According to the law, there is a legal definition.
That's not unauthorized use...
(a) locked it or made it secure in a manner that prevents its unauthorized use
See above.
Ummm...
Wow! Cops Now Ticketing Drivers Who Leave Windows Open!
- Thread starter wizard
- Start date
(a) locked it or made it secure in a manner that prevents its unauthorized use
The only way they could justify using that law to nail people for leaving their windows open is if the car has no ignition lock.
Until the 80's many vehicles didn't have a transmission lock.
Meaning it could be taken out of park.
Until the 90's, cars could be started with a screwdriver.
An antiquated law, but it still exists, he used it reasonably.
More secure than leaving it wide open.
That ticket could never stand up in a court of law.
'locked OR other device to prevent unauthorized use'....the crown would have to prove that the ignition switch did not prevent unauthorized use.
I think it's a great way to waste time and resources that could be used for something useful. I'd fight that ticket, and I'd win. Easy as pie. Cops probably wouldn't even show up for court, and the judge would laugh them out of the building even if they did.
'locked OR other device to prevent unauthorized use'....the crown would have to prove that the ignition switch did not prevent unauthorized use.
I think it's a great way to waste time and resources that could be used for something useful. I'd fight that ticket, and I'd win. Easy as pie. Cops probably wouldn't even show up for court, and the judge would laugh them out of the building even if they did.
... nope. a closed window is no deterrent to theft. i actually had some stereo equipment ripped off from a locked car with the windows up. the thief even relocked the car after he took the gear. other than the missing equipment, i didn't even know it had been opened ...
... this story is another sign that harper's police force is on the way out ...
Leaving a park car window open is considered both by the police and your insurance as facilitating or contributing to someone stealing your car. If your car is as secure as you can make when you leave it and it gets towed away you are not responsible.
I think a creative crown could argue that not installing an encrypted electronic dead man, was a failure to meet 191 (a). Especially considering todays industrious and enterprising youth.
The argument can go both ways.
It's still a barrier.
LOL< the Motor vehicle Act is provincial.
That's not what the law says, and that's not what the section she got a ticket for says.
Not a chance in hell it would stand up in court.
... i said the police force is on the way out, not the provincial government. everybody knows the rcmp are federal govt ..
No, you said Harper's police force.
Irrelevant, they enforce federal, provincial, regional and town by laws, depending on the their mandate by contract.
The law in question, is provincial.
It's on the books, the officer gave her a warning for breaking it.
True, but that's why it exists, lol.
I think if a Crown was so inclined, he/she could make it stick.
I can't see why, it's a measly amount.
A person with an I.Q. of 4 would know it's only common sense. Like, if you value your possessions lock them up, if you don't, don't go whining to the cops. You can't legislate against stupidity, but at least those capable of it can be forced to defray the bills!
Are we talking about the law as quoted in section 191; as that is covered adequately enough by the ignition lock as stated right there in the sentance "secured so as to prohibit or discourage it's unauthorized use". Any lawyer worth his salt should be able to fight that one. These morons going to start ticketing jeep C/J's without roofs now are they? Hardtop T birds with the roof left at home, sports cars with just the taunneau cover zipped over the seats and steering wheel.
Insurance companies denying claims of lost possessions is a totally different thing entirely. We are not talking danger to public safety with you losing your CD player.
Insurance companies denying claims of lost possessions is a totally different thing entirely. We are not talking danger to public safety with you losing your CD player.
Obviously the law applies to vehicles which can be locked! Not rocket science! :smile:
Except that you can consider your vehicle as being discouraged from unauthorized usage by merely removing the key and walking away from it and leaving windows open on hot days as it pertains to the law as written. Are they going to ticket you if you've left your Rottweiler in the front seat with a window down for air and there being no statute against leaving pets untended in vehicles in that territory?
How can they differentiate from vehicles with windows open and those with windows closed but doors unlocked? Are they going to start walking around and testing the doors of parked cars? NOPE! Discriminatory practice of only ticketing those who leave windows open and not those who leave cars unlocked and with perhaps even the key in the igniton? Hello? Rocket science you say? Not as clear cut as you're making this out to be.
One could challenge the "prohibit or discourage" aspect being maintained based upon showing up in court with a story of how you performed your due diligence to ascribe to both of those by merely saying you removed the distributor cap and had the thing in your pocket while the the cop was writing the ticket but forgot to tell him. You had a six foot orangutan in the trunk. You had the car pushed there after it ran out of gas. The car cannot be started or otherwise manipulated without voice recogniton by owner. You could tell the court anything reasonable and beat this nonsensical charge. IF YOU CHOOSE TO CONTEST IT.
The spirit of the law is based upon you taking reasonable steps to "prohibit or discourage unauthorized usage of the vehicle". Should you be able to demonstrate you took resonable steps OTHER than rolling up the damn windows; you have fulfilled the requirement of the law as it is written. It ain't rocket science!
This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Insurance companies refusal to reimburse upon loss of contents which is usually a rider associated with your HOUSE policy NOT your car.
Loss of the vehicle itself through theft would of course be a hard fought battle if you admitted to leaving the car unlocked but not un-winnable provided you used a lawyer to challenge based upon your car having other built-in, theft deterrents such as chipped recognition ignition keys, activated motion sensor based alarm etc..
How can they differentiate from vehicles with windows open and those with windows closed but doors unlocked? Are they going to start walking around and testing the doors of parked cars? NOPE! Discriminatory practice of only ticketing those who leave windows open and not those who leave cars unlocked and with perhaps even the key in the igniton? Hello? Rocket science you say? Not as clear cut as you're making this out to be.
One could challenge the "prohibit or discourage" aspect being maintained based upon showing up in court with a story of how you performed your due diligence to ascribe to both of those by merely saying you removed the distributor cap and had the thing in your pocket while the the cop was writing the ticket but forgot to tell him. You had a six foot orangutan in the trunk. You had the car pushed there after it ran out of gas. The car cannot be started or otherwise manipulated without voice recogniton by owner. You could tell the court anything reasonable and beat this nonsensical charge. IF YOU CHOOSE TO CONTEST IT.
The spirit of the law is based upon you taking reasonable steps to "prohibit or discourage unauthorized usage of the vehicle". Should you be able to demonstrate you took resonable steps OTHER than rolling up the damn windows; you have fulfilled the requirement of the law as it is written. It ain't rocket science!
This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Insurance companies refusal to reimburse upon loss of contents which is usually a rider associated with your HOUSE policy NOT your car.
Loss of the vehicle itself through theft would of course be a hard fought battle if you admitted to leaving the car unlocked but not un-winnable provided you used a lawyer to challenge based upon your car having other built-in, theft deterrents such as chipped recognition ignition keys, activated motion sensor based alarm etc..
Exactly - that's what the law says. Leaving your windows open is not an offense under that section, if you aren't leaving the keys in the ignition.