SUBJECT: POLICE SPEED TRAPS
PURPOSE: This briefing note is a recommendation for changes in policy pertaining to police speed traps.
ISSUE: There is not enough regulation on protecting the safety of police officers who are designated to conduct speed traps.
Background:
Police officers are employed with the possibility of danger. They accept this as it is part of their line of work in a bid to protect the public. As it pertains to law, their agreement to the possible dangerous working conditions is explained by the maxim “volenti non fit injuria.” This legal maxim specifies that those who agree willingly place themselves in a position where harm might result and that knowingly that such harm may possibly occur, they are unable to make a tort claim against the other party, the government. The vilification of such principle comes in the form of negligence. Negligence has several elements that must occur in order for it to be established; a duty to care is owed to the police officer and the government thereafter, a breach of duty or standard of care must also occur, there also must be a causation and lastly damages. With respect to the potential negligence, this briefing note is going to detail how the current way speed traps are performed are dangerous. The government has a vicarious liability with regards to the matter involving how police officers conduct themselves. This strict liability says that the employer is held responsible for the wrongful acts of the employee. Police on the other hand, act in a manner that places trust on the citizen, this is what is referred to as a fiduciary duty. With all these explained, it is now important to detail the process by which police officers perform speed traps. A police officer is parked roadside along the sidewalk, or in an intersection where he or she cannot be seen. The said police officer, uses a device referred to as a “speed gun,” or “radar gun.” Such device is aimed at oncoming traffic. A button is pressed and the speed of the vehicle is determined. Vehicles are to comply with the road regulations as per the Motor Vehicle Act, however if the vehicle in question is found to be above the speed limit, it is then considered an infarction. Once the police determine the infarction, they then attempt to stop the vehicle, and in some instances the police officer walks from the sidewalk, onto the street, signaling the oncoming vehicle to proceed to stop. The vehicle then pulls over to the side of the road and the officer determines whether to give the individual handling the vehicle a ticket. With the procedure explained, it becomes evident that this is not only dangerous but also a deficiency of the Emergency Vehicle Operation course police takes with respect to matters pertaining to road side safety. Lastly the procedure violates the Motor Vehicle Act which stipulates in two sections the matter involving jaywalking laws in certain municipalities. Both the police officer, the citizen operating the vehicle in question and potential other citizens operating other vehicles become implicated by this procedure.
Governments act to ensure the safety of the population within a country and this includes the safety of those whomsoever they employ. With regards to the procedure in question, it becomes evident that there is possible negligence. The government of Canada, an economy that ranks high amongst G8 nations clearly has the resources to ensure that their equipment is up-to-date. By providing such services as policing, they protect the judicial system however, with consideration of the fact that Canada has the resources, a breach of the standard has occurred here as there are speed guns that are available which would prevent danger to the police officer and the citizen. An example of such device is the TruCAM 20/20 manufactured by LTI- Lasertech. Clearly the standard within the device’s industry is constantly changing however, by the government not acting to protect the police officer through equipping them with safer equipment, it constitutes as a nonfeasance. By not acting on the priority of the lives of police officers, the Canadian government broke its own standard, as they continued to permit such procedure on the roads, thus they didn’t act to protect the public of which officers are included. Now if the government does not equip such devices to their police, they would then violate the principle of the duty to care. It is clear that the causation of potential danger is the procedure, therefore, the government must act to reduce the risks and minimize the vulnerabilities to its staff. Lastly for negligence to be established, there must be damage. Clearly there hasn’t been any damage however it is still a possibility and thanks to the due diligence of officers, they have managed to conduct the procedure in a manner that has not yet implicated themselves or other citizens. Police officers as mentioned have a fiduciary duty to the citizen. However, by violating the Motor Vehicle Act through jaywalking it breaks the aforementioned trust with the citizen especially since the Emergency Vehicles Operation course does not have provisions with respect to other matters involving the road, rather it focuses for the most part on the operation of the vehicle. With all of the facts conveyed, it becomes evident that the government is vicariously liable.
Considerations:
Police officers have a dangerous job. They must act to protect the public from crime. Through the management of people, they serve the country in a way that affords them honor. According to statistics from the National Law Enforcement Officers in 2011 there were 186 officers that died, there were 56,463 assaults and 14,832 assaults with injuries. When compared to the average per year 176 deaths per year, 50,355 assaults and 14,355 assaults with injuries. It is clear that numbers are going up. It is important for the government to realize the least invasive methods to apprehend infarctions and violations to the law. By equipping police officers with such equipment as TruCAM 20/20 manufactured by LTI- Lasertech, it not only supports the best practice principles of research but also protects the police officer and the citizen thus preventing or reducing the tallied numbers. According to Statista, Canada spent in 2019 on policing in Ontario $5,874,511, in Quebec $3,075,635 and in British Columbia $1,855,215. For comparison, according to Statistics Canada, the countries revenue amounted to $332.2 billion in 2018–19. The stakeholder for this matter are the government, the police, the equipment manufacturers and the citizens.
Options:
Option 1: Equip proper speed guns.
The TruCAM has various features that would serve the police officer in the field with many benefits. Such features of the device include automated traffic enforcement with video license plate number imaging, rear plate mode capturing the rear license plate and speed to maintain a chain of evidence and video mode to instantly capture violations such as not wearing a seat belt and misuse of HOV lanes. Its clear that this device and others like it have practical applications that can make policing safer. This is a very feasible option as the devices are affordable. By equipping these devices, it would give police officers equity through safer policing and risk reduction. This is an accountable option as it serves not only to protect the standard of policing but the public in general. This is a very safe option, it would prevent vulnerabilities in the road and thus reduce injuries. Clearly this option has many security benefits of which include the capturing of a chain of evidence. Public acceptability would likely remain low as anything new in apprehending violators of law would likely cause more distaste for the police.
Option 2: Erect more speed light cameras.
This is the most expensive option however, by employing this option it would allow police officers to conduct other tasks. This option would give officers more equity because they are not putting themselves at risk via the conventional speed trap procedure. This is also an accountable option as it would serve to apprehend law violators and it would also reduce the amount of officers conducting speed traps. From a security perspective, this option would ensure that drivers act in caution with regards to driving. Like the aforementioned option, the public acceptability for this would likely be low.
Option 3: Make changes to the EVO course.
This is the most affordable option and thus it is the most feasible. By making changes to the EVO program to include conduct in the road, it would give the officers equity by keeping them safer and more aware. This is also an accountable option as it would increase the trust with the citizen as it pertains to the law. From a security perspective, having the conduct documented in literature serves to ensure that the government is transparent. There would be high public acceptability for this option as it would help citizens understand the police with regards to road safety.
Option 4: Mixture of option 1 option 2 and option 3.
This option is not very feasible, it would require a lot of planning to determine which options would be prioritized and where it should be implemented. However, by addressing it in this manner, it serves to protect a larger part of the community, rather than specific neighborhoods. This is an accountable option as it would ensure the police officers are safer. Like option 1 and option 2, this option would likely not have high public acceptability.
Option 5: Status quo.
This option is the least accountable. It would not do anything to improve the best practice of the police officer. It would also continue to build distrust with the citizens, thus selecting this option is not advised.
Recommendation:
Option four is recommended.
No comments:
Post a Comment