Radar Detector Detector Question

[dic]

Having gotten into a number of radar detector posts in different forums recently, I have a question about Ontario and radar detectors.

If a police vehicle has a D/D (detector-detector) and the officer......detects.... that you have one in your vehicle, can he stop you solely for the hit on his D/D or does there have to be a primary reason for the stop?

Thanks
Dic

[MikeOxlong]

Yes, he can stop you for the hit on his detector-detector.

I believe the law even permits him to search your vehicle.

[Jammin_Jay]

Section 79 (2) of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act states, “No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle that is equipped with or that carries or contains a speed measuring warning device (radar detector). (3) A police officer may at any time, without a warrant, stop, enter, and search a motor vehicle...on reasonable ground to believe is equipped with or carries or contains a speed measuring warning device and may seize and take away the speed measuring warning device.”

Hope that helps.

[I_10_92]

The OPP's collection of radar detectors is quite impressive from what I've heard.

[RolnCode3]

*edit* nevermind - looked it up myself.

[Chrome69]

Originally Posted by Mike_Oxlong

Yes, he can stop you for the hit on his detector-detector.

I believe the law even permits him to search your vehicle.

Mike is correct on this, been their done that..... I was doing 10 under the speed limit and he picked off the detector, it was a cheap one so not a great lose on the seizure but it came with a $70 ticket as well..

[dic]

Wow, that sucks.

Don't the radar D/D ever false alarm? They are electronic receivers after all.

I know you gentlemen do not write the laws, but what is the reasoning behind the ability to search your ENTIRE vehicle because you MIGHT have a radar detector? What is the actual DANGER to SOCIETY AT LARGE by owning a radar detector? (Please understand, I am NOT being argumentative, just inquisitive). Since radar detectors haven't really been around that long, when was this law enacted, and has it NEVER been challenged?

If he gets a hit, can he look in the trunk? Search a briefcase? Search your person? Your passengers?

If he finds an open beer or a roach in the ashtray, does he get to take you in for that? (I am not worried about EITHER of those things happening to me, but for the sake of knowledge....). Theoretically, couldn't any officer that thought you were in violation of anything (let's say operating under the influence) say he got a hit on a D/D just to stop you, and when NOT finding a D/D, but that you were OUI, say he was wrong about the detector, but he took an OUI off the road?

There seems something to be intrinsically wrong about the practice, but I can't quite identify it.
Maybe later.

Thanks for the responses.
Dic

P.S. Is there any visible sign that a vehicle has a D/D? Antennas, etc?

[Don_Burke]

Originally Posted by dic

Don't the radar D/D ever false alarm? They are electronic receivers after all.

In Virginia, I talked to a man who told me he had been pulled over when his Sirius receiver set off the detector.

[polkaroo]

Hah. If the cop sees you slam on the brakes when he nails yours car/area with laser/radar, it's pretty obvious. No detector detector needed.

[dic]

DAMN, Don!

I forgot:
My friend and I were driving in his car to a hockey game and I brought my Valentine One with me. He has XM radio, and every time he turned the radio on, my Valentine went off.

I called Valentine to ask them about that, and they said , yes, they had complaints about Satellite radio setting off radar detectors.

Thanks for reminding me.

Dic

[dic]

Polkaroo,

That is called "nose-diving" and, over the years I have learned not to do it.

Dic

[boomboy64]

Originally Posted by dic

...Since radar detectors haven't really been around that long...

If you're talking about the radar detectors themselves, they've been around long enough... I can still remember the first ones in the late 70s, they were huge (relatively). I can also remember my roommate at college getting dinged in '85 or '86 for being in posession of one. The kicker was that it wasn't even his, he had borrowed it from a friend. It was one of the then-new smaller ones and he had it in his shirt pocket when riding his motorbike on the 401. Got dinged from behind when he hit the brakes when it went off.

If you're talking the RDDs (radar detector detector), I don't honestly know how long they've been around.

Here in Manitoba, we're a bit schizo... You can buy them, but you can't use them. They're legal to the west (Sask, etc) and illegal to the east (ON). We're just in between, both geographically and legally...

Cheers,

[Forts]

The 'detector-detector' that OPP and most agencies use these days is the Spectre, and yes it does false the same as a radar detector will. It's also very non-specific as to the location of the detector he may be picking up. It's usually mounted on a swivel type mount so the officer can move it around to see where he gets the best signal strength from, then its his discretion as to which vehicle in a pack might have a detector. As mentioned above, looking for nose diving and tail lights are a dead give away at any time. Do a search on You Tube for 'Spectre radar' and you will get some videos of it in action, such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyg8oFmg21c

Here is another interesting link, including some pictures of the OPP's radar detector 'Wall Of Shame'.. Nice collection!

http://www.spectre-rdd.com/radar_wars.asp

[Forts]

[QUOTE=boomboy64If you're talking the RDDs (radar detector detector), I don't honestly know how long they've been around.[/QUOTE]

The Interceptor VG2 came out in the early 90's, and was the first commonly used RDD (Radar Detector Detector) for law enforcement that I'm aware of. You can even pick one up on Ebay every once in a while. I've heard from a few people that have bought one to play with and they say it's amazing how many of todays detectors can still be picked up with this old RDD.

[dic]

I just watched the video.
THAT'S how it works?

Bad news.

Dic

P.S. I am not sure whether or not to start a new thread here, but is the new Bel Pro RX65 (I think that's right) the new supposedly undetectable one?
I will continue to do research.

[gmclam]

I've got a unit with VG-2 which I purchased in 1999. I find that the thing thinks it has detected a detector detector when near another vehicle with a RADAR detector. I find having the unit just as interesting as a scanner. It gives me one more set of eyes to see what is going on around me.

I find it "funny" that many will say "once it goes off you've been had" at the same time letting us know they are illegal in many jurisdictions. Methinks if they were not effective (for drivers) then there'd be no need to outlaw them.

[slicerwizard]

Originally Posted by Forts

The Interceptor VG2 came out in the early 90's, and was the first commonly used RDD (Radar Detector Detector) for law enforcement that I'm aware of.

I remember the first press release from the OPP regarding their newfangled detector-detector; that was a few years before I bought my 87 YJ, so I'd say they got in to the game around 85 or so.

[Forts]

Originally Posted by slicerwizard

I remember the first press release from the OPP regarding their newfangled detector-detector; that was a few years before I bought my 87 YJ, so I'd say they got in to the game around 85 or so.

Now that you mention it, you are right... thinking back... I got nailed with a radar deteector in....geez....must have been about 87 or so. So it was indeed mid to latter part of the 80's.

[Forts]

Originally Posted by dic

I just watched the video.
THAT'S how it works?

Bad news.

Dic

P.S. I am not sure whether or not to start a new thread here, but is the new Bel Pro RX65 (I think that's right) the new supposedly undetectable one?
I will continue to do research.

No, the RX65 is not stealth. I highly suggest you take a look thru the forums here: http://www.radardetector.net. Lots of info to all your detector related questions.

[dic]

Forts

Thanks
The original inspiration for this post was this discussion:http://www.radioreference.com/forums...ad.php?t=85955

I have since discovered that the information given in the above-mentioned post was flawed.

I do thank you for your responses.

Dic