Speeding Ferrari Gets Impounded

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by StylinRed

u didn't respond to my reply so here it is again with a wikilink to where you can read about it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section...s_and_Freedoms

I do not think that is a relevant section of law. The relevant section of Law is the BC Civil Forfeiture Act. Note that unfair laws are written all the time and are struck down and repealed if higher courts decide that they are unjust. I shall argue that application of the civil forfeiture law to crimes of street racing and speeding is unjust. First, let's see what the law says:


http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bcl...de/00_05029_01

The director, who is an appointed public servant can make an application to the courts to seize an "instrument of unlawful activity"

I quote the relevant sections:

"instrument of unlawful activity" means any of the following:

(a) property that has been used to engage in unlawful activity that, in turn,

(i) resulted in or was likely to result in the acquisition of property or an interest in property, or

(ii) caused or was likely to cause serious bodily harm to a person;

(b) property that is likely to be used to engage in unlawful activity that may

(i) result in the acquisition of property or an interest in property, or

(ii) cause serious bodily harm to a person;

Clearly, the director is bringing about the case based on Subsection (a) ii. The law, however, is written broadly enough that the director can potentially seize ANY sports car he wants under section (b) ii - property that is LIKELY to be used to engage in unlawful activiity that MAY cause serious bodily harm to a person.

However, just because the director makes an application to the courts to seize your property, doesn't mean that the courts have to accept the director's forfeiture order.

Subsection 6(1):

Relief from forfeiture
6 (1) If a court determines that the forfeiture of property or the whole or a portion of an interest in property under this Act is clearly not in the interests of justice, the court may do any of the following:

(a) refuse to issue a forfeiture order,

(b) limit the application of the forfeiture order;

(c) put conditions on the forfeiture order.

Therefore in determining if a forfeiture order is justified, the court has to decide on the rather nebulous term of whether it is "in the interests of justice." This suggests that they should take into account protection of civil rights and treatment of similar crimes in other provinces. What does the attorney general in New Brunswick think of enactment of a civil forfeiture law in his province?

http://timestranscript.canadaeast.co...article/993357

Carr says it's important to make sure the act won't allow things to happen that were not intended.

"We need to protect ordinary people's civil rights," he says.

Lamrock says the new law will not let that happen because it has safeguards built in. For example, police can't simply seize items. It must also be proven in court that the item is being used for an ongoing criminal activity.

He goes on to say, " the law doesn't allow for seizure of every property where crime happens, so drivers won't lose their cars for speeding. The Crown must prove the property is instrumental in an ongoing criminal activity.

Also, courts cannot approve a seizure where the property taken is disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime. Lamrock says the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that forfeiture laws within these parameters are consistent with the Charter."

And there you have it. Speeding, or street racing is not an "ongoing criminal activity" and seizing a vehicle is arguably disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime.

British Columbians, your civil rights have just been violated! This case sets a bad precedent and needs to be brought to the attention of the public at large.

[Hehe]

I think the forfeiture law does have its share of problems against property rights.

The way I look at street racing and forfeiture law is this, forfeiture is only justifiable when there is actual damage. But then again, what we want is to prevent damage from happening in the first place.

Therefore, some sort of penalty that would really *scare* people from conducting such action is needed in order to prevent damage first hand. Otherwise, the Ferrari owner is probably so rich that he has another 458 or something on order.

IMO, just put a clause on the law that cars involved in street racing can be impounded and driver's license suspended up to x years, with the owner responsible for all storage fees. At about 10 bucks a day for storage+depreciation of super cars, this could be more painful to the owner as he/she is not allowed to transfer the car's title until the suspension is up. Basically putting the car in jail.

Now, imagine the Ferrari and M6 have to be stored for 3 years, they will probably lose 40% of the value in 3 years time, not to mention all the parts they need to replace after 3 years storage. All cost is covered by the owner and property right is still protected up to an extend.

[underscore]

^ The does make sense - make the license suspension and impoundment of a car dependant on how excessive the speed was. Which I think is kind of what they're doing here, if these guys were "only" doing 100 in a 60, the gov't might not be doing this. But because they went 200 in a 60, the cars are seized and being sold.

Originally Posted by Great68

There's not exactly an abundance of tracks in BC.

True, but if you can spend $235k on a Ferrari, you can afford to make a few trips if you want to really cut it loose.

[pastarocket]

The Civil Forfeiture Act and that Ferrari Scuderia are mentioned in today's Metro News.

http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/lo...ounded-ferrari


IMO, those idiot drivers deserved more than just a ticket for excessive speeding and 15 day license supension. They almost injured a woman and her two children.

http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/lo...errari-and-bmw

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

almost but they didnt

[Benz_05TSX]

They should start the auction at $14 !!!

[adambomb]

Anyone else find it odd that on the first page of this thread, the news reports the drivers as 20 and 21 yr old, spoiled rich kids. Thus, the hate was on.

But now that the forfeiture has gone through, we are now dealing with 31 year old, adults. Was the false report of young people racing in a ferrari an attemp to grab headlines and sell newspapers? Seems like it.

This whole situation reeks of jealous cops, jealous gov't officials and cash grab.

[dimdiu]

IMO this will be a huge lesson for those parents that buys ferrari, lambo etc for their kids. I agree with underscore, if they were doing 100 in a 60 zone, probably would've been license suspended and a fine. but doing 200 in a 60 zone, that's too much, and the fact is almost hitting a woman and her children didn't even scare them or stop them from speeding...that's the scary part. taking their cars away might be a good thing, not that the drivers care, they will just ask their parents for a brand new one. It's the parents, they will think twice wat car they will be buying for their children next time. remember ppl, this is a whole different situation, it doesn't happen everyday...as long as u dun speed, government won't randomly take away ur car. This whole thing is just making everyone safe and drive safe.

[van_driver]

So this means the 21 year old driver of the Scuderia WAS really part owner of the car. Not just "powered by mommy and daddy", as everyone was saying. Props to him.

[adambomb]

He's apparently 31 now, Not 21.

Not only did he buy a ferrari, he also bought 10 years of life in 3 months.
Props to him aswell.

[Death2Theft]

Who wants to go lease ferrari's and street race??? RSGB? we'll just share seat time.

[van_driver]

Originally Posted by adambomb

He's apparently 31 now, Not 21.

Not only did he buy a ferrari, he also bought 10 years of life in 3 months.
Props to him aswell.

Reading the first article posted a few posts above...

The driver, a 21-year-old Vancouver native, will receive only 30 per cent of the sale revenue, with the remainder going to the car’s other part owner — who was uninvolved in the incident — and the province.

Wonder which ones correct.

[van_driver]

On a side note, I guess we'll know exactly how much the dealership is gonna make on the Ferrari.

[adambomb]

RCMP say he's 31. Who do we believe? The reporters reporting the news or the cops who pulled them over? Could be a typo from either side.



http://bc.rcmp.ca/ViewPage.action?si...ontentId=17706

Like I said... this whole story reeks of jealousy because someone under the age of 35 owns or partially owns a ferrari.

[Death2Theft]

I forgot where in europe they do this but speeding tickets are a % of your income so the net loss is the same if u drive a veyron vs a civic.

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

I've got to agree that what has taken place here is extremely unjust.

It's one thing to impose tough penalties where everyone is subject to the same punishment, as in if you're doing 40kmph over the speed limit, regardless of whether you're in a Civic or a Ferrari, it's the same excessive speeding ticket...

But for this totally arbitrary rule to seize and force the sale of your vehicle, and keep a PERCENTAGE of the amount? That's a whole other story. Why does the person speeding in a Civic only get penalized like what may amount to $3000, but the person speeding in the Ferrari get penalized $47000? Makes absolutely zero sense. They both committed the exact same crime.

[1exotic]

Originally Posted by Death2Theft

Alright screw fast cars time for everyone to get suv's with 36 inch spinners! Dont worry guys if your civic gets busted doing 200km/h i'm sure they wont take it away. Hence another reason not to race beserkers riced out pos

lol

[Phat_R]

Maybe we should instead go with the Swiss model of speeding fines...

http://www.worldcarfans.com/11008132...or-swedish-sls

I'd rather lose my SLS than pay a million dollar fine.

[StylinRed]

Originally Posted by Marco911

I do not think that is a relevant section of law. The relevant section of Law is the BC Civil Forfeiture Act. Note that unfair laws are written all the time and are struck down and repealed if higher courts decide that they are unjust.

and if someone takes the case to the supreme court and the supreme court so decides the govt can enact the Notwithstanding Clause and continue seizing

you could argue that the law was applied incorrectly and win it that way (if so proven) but gl with that, paying a 20% fine for being an idiot is a lot less time consuming and the cheaper way out

Attorney General New Brunswick

while the views of New Brunswick politicians are valued they are simply viewpoints (even the attorney generals); tell that to Ontario and their seizures of property under their Street Racing Laws, etc etc

[penner2k]

Originally Posted by StylinRed

and if someone takes the case to the supreme court and the supreme court so decides the govt can enact the Notwithstanding Clause and continue seizing

you could argue that the law was applied incorrectly and win it that way (if so proven) but gl with that, paying a 20% fine for being an idiot is a lot less time consuming and the cheaper way out



while the views of New Brunswick politicians are valued they are simply viewpoints (even the attorney generals); tell that to Ontario and their seizures of property under their Street Racing Laws, etc etc

It might be the cheaper and easier way out but its most likely not the best. Who is to say that if people just let this keep happening they dont change other laws to start seizing stuff when they really shouldnt.
I believe it should be equal punishment across the board for stuff like this.

Every individual is equal before the and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

The Canada Equality Law says that everyone is equal but in this case the fines are completely different. Sure the percentage might be the same but the amount you are paying isnt.
What I dont get is that driving is a privileged in Canada. Why not just hand out a nice fine in this case and take away the license from the drivers for a year or two.
Lets just say the Ferrari driver is stupid rich and the Ferrari means nothing to him. He just got a 15 day driving ban and lost his car but get cash from it. Tomorrow he goes into the dealership and buys the car back and tomorrow does the same thing but this time actually kills someone. This law is all about money and not about stopping anything.


If I had the money I'd love to go out and buy a $5000 car and purposely blast past a cop going 200+ just to prove how flawed this actually is. I can almost guarantee if this went to supreme court the province would lose and they would be fucked since it would make it that everyone that has lost their cars to this law could turn around and sue the govt.

[orange7]

Originally Posted by Death2Theft

I forgot where in europe they do this but speeding tickets are a % of your income so the net loss is the same if u drive a veyron vs a civic.

but a lot of fobs can cheat their way out.

They don't have any income in Canada cause all their business are in China, so I guess will get fined % x 0 income = $0 fine, even though they were driving in lambo or something like that.

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by pastarocket

The Civil Forfeiture Act and that Ferrari Scuderia are mentioned in today's Metro News.

http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/lo...ounded-ferrari


IMO, those idiot drivers deserved more than just a ticket for excessive speeding and 15 day license supension. They almost injured a woman and her two children.

http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/lo...errari-and-bmw

You're like the fucking peanut gallery. Don't believe everything you read in the press. Do you really think a woman and her kids are going to be anywhere close to a roadway when a screaming Ferrari flies by? I can believe that they were at the same place/time together but I'm sure they were on a sidewalk or safely off the road.

[Marco911]

Incidentally, according to the BC Forfeiture law, victims can make a claim for proceeds taken by the government. I wonder what the province would say if this mother and her kids made a claim against the province for a portion of the theft proceeds from the forced sale of this Ferrari.

[cococly]

Originally Posted by Great68

Moral of the story:

If you're going to speed, do it in someone else's car.

I have to agree with you on this one

The fact of the matter is, they were choosing a road at the time of year with very few traffic/pedestrians. (Were they being considerate?) If they did that kind of speed in Downtown at peak rush hour on Friday evening, then it's really dangerous.

This local news has become an international news now.

NEWS source:

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/11/24/m...35-000-ferrar/

[Manic!]

LoL!!!

[FX35]

Originally Posted by cococly

I have to agree with you on this one

The fact of the matter is, they were choosing a road at the time of year with very few traffic/pedestrians. (Were they being considerate?) If they did that kind of speed in Downtown at peak rush hour on Friday evening, then it's really dangerous.

This local news has become an international news now.

NEWS source:

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/11/24/m...35-000-ferrar/

Dumb ass.

#1 You agree with him that if you are going to speed, speed in someone else' car? So what, that somebody else could suffer from your lack of brain? I feel sorry for those who befriend with you.

#2 Is it even possible to go 200 in Downtown Vancouver? Do you even think before you speak???

#3 So based on your logic, it was a (relatively) GOOD idea for them to speed, just because they chose a relatively open road?


Roads are dangerous because of dumb ass pricks like yourself.