Don’t Talk to the Police

Professor James Duane and Officer George Bruch talk about why you should never talk to the police.

James Duane is a Regent University School of Law professor and Fifth Amendment expert.[1] He has come under fire for his suggestion to never talk to police under any circumstances.[2][3] His reasoning is that police sometimes lie to criminal suspects; police may have substantial evidence against even innocent witnesses; and individuals convinced of their own innocence may have unknowingly committed some crime.[4] This is along the lines of Justice Robert Jackson’s reasoning in Watts v. Indiana. [*1]

“Everything he [Professor James Duane] said was true, and it was right and it was correct.” – Officer George Bruch

“Though the videos are reflective of American law, the principles are largely applicable here in Canada. Though we do not have a 5th Amendment, Canadians have long had a right to silence which is now constitutionally entrenched in s. 7 of the Charter (see R. v. Singh, 2007 SCC 48 for a discussion).” – [*2]

BC Already Had Laws To Deal with Bad Drivers Being Irresponsible with Cell Phones

British Columbia already had laws to deal with irresponsible bad drivers with cell phones being reckless or dangerous.

“MOTOR VEHICLE ACT
Copyright (c) Queen’s Printer,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 318
Part 3
Careless driving prohibited
144 (1) A person must not drive a motor vehicle on a highway
(a) without due care and attention,
(b) without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway, or
(c) at a speed that is excessive relative to the road, traffic, visibility or weather conditions.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) (a) or (b) is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $100 and, subject to this minimum fine, section 4 of the Offence Act applies.”

“… it’s already against the law to drive without due care and attention OR with undue care and attention.” – RS

The new anti cell phone and device laws were only made to make the life of law enforcement and ICBC biased prosecutors easier.

The problem with the new anti cell phone and device law is that it alters the burden of proof from the prosecutors having to prove that a person was distracted by the use of a phone or other device and assumes that the person is guilty. This is in direct violation of the Canadian Constitution which guarantees every person in Canada the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (“11(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty …”).

This cell phone ban attempts to bypass this important constitutional protection and place the burden upon us saying that we are guilty of diminished capacity just because we were using a cell phone.

It assumes that we are guilty without proving it and thus this law is nullified and void.

The BC Cell Phone Ban is an Unconstutional Power Grab by ICBC to Avoid Paying Out Claims

On Jan 1st, 2010 the British Columbia Cell Phone and electronic device ban came into effect.

This cell phone ban really isn’t about making the roads any safer. It’s really just about ICBC having an easier time to prosecute people so that they don’t have to do any actual hard work of proving driver distraction in each case as they did last week.

Now ICBC can just magically say that you were distracted without having to actually prove it in your case. That makes their job so much easier that it’s not funny. As a bonus ICBC won’t have to pay for your claim since you’re guilty of a crime by default if you were using a device in your car.

One reason that this law is unconstitutional is that in Canada we have the right to be presumed innocent until we are proven guilty (“11(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty …”). This cell phone ban attempts to by pass this important constitutional protection and place the burden upon us saying that we are guilty of diminished capacity just because we were using a cell phone in our hands rather than in a speaker mode. In effect we’ll have to prove that were are not guilty of the assumed crime of diminished capacity or loss of focus or however they magically word it in sly tongued legalese.

Police State Deepens in British Columbia with Anti-Cell Phone Laws

The CULT of the Police State deepens in a disturbing way in British Columbia, Canada as of 1 Jan 2010.

It’s going to take a pretty creative excuse to get out of a ticket for violating B.C.’s new distracted driver law.

Effective Jan. 1, anyone caught holding a cell phone, PDA, portable music player or other electronic device while operating a motor vehicle is eligible for a $167 ticket. If the cop can prove you were actually using it, expect three demerit points, too.

That means simply fidgeting with a portable music player while stopped at a light is now against the law, according to RCMP Staff Sgt. Al Dengis, head of Central Okanagan Traffic Services.

“All the police are required to establish is that the individual was holding onto an electronic device,” he said.

Cops don’t have to prove that the device was in use or even on at the time of the offence.

“We simply have to show that you were driving the vehicle and holding the device,” Dengis explained.

– Just holding a cell phone while behind the wheel is now against the law

This anti-cell phone law is unconstitutional, plain and simple for it assumes that one had diminished capacity when one is using a cell phone or other device in the car while driving. I’d like them to prove that I had diminished capacity even once while using a cell phone at any time for the past two decades.

Sure if a person is in an accident and it can be shown that a cell phone or a distraction was occurring and that that caused the accident that is one thing and the proper burden of proof of a contributing factor.

Failing an actual problem, such as an accident, it is well neigh impossible for them to prove that a driver has “diminished capacity” just because they were using a cell phone. It’s not like the case of alcohol.

However, to assume we are all guilty of diminished capacity just for holding a device or using a cell phone while driving is insanity and fails the burden of proof of guilt [that is required for the government to prove].