card for prepaying.
It’s not McDonald’s fault. Also he may lose in court if it technically broke the law but it usually gets ignored. Same as if I J walk I may be able to do it infront of a cop 100 times they don’t care but all it takes is that one time and I technically broke the rules so I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in a court setting. I do agree though it’s absolute power trip and super pathetic.
Highway and traffic act doesn’t apply to parking lots. This will get tossed.
Got nailed for being young and driving a nice car. Criminal.
ACAB
How are the police allowed to ticket on private property? Pretty sure the drive through isn't on public land, and therefore exempt from this sort of thing. Same reason why stop signs in parking lots are actually proof of fault (when someone gets hit, it's split between both parties insurance irregardless of fault) I'm guessing this dude was on his phone before he pulled into the lot, and that's been committed from his story
What a waste of time, money, and legal resources.
So paying for your drive thru meal using the tap feature on your phone is illegal in Sask?
If a mobile phone owner deletes the phone app from their phone, is it still a phone? I think these things long ago stopped being phones with added extras, and are now just pocket computers that can run different apps - one of which just happens to be an app that can connect to a phone network to make and receive calls and texts.
Cops everywhere suck, but Saskatchewan cops seem to be especially shitty.
TANSTAAFL
I can't help but think that this officer is going to have a very rough few months. I think every major that offers drive through service including but definitely not limited to McDonalds, Tim Hortons and Starbucks; cell phone majors like Apple and Google and banks and credit card companies like Visa and Mastercard are all going to be lining up to run a train on this guy. They are going to be asking the RCMP and the province, not very politely, for clarification on whether drive through customers are: * Allowed to use loyalty apps * Allowed to pay using phone-based payment * Allowed to confirm credit card payment with a mobile device. because as this guy reads it, the answers seem to be "No", "No" and "Hell no".
This is why he was fined, from the article: "RCMP can confirm that on May 13, 2024 the individual was observed driving a vehicle on a public roadway while using a cellphone. A Combined Traffic Services Saskatchewan RCMP officer initiated a traffic stop with the individual. The individual then pulled in the McDonald’s parking lot, where the traffic violation was issued," the statement said.
I don’t believe it. Motorcycle cop in a drive thru? I’m betting the kid was on his phone long before the drive thru.
Kid is lying. He was on the phone on a public roadway PRIOR to entering the drive thru. As per the police statment they processed the ticket at the drive thru.
Just another example of how smoothbrained canadian law "enforcers" are, can't be arsed to chase real criminals or investigate all the MMIW but can write tickets like this to fulfill their quotas and keep their funding.
Take his fucken badge away.this man is on a serious power trip.give him a job at the drive thru.the sask.police department has to revisit they're entire hiring process
I guess they really do fuck you at the drive thru.
[удалено]