Jame St N.

Jon Dalton · #1 Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 8:25 AM**

Or, why Hamilton could never get it right even if they tried.

OK. So, preface to this story, I was riding down James St. earlier today when crossing Main, someone in a Pontiac Grand Prix yelled at me to get off the road and ride on the sidewalk. Usually one to turn the other cheek, I'd just had enough of it lately, so I threw it right back at him and caught up at the next intersection and proceeded to inform him of the rules of the road pertaining to bikes. Bear in mind, throughout this whole exchange, I had done nothing illegal whatsoever. The people in this car actually argued with me that bikes were supposed to ride on the sidewalk, weren't allowed to be on the road, and that I, a 27 year old man, was breaking the law by not wearinig a helmet. Anyway, that just sets the stage for events to come.

Later, a friend and I were riding south down James when a vehicle moved into the oncoming lane to pass us. It was a police van. We were riding in the extreme right portion of the right lane, and had no reason to believe we were in contravention of the law, but it appeared that the police wanted to stop us. We pulled over, and I set my bike down and stood aside; the officer without any apparent need, picked my bike up and threw it violently while I stood, motionless, watching. I was pressed against the wall of Hamilton City Centre, handcuffed, and pushed down onto the sidewalk. I sat down on the sidewalk, passively, almost not believing what was happening to me.

I was riding a bicycle on the side of the road. I was not on drugs. I was not driving drunk. I was not in posession of illicit substances or weapons. Yet somehow, the best that Hamilton's finest could come up with at 2:30 am on a friday night was me, a 27 year old mechanical engineer earning $43,000 a year paying full taxes, spending my paycheque downtown at legitimate establishments, riding a bicycle, doing no harm to anybody.

I was presented with two tickets, one for riding a bike without a horn, and one for intoxication in a public place.

My bike had a bell on it, and I was not intoxicated. Furthermore, no claim was made to that effect, and no sobriety test was administered.

The ticket read "Jame St. N, at Wilson."

I will argue in court, that there is no street in Hamilton named 'Jame'.

My friend asked them why there was no ride program outside of hess village (where we witness, weekly, obviously intoxicated teenagers getting into vehicles and driving away.)

Hamilton, I give up on you. Good night.

FairHamilton · #2 Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 10:53 AM**

Complain to the Hamilton Police Services right away Jon. Don't let it sit.

http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca/HPS/...AComplaint.htm

Arguing "Jame" vs. James in court will do nothing. Complain to the Police Services, do it now.

omro · #3 Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 12:51 PM**

I'm really shocked by that story.

I hope you and bike are both unscathed.

holymoly · #4 Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 1:45 PM**

This is appalling.

SteelTown · #5 Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 3:52 PM**

Whoa! Flight it at court.

Aren't they suppose to do a sobriety test before giving a fine for intoxication?

mishap · #6 Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 6:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelTown

Whoa! Flight it at court.

Aren't they suppose to do a sobriety test before giving a fine for intoxication?

I don't think they have to give a test for public intoxication. It seems to be a judgement call. What amazes me is that the officer decided that the rider was intoxicated while driving, as a bike is a vehicle under the HTA, yet did not issue a ticket for impaired driving. And why might that be? Because DUI is a far more serious charge, and there is a higher standard of proof for the officer to meet. If he thought he could make the case, he would've laid the charge.

No horn? Yeah, he's probably beat on that one, if the ticket stands. Just argue that the ticket says Jane at Wilson, which is clearly in North York.

FairHamilton · #7 Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 7:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mishap

No horn? Yeah, he's probably beat on that one, if the ticket stands. Just argue that the ticket says Jane at Wilson, which is clearly in North York.

Jon stated his bike had a bell, which is fine.

emge · #8 Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 8:02 PM**

That's insane. Fight it all the way.. geez. I'd probably talk to Bratina and ask why the hell this happened too.

Millstone · #9 Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 4:52 PM**

That is insane and a huge abuse of power.

highwater · #10 Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 5:12 PM**

This is horrible, Jon. I agree with FH. You need to report this right away, especially if there was any damage to your bike. Take care of yourself.

rousseau · #11 Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 6:37 PM**

Absolutely appalling, and beyond the pale. This is an outrage, especially at a time when progressive places are encouraging cycling around the world. But what's worse is this arbitrary abuse of police power, which should never be allowed.

I sincerely hope that your complaint is heard, and that you take it far enough that said police officer is fired or at least disciplined. Would you consider raising your voice in the media about this?

emge · #12 Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 8:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rousseau

Absolutely appalling, and beyond the pale. This is an outrage, especially at a time when progressive places are encouraging cycling around the world. But what's worse is this arbitrary abuse of police power, which should never be allowed.

I sincerely hope that your complaint is heard, and that you take it far enough that said police officer is fired or at least disciplined. Would you consider raising your voice in the media about this?

Posting again to say i specifically agree with this and would ask the same question.

Not to mention that you're a person who not only was doing nothing illegal, but because of your occupation, your choice to live downtown and your age, you're pretty much the poster child for "young urban professional, asset to the city" that Hamilton apparently wants to attract...

The fact that there was a second person there to witness what was happening also gives you some additional credibility.

coalminecanary · #13 Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 8:03 PM**

watch out we'll be getting tiecketed soon for not having a gong

RePinion · #14 Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 8:23 PM**

Wow. I've been absent from this board for a very long time but I thought I should pipe in on this one.

Public intoxication is a largely bogus offence which police officers invoke whenever they feel like arresting or harrassing someone. The classic scenario usually involves someone hurling an insult at the police or urinating in a public place.

It is true that a sobriety test need not be administered in order to form the grounds for lawful arrest under ss. 31(4) and (5) of the Ontario Liquor Licence Act. That section sets out the offence and the powers of arrest as follows:

(4) No person shall be in an intoxicated condition,

(a) in a place to which the general public is invited or permitted access; or

(b) in any part of a residence that is used in common by persons occupying more than one dwelling in the residence.

Arrest without warrant

(5) A police officer may arrest without warrant any person whom he or she finds contravening subsection (4) if, in the opinion of the police officer, to do so is necessary for the safety of any person.

That being said, it is obvious that a police officer cannot use 31(5) to undertake completely capricious and arbitrary arrests. There must at least be reasonable grounds to form an opinion that you pose a threat to members of the public (or yourself, in which case standard practice is to deliver the intoxicated individual to a hosipital rather than to arrest him or her pursuant to s.36). Furthermore, the jurisprudence on the issue has read into 31(5) a need for the alleged offender to have displayed the "classic symptoms of intoxication", which have been identified as including disarrayed clothing, mental confusion, physical unsteadiness, public urination, and vomiting. If the alleged offender was not displaying said symptoms, it is unlikely that the officer could have formed the requisite belief of intoxication so as to render the arrest lawful/necessary.

There have been innumerable successful complaints against police officers for unlawful arrest and/or abusive behaviour under s.31. Frequently, the constable's incident report is haphazardly prepared and does not display sufficient grounds for the arrest. If you and your friend (who presumably witnessed the incident) can offer consistent testimony before the police review board, and your story is indeed as you tell it here, then I would expect you should be able to obtain a conviction against the officer under the Code of Conduct.

If you intend to bring a complaint against the officer, you may wish to consider retaining legal counsel (some lawyers even sub-specialize in police complaints) at least to assist in the preparation of evidence and hearing strategy. I'm not sure about the legal framework, but you may be able to obtain a costs award from the review board and/or the OCCPS should the conviction be appealed (which it inevitably would). You may also be able to obtain compensation for damage to personal property.

Of course I make these remarks purely in the spirit of hypothetical speculation without any intention of offering legal advice.

Cheers.

Jon Dalton · #15 Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 8:49 PM**

I just thought it was hilarious that an officer who patrols these streets every day and is obviously Canadian born with English as their first language can't spell the name of Hamilton's main street.

Yes, of course I'm going to file a complaint, as well as fight both tickets in court. The damage to my bike is minor but there was no reason for it to happen at all.

drpgq · #16 Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 8:52 PM**

What about naming the officer here? I think some public shaming is in order.

Sorry to hear about your ordeal. In grad school I had a few incidents at night riding my bike downtown at night, but nothing that bad. The worst was coming back from Mac after staying at the lab until after 2 am on a Friday. On Main, just past James, I was in the rightmost lane when a car passed me at a decent clip and a passenger in the back seat threw a soft drink at my back. It must have been close to full as it was surprisingly painful, probably due to the velocity of the car and not the thrower's arm strength. Unfortunately, I was so shocked I was never able to get the license. I did harbour fantasies of finding where the car was usually parked and keying it repeatedly for months on end.

Jon Dalton · #17 Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 9:05 PM**

The officer's last name is Volpe, that's all it says on the ticket. Good call about going to the media as well, I wonder what the best avenue is to get publicity? I'm actually not shocked or surprised about this, I've come to expect it. This is the reason my brother lost his license for possibly the rest of his life, the same thing happened to him a few years ago. I have a policy of never arguing with police and remaining calm while being interrogated, although last night I slipped up on that a little due to the sheer incredulity of the situation. When it happened to my brother he made no effort at restraint and that didn't exactly work to his favour.

adam · #18 Posted **Jun 20, 2009, 10:13 PM**

...

Throwing the bike to the ground?

bigguy1231 · #19 Posted **Jun 21, 2009, 2:03 AM**

Just another day in Hamilton unfortunately. The police in this city act like this all the time. There are no checks on their powers. I know, a number of years ago I had some problems with the police here. I am not a criminal nor have I ever been convicted of a crime. But I was charged with a ridiculous charge and it did go to court. Fortunately, I had a judge who seen through the lies and dismissed the charge.

In cases like this where officers are being abusive, ask them to call their duty sergent immediatly. If they fail to do so, go to the station right away and file a complaint. That shows them 2 things, first that you are not intoxicated and secondly that you will not put up with the abuse. It will also get the attention of the duty sergent right away.

As for your filing a complaint now, good luck. They will do nothing.

It's unfortunate what you were subjected to, but sad to say it is nothing new in this city.

RePinion · #20 Posted **Jun 21, 2009, 3:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

Just another day in Hamilton unfortunately. The police in this city act like this all the time. There are no checks on their powers. I know, a number of years ago I had some problems with the police here. I am not a criminal nor have I ever been convicted of a crime. But I was charged with a ridiculous charge and it did go to court. Fortunately, I had a judge who seen through the lies and dismissed the charge.

In cases like this where officers are being abusive, ask them to call their duty sergent immediatly. If they fail to do so, go to the station right away and file a complaint. That shows them 2 things, first that you are not intoxicated and secondly that you will not put up with the abuse. It will also get the attention of the duty sergent right away.

As for your filing a complaint now, good luck. They will do nothing.

It's unfortunate what you were subjected to, but sad to say it is nothing new in this city.

There certainly are checks on their powers (statutory, common law, and constitutional) - many, many checks in fact - but in most cases it is up to the aggrieved individual to ensure that violations of these checks are not tolerated. While this might seem unfair to average citizens who have borne the brunt of police misconduct/abuse, consider that it is really a basic part of participatory democracy, an essential aspect of responsible citizenship.

It might actually be a good idea to talk with the duty sergeant. This will not in any way prejudice your right to bring a complaint against constable Volpe, although it could of course give him advance warning of the likelihood of a complaint being brought.

Ignore the callous but predictible words about the fruitlessness of filing a complaint. There can be serious consequences for constable Volpe, particulary if complaints have successfully been lodged against him in the past.