Photo radar contractor decides where most enforcement happens, Winnipeg police say

Category: Photo Enforcement

  • Photo radar contractor decides where most enforcement happens, Winnipeg police say

    The operators with for profit Traffic Safe Solutions who are contracted by for profit Conduent have regularly said ‘we only go where WPS tells us to go” when told they enforcing unlawfully in locations with missing signage, where no work being done on the actual lanes for traffic, the zone extended longer than permitted or required, speed limits artificially lowered or enforing unfairly when no workers present.

    The current an past Winnipeg Mayors, City Councils and Provincial Governments since 2003 have not enforced the Conditions of Authority for Photo Enforcement which is grounds for the program to be terminated.

    The elected and appointed officials that have allowed this or turned a blind eye seem to only care about the $70 Million or more per year taken from drives and be vehicle owners. The Province gets 50% of this “safety” revenue which is arguably unlawful taxation as fines. The City gets 25% and WPS gets 25% after paying its for profit partner.

    Many of the photo enforcement “safety” programs / schemes like this in other jurisdictions have been proven to be involved in corruption with serveral resulting in investigations and convictions including up to 10 years in prison for public officials.

    This and the fact the programs and technology have repeatedly been proven to not improve safety or make it worse is why it banned in many places.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-photo-enforcement-locations-1.5617380

  • Options for responding to Manitoba traffic tickets / alleged offenses

    The POC / Traffic “court” reopened on July 6, 2020 for dispute hearings and payments only. It had closed temporarily due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

    Here is detailed info about your options if you received a ticket / alleged traffic offense in Manitoba. You must respond within the response period shown on your ticket or a default conviction can be entered along with a $50 penalty.

    If you wish you can exercise your right to dispute the offence (i.e plead not guilty, get a disclosure package, communicate with the Crown attorney and if needed have a trial etc …), admit the offence, or seek a reduction. You have a few options to do so which are listed below.

    If you dispute, you can change your mind later and change your option or plea. Most are still offered or can get a reduction and time to pay. After filing to dispute some tickets have been dismissed when reasonable reason given. This more likely with backlog for hearings / trials.

    You can also authorize a representative to handle the matter on your behalf.

    If you choose one of the retired cops / traffic ticket “experts” be aware they are often fine with not telling you much of this and collecting from you half of what you “save” when they request and if they get dismissal or reduction.

    If you can’t get time off during the day or can’t afford to you can request night court and you can also request a hearing in french.

    Options:

    1) Go in person to 373 Broadway in Winnipeg or check with a regional court:
    https://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/tickets/contact.html

    2) Phone the court: 204-945-3156 in Winnipeg or toll free at 1-800-282-8069 (ext.3156). Have the offense / ticket number ready.

    3) Complete the form linked in this post or here:
    https://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/tickets/pubs/poaform.pdf

    One member said when they tried to attach a copy of their d/l photo, the whole form would freeze. If so send the photo seperately.
    Mail, fax or drop off at:
    100 – 373 Broadway
    Winnipeg MB R3C 4S4
    Fax: 204-948-2023
    or check with a regional court (see link above)

    Or Email the form to POC@gov.mb.ca

    Warning email is not secure and there has been cases where they have send disclosure package by email last minute with little time to prepare your defense and requests for dismissing or adjournment denied.

    Ask for confirmation that they have received the form.

    After your form processed you should be sent a letter with hearing date. After this you can contact the court to get name of the crown attorney or articling student assigned to your case and phone number. You can then call or email them (first name.lastname@gov.mb.ca) if you need to request adjournment for more time to prepare or …

    A disclosure package should he sent to you at least 7 days before your trial but you maybe able to request it earlier.

    You have the option to request the operator or officer be present to question (The crown can be asked to call them as their witness so you can cross examine or you cam subpoena them). You must appear before a Justice to request this but should not need to go into detail about your defense.

    The Guide for self represented Defendants via link below and on the MB Courts website provides general information about the court process for tickets. This guide is not meant to be used as legal advice. If you have any legal questions, contact a lawyer.

    General info about tickets
    https://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/tickets/

    Disputing
    https://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/tickets/dispute.html

    More on this and related at www.wiseupwinnipeg.com and WiseUpWinnipeg under Announcements, Files, Discussions etc…

    The “New Plea Process” page and post has more details on when and why this process changed (their claimed reasons and what their real intentions appeared to be), the erosions of the accused rights, their ability to know about and exercise what rights are left and what can be done about these injustices.

    More info and some history about the process change here

    New Plea Process

  • WPS pension changes and off topic but important comment and response

    Nov 6 2019 – Concerned Citizens of Winnipeg and Manitoba

    Find comment below from article and post about City of Winnipeg plans to change the police pension bylaw to make the pension more sustainable using the new Provincial public sector pension and benefits legislation. Mainly change City / taxpayers contributions from 18% to match employee contributions of 8%, require 20 years service and age 60 for full pension and remove pensionable overtime.

    For more info, comments and discussion see

    —

    “I would not mind nearly as much if:

    -They weren’t committing fraud with drawings in court.
    -They were on top of crime instead of sleeping in cars with photo radar.
    -They were properly testing their devices and ACTUALLY only interested in ticketing bad or dangerous drivers.
    -They would post people randomly in high theft areas, like grocery stores, liquor marts, etc instead of on busses and corners looking for phones (but even that is acceptable to me if it’s about safety and not revenue).”

    —
    Response

    , the hand written Designated Construction Zone diagrams, sleeping in photo enforcement vehicles is WPS’s for profit “partner” Conduent (formely Xerox / Lockheed Martin / ACS) but they claim to get direction from WPS on where to “enforce”.

    The breaches of charter, due process and other legal rights plus ignoring of codes of conduct, professional standards, sworn oaths, ethics etc… when issuing “violations” during pretrial and in Provincial “Offenses” ‘court” aka SCC / Traffic or kangaroo court” by the Crown, JJP’s, operators and officers is the result of the past Selinger led SpeNDP, current Pallister led PC governments, Katz and Bowman led City and Administrations, WPS Chiefs McCaskill, Clunnis and Smyth, the Police Boards plus the Judiciary (Chief Justices) choosing the 50% Province, 25% City and 25% WPS / Conduent shares / cuts in traffic “safety” revenue over proper engineering, safety, public trust, respect, confidence and econmic growth / legit tax revenue.

    This abuse, extortion or government sanctioned taxation as fines involves over $70,000,000 per year taken from mostly safety conscious drivers and vehicle owners.

    A similar sanctioned racket or flawed and biased “enforcement” revenue stream happening with for profit partner G4S and the Winnipeg parking “authority” which involves over $40,000,000 per year.

    Combined this equates to over $450,000,000 per year or 5,000,000,000 since 2003 (when the priority became more about revenue) taken from the economy and economic growth with velocity of money.

    Low income individuals and families hit the hardest with the fine option taken away to pay with community service and MPI in on the racket with officer issued “offenses” and licenses and insurance penalties plus suspension of license or preventing renewal till payment

  • Traffic law changes exploit drivers

    By: Curt Pankratz
    Posted: 03/21/2019 4:00 AM |
    WINNIPEG FREE PRESS FILES
    With fines of $300 to $700 for traffic infractions, enforcement in Winnipeg generates $4 million per month in revenue.
    Manitobans generally do not see traffic enforcement as a serious legal issue, and we’re losing our rights because of it.
    Enforcement in Winnipeg generates $4 million per month in revenue. Such revenue generation depends on Manitobans to see traffic violations as simple matters. Simplistic publicity campaigns reinforce this belief by, for example, telling drivers to “just slow down.”
    But traffic is a serious issue. It is a leading cause of injury and death, and depending on how it’s done, enforcement can increase or decrease safety.
    Traffic infractions are no small matter, either. Manitoba has the highest traffic fines in Canada, and typical fines of $300 to $700 constitute a considerable expense to most people. It’s not acceptable to say “just slow down” because Winnipeg violates nearly every national engineering standard for traffic signage, amber light timing and speed limits, and has 173 missing school-zone signs that it refuses to replace.
    In this context, predatory enforcement can accumulate astonishing revenue because it can ticket people who are driving safely. The challenge for revenue-hungry police and government is that when large fines are given to thousands of reasonable drivers, there will be a lot of court challenges.
    In Manitoba, three main strategies have been adopted to deal with this, and they are costing Manitobans their rights.
    First, Manitobans have lost their right to be tried before a judge and to choose a representative. In 2006, the province created the Judicial Justice of the Peace (JJP) program. It hired several people and anointed them with judicial powers to preside in traffic court. The idea was to reduce the burden on provincial judges.
    However, JJPs do not require legal training and some are related to police officials or have historical connections with the Crown’s office. Importantly, JJPs have been more likely than judges to rule in favour of the Crown on key issues, even when evidence and submissions are the same. The Crown has therefore often sought to kick critical cases from judges to JJPs.
    Court transcripts also identify a range of legal misapplications by some JJPs, such as disregarding precedent, subjecting representatives to involuntary bag searches and preventing arguments from the defence.
    JJPs have also been essential to the recent efforts of the prosecution to restrict the accused’s right to appoint another person to represent them. This right is spelled out in the Provincial Offences Act, as well as on the back of each ticket. Although the ticket also states that a representative may be excluded based on the justice’s “opinion,” in the law there is a much higher standard for excluding a representative than the ticket suggests.
    Nevertheless, court transcripts indicate that the prosecution often moves to block representatives who win cases, and such motions have only been successful when a JJP is presiding rather than a judge.
    Second, in 2015 the province initiated what it calls the “pre-plea triage program.” Its roots are problematic from the get-go because it is based on an exclusive partnership between Prosecution Services and the courts, which are supposed to be independent of one another.
    This program requires anyone who wants to challenge their ticket to go to 373 Broadway in person. Once there, they are required to go through a series of lineups and meetings before they can request a trial date.
    It is a violation of the law to require this process. The law gives the accused the right to request a trial from the courts without these steps. The program is designed to whisk thousands of drivers through, offering fine reductions if necessary but avoiding legal entanglements associated with predatory enforcement and traffic engineering deficiencies.
    The third strategy is the transformation of the law itself. Under the law, which was adopted in November 2017, several key rights have been eliminated. First, the court now uses “certificate evidence.” This is where the accusing officer certifies their version of events and submits the certificate to the court. The content of the certificate is taken as proof until the accused proves their innocence.
    This is tied to a second problem, which is that the officer no longer attends the trial, and the accused no longer has the right to cross-examine them. By contrast, the prosecution has the right to cross-examine the testimony of the accused, as well as any witnesses they produce.
    Finally, the law eliminates the right to appeal decisions made in traffic court. Appeals now require permission from the court, and you cannot appeal the facts as interpreted by the presiding judge or JJP.
    Further exploitative polices are being planned, and if Manitobans continue to see traffic enforcement as a minor legal issue, our rights will continue to erode.
    Curt Pankratz is associate professor in the department of sociology at the University of Winnipeg.

  • Should the public allow known cash grabs to prevent unknown ones?

    Image: Winnipeg Sun

    Feb 25 2018 – WiseUpWinnipeg

    If an informed public are willing to allow what equates to unlawful taxation as fines and arguably breach of trust or unlawful enrichment to prevent another cash cow or raising taxes elsewhere we are heading in the wrong direction.

    Too many have fallen for the typical propaganda of we have to cut services or raise taxes. There is bloated bureaucracy, incompetence, unethical influence and corruption running rampant. The jurisdictions that have cleaned this up have more than enough legit revenue to provide great value for tax dollars without abusing their citizens with dial on demand taxation as fines.

    This isn’t even considering the harm the scameras proven to cause with dangerously short amber times, removed and inadequate signage, other known and created deficiencies and taking $70M a year from drivers, vehicles owners and their families every year in just Winnipeg. With velocity of money that equates to over $450M per year or $.5 Billion since 2003.

  • MB fine option to pay with community service not available for some

    Jan 21 2019 – WiseUpWinnipeg

    In MB the fine option to pay with community service is no longer available for HTA and parking alleged offences including traffic matters.

    It used to be an option on the back of the alleged offense notices. Was this done in the lead up to photo and parking enforcement being implemented with For Profit partners?

    Saskatchewan wants to or has taken this option away as well.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/fine-option-rules-could-hurt-non-profits-1.4098904

    A justice should be able to overrule this policy if requested by the accused after a conviction when they asked if they need time to pay.

    Has any one tried this?

    If denied it may require filing a motion application (free for non civil including HTA matters) with the Provincial Court. E.g 408 York Ave, Wpg. Which will be heard by a proper Justice not a JJP aka majistrate like in POC / Traffic or as some senior Crown refer to it Kangaroo Court.

    Taking this option away hurts low income people, families and communities the hardest. Especially when they can stop the renewal of a drivers license or insurance for non payment and fines are up to six times higher than elsewhere in Canada.

    Many require a license for employment and public transit not available where or the times they need it. This can force some into poverty and a vicious cycle that in some cases leads them from being a productive member of society to homeless and being a unnecessary strain on public services.

    It not uncommon for fines for designated construction zones which are doubled being over $600. In many cases multiple alleged offenses issued to same vehicle owner in short period due to zone extended beyond any construction and signage missing, blown down or inadequate. When this proven with City issued FIPPA request results that are also online the JJP’s have denied them being used and ignored photos of signage missing.

    Regardless the accused can appeal but this costs $35, cost of transcript and time off work. In MB there has been a trend of bias and errors for simple traffic matters especially in the lower court. The Chief Justices have said in responses to formal complaints about this “that is what the appeal process is for”. Not all can afford the cost to appeal, for transcript and time off work.

    The accused can still make payments but even this is difficult for those on fixed or limited income.

    —

    The government of Manitoba has created a fine-option program under Manitoba Regulation 178/88 which entitles any person, regardless of financial circumstances, to elect to perform community work, rather than pay the fine.

    Who do I contact for more information?

    Winnipeg: (204) 945-6313

    Toll-Free in Manitoba: (204) 1-800-282-8066

    www.gov.mb.ca/justice/courts/fine.html

    WiseUpWinnipeg

    Volunteer Public Advocates and Cummunity Group

    To earn more about use, get more informed, donate and volunteer visit www.wiseupwinnipeg.com

    To share this post outside facebook

    MB fine option to pay with community service not available for some

  • Serious issues with how photo and officer traffic enforcement used in Winnipeg

    Jan 17 2019 – Kevin Yaworski

    There has been many good articles by Tom Brodbeck about Photo Enforcement in Winnipeg. The Bowman led City and Pallister led Province have only allowed the many serious issues around it to get worse.

    Why does WPS, the City, Province and MPI include or depend on fine or demerit related revenue from photo or officer traffic “safety” enforcement in their budgets?

    Why are the conditions of authority for photo and officer traffic enforcement, court directives, charter and other legal rights not enforced or ignored?

    It has been suggested to elected and appointed officials repeatedly that this “revenue” should not be included in budgets and doing so plus the lack of enforcement of above conditions and rights has led to:

    1) Ignoring of MUTCD, ITE and other proven national traffic engineering safety standards for speed limit setting, intersection amber times, speed limit, reduction and photo enforcement and related signage. Removal of hundreds of the above public paid and engineering recommended signage with no valid reason. Just excuse that too much signage is confusing.

    2) Aggressive and predatory enforcement by photo and officers of zones with known and dangerous engineering deficiencies with low safety risks.

    3) Diverting officers from community support and other important units to work pensionable OT on traffic duty and targeting almost exclusivly deficient locations as mentioned above.

    4) Less availability or focus by officers, Crown, the Courts and other limited and valuable resources than is needed on preventing, investigating, solving and prosecuting serious crime (violent, property, blue collar, corporate and financial).

    5) Up to 150,000 photo and 55,000 officer issues alleged traffic offenses per year in Winnipeg with upward trend and up to 25% contesting rate by accused vehicle owners or drivers. This volume, contesting rate with fines up to 6 times higer than elsewhere in Canada are many times higher than the Canadian average per capita.

    6) Calls to police for B & E and other serious crimes taking up to 36 hours to get response or 911 callers getting told there is no officers available yet multiple peaceful protests by WiseUpWinnipeg members in Construction or School zones with unlawful setup and inadequate signage get response by WPS in under 15 mins. Other cases with no response while the TrapSpy app reporting many officers nearby doing traffic enforcement

    7) Undue pressure on Clerks, Crown, JJP’s, Justices and the courts in general from above volume and contesting rate and resulting in a well documented trend of bias and errors in transcripts, decisions and other court records.

    8 ) Backlogs and delays of up to 24 months to go to trial for simple traffic matters. These and other charter violations created as a result of the predatory enforcement and “safety revenue” schemes. They resulted in Court clerks, Crown and other valuable resources diverted from family court and other important courts. Clerks resigning after pressured into calling accused vehicle owners or drivers to discuss their options and actions they felt were unfair or underhanded.

    9) Ignoring or misinterpreting of court directives, due process, charter and other legal rights, legislation, sworn oaths, professional standards and MB Justice policies by photo enforcement operators, police officers, Crown, JJP’s and some Justices, Chief Justices, LERA commissioners, APEGM / EGM in order to reduce delays, get convictions, reduced fine plea deals and dismiss formal complaints.

    10) For profit TSS / Xerox / Conduent photo enforcement operators caught in many photos sleeping or distracted while “observing violations”. Operators or Officers making false statements, falsifying notes and other evidence, lying under oath / perjury about signage checked and present, that they were present at the time of the violation and others with little to no consequences. Trend of a lack of or last minute disclosure of officer notes, observation logs, zone and setup diagrams etc … Trend of lying, misleading or bullying of accused by Crown to reduce delays and get plea deals. Trend of Crown and JJP’s denying valid requests for adjournment like last minute disclosure, rights of the self represented ignored and others.

    11) Loss of public trust, respect and confidence in police, courts, elected and appointed officials and the system in general which has serious consequences.

    12) Anti-public interest legislation / acts, bylaws and policies put in place without due diligence, proper public consultation or debate that allow more breaches of due process, charter and other legal rights instead of dealing with the known and root issues mentioned above. This included but not limited to the option to plead not guilty removed from back of alleged offense notices and form removed from MB JUS website, the right to a fair trial, face your accused and to a proper appeal taken away or made very difficult to know about or stand up for.

    Once more of the public get informed of these abuses, misuse of valuable and limited public resources and then take collective and meaningful action things will change.

    This doesnt even go into the issue with unfair and unlawful parking enforcement by WPA / CoW and their For Profit partner G4S Tech (now has new name to try and dodge rap from trend of behavior against public interests).

    —

    WiseUpWinnipeg
    We are Public Advocates for proper safety, engineering, education, legislation plus fair and lawful enforcement (in that order) and related.

    To get more informed of the facts and impacts of ignoring, donate and volunteer visit www.wiseupwinnipeg.com, www.facebook.com/groups/WiseUpWinnipeg announcement and regular pinned posts included nested links.

    Together we can make a difference.

    Like and Follow us on Twitter and Facebook at @WiseUpWpg
    Disclaimer: We are volunteer public advocates. If you require legal advice contact a Lawyer registered with LSM, legal aid if you qualify, the public interest law center or recognized law clinic at University.