Harley in the Hangar: Chop Shop?

[toom]

<rsbm>

Toom, what is IANAL? Thanks !!

Standard "I Am Not A Lawyer" disclaimer. Sort of redundant on this site if one is not registered as an expert though really.

I'm actually the sort of person who for various reasons has picked up just enough law to be dangerously wrong on occasion =)

 

[Blomquist]

Obliterated vehicle identification number

(2) In proceedings in respect of an offence under subsection (1), evidence that a person has in his possession a motor vehicle the vehicle identification number of which has been wholly or partially removed or obliterated or a part of a motor vehicle being a part bearing a vehicle identification number that has been wholly or partially removed or obliterated is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the motor vehicle or part, as the case may be, was obtained, and that such person had the motor vehicle or part, as the case may be, in his possession knowing that it was obtained,
(a) by the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or
(b) by an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence punishable by indictment.

Obliterated vehicle identification number

(2) In proceedings in respect of an offence under subsection (1), evidence that a person has in his possession a motor vehicle the vehicle identification number of which has been wholly or partially removed or obliterated or a part of a motor vehicle being a part bearing a vehicle identification number that has been wholly or partially removed or obliterated is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the motor vehicle or part, as the case may be, was obtained, and that such person had the motor vehicle or part, as the case may be, in his possession knowing that it was obtained,
(a) by the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or
(b) by an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence punishable by indictment.

The key word is 'knowing' / 'knowingly'

 

[Solo712]

Solo, do you have links for the first two items? The rules on WS require links to be provided with statements of "fact". Thanks.

Bessie, with respect: ad 1) This falls under what I would call 'common knowledge'. We in Canada have one set of criminal statutes; everyone who comments publicly on matters under scrutiny here, let alone someone who moderates the discussion, should know that. Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867 establishes the sole jurisdiction of Parliament over criminal law in Canada. Feel encouraged to google out "Criminal Code of Canada". Ad 2) If the existence of something is in dispute, it cannot be the one who disputes it who should be called upon to establish the material finding. I did not assert that the CC defines the "possession of defaced VIN". Someone else did. I merely pointed out there is no such offence listed in the CC. You are welcome to try to prove me wrong.

Best,
J.

 

[Solo712]

Edit: Here's the section immediately following section 353.1 which does specifically mention that if someone is in possession of a vehicle or part having a defaced VIN they automatically bear the burden of proof that they are not in possession of property obtained by crime, which is a criminal offense. So, basically what Solo said, but worth elaborating on the fact that possession of parts having a defaced VIN is seen as prima facie proof that the vehicle or parts were stolen and that the person in possession is aware of that fact.

Thanks, toom. Its basically that: if the VIN was tampered with, you, the owner will need to establish the legitimate provenance of the property (and not the contrary by the prosecutor). "Knowing" does not enter into discussion: it is assumed that the one in whose possession the vehicle is, knows (how) the vehicle was obtained.

Best,
J.

 

[Archangel7]

Obliterated vehicle identification number

(2) In proceedings in respect of an offence under subsection (1), evidence that a person has in his possession a motor vehicle the vehicle identification number of which has been wholly or partially removed or obliterated or a part of a motor vehicle being a part bearing a vehicle identification number that has been wholly or partially removed or obliterated is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the motor vehicle or part, as the case may be, was obtained, and that such person had the motor vehicle or part, as the case may be, in his possession knowing that it was obtained,
(a) by the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or
(b) by an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence punishable by indictment.

The key word is 'knowing' / 'knowingly'

No, the key point of law is prima facie and that the onus is own you to prove you are not knowingly in possession of a stolen "thing" with an altered/defaced "VIN."

ETA... try rereading the Code without the commas and see how it goes. Or see the posts above mine.

 

[Sillybilly]

If the existence of something is in dispute, it cannot be the one who disputes it who should be called upon to establish the material finding. I did not assert that the CC defines the "possession of defaced VIN". Someone else did. I merely pointed out there is no such offence listed in the CC. You are welcome to try to prove me wrong.

<snip>

You stated AS FACT that there was no offence. You said:

Three factual points:

...

2) There is no offence relating to "possession of defaced VIN" in CC. The offenses stemming from possession would be tried under sections dealing with theft, and/or possession of property obtained by crime.

...

You were asked for a link to support what you stated as fact and did not do so. Various posters have subsequently provided a link that states it does exist.

 

[Blomquist]

Presumption of innocence should be preceding all evidence including Prima Facie.
JMO IMO

The prosecution also has to prove that someone KNEW that something was stolen/defaced/murdered by , the onus is on both sides IMO. If someone stumbles across a body in their back yard does not make them the murderer, just because it's right there under their nose JMO IMO MOO

Prosecution cannot just say to a jury " It was on his land, he did it" or " He had the car therefore he knew that part was stolen"

If I was on a jury and prosecution behaved this way I would rule in favor of the defendant, based on lack of evidence provided by prosecution. I would want to know how they were so sure that the defendant KNEW that property was stolen or how they KNEW that the defendant killed. I do not see how onus is on defendant solely. That would mean prosecution could arrest and charge anyone for anything and say "Unless you prove otherwise, then you knew or you did it"....if thats the case IMO then Law is totally corrupt. JMO IMO MOO

 

[Archangel7]

The confusion seems to be in the writing/wording of the law. I don't know of a particular sentence/paragraph or wording that literally states that possession of a defaced or altered VIN is a crime. The law seems to assume the plate is attached to a vehicle in your possession and because of that you are in possession of stolen property unless you can prove otherwise.

Look at case law R v Smith, R v Adams, or R v Sandy

In R v Sandy Even our question falls under further encompassing law such as the Traffic Safety Act and under warrantless arrest authority:

In the case of the Traffic Safety Act, police officers are authorized to arrest without warrant only with respect to specified offences. This power is governed by s. 169, which provides:

Arrest without warrant

169 (1) A peace officer may arrest a person without warrant if the peace officer, on reasonable and probable grounds, believes that

(a) the person has committed an offence in respect of any of the provisions set out in subsection (2), and

(b) the person

(i) will continue or repeat that offence if not arrested, or
(ii) has provided the peace officer with inadequate or questionable information as to the person&#8217;s identification.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the following are the provisions for which a person may be arrested without a warrant:

(a) sections 51(a) and 94 relating to the operation of a motor vehicle without having a subsisting operator&#8217;s licence;

(b) section 52(1)(a) and (d) relating to the operation of a motor vehicle without having a subsisting certificate of registration;

(c) section 53(1)(b) relating to the displaying of a licence plate other than one authorized under this Act;

(d) section 61 relating to the defacing of licence plates;

(e) section 68(2)(a) relating to possession of a motor vehicle or serially numbered part,

(i) where a serial number or other authorized identifying number or mark is not displayed in the space provided for displaying that identification by the manufacturer, or


(ii) where the serial number has been removed, defaced, covered, altered or destroyed or become illegible;

BBM

In conclusion it appears that possession of a defaced/altered VIN IS a contravention and an arrest can be made, assumed it is attached but defaced or missing from a vehicle altogether.

Does that help or make things worse? Seems we are drifting somewhat.

ETA.......Sorry, I forgot to add a link to the Alberta case law on a Voir Dire ruling in Respondent v Sandy 2007

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highli...GljbGUgSWRlbnRpZmljYXRpb24gTnVtYmVyAAAAAAAAAQ

 

[Blomquist]

I think we should also remember that the Criminal CODE of Canada is not Law. It is a code just as it says it is.

Basically it is a guideline or a 'code' which needs to be deciphered to see IF a law has been broken IMO

Said code is usually ruled by statutes (Acts) which are rules based on actual law. (or should be) The interpretation of these Acts is often open to misinterpretation IMO. Acts are basically operating under 'color of law' rather than actual law. If someone is wrongly convicted under color of law they can and should be taking the matter to the Superior court and even higher, and invoking actual law. JMO IMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

The way I read the first link was that the "possession" itself is not an offence under the Criminal Code. HOWEVER, if you are in possession, and cannot prove otherwise, it becomes proof that it was obtained by theft and falls under the "theft" portion of the Criminal Code. It may not matter anyways because it appears that there is an exception:

Exception

(3) Despite subsection (1), it is not an offence to wholly or partially alter, remove or obliterate a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle during regular maintenance or any repair or other work done on the vehicle for a legitimate purpose, including a modification of the vehicle.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-170.html#h-100

 

[Blomquist]

The way I read the first link was that the "possession" itself is not an offence under the Criminal Code. HOWEVER, if you are in possession, and cannot prove otherwise, it becomes proof that it was obtained by theft and falls under the "theft" portion of the Criminal Code. It may not matter anyways because it appears that there is an exception:



http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-170.html#h-100

And there lies a loophole or the remedy to an injustice within the 'code'

thank you for finding that.... :clap:

 

[bessie]

Bessie, with respect: ad 1) This falls under what I would call 'common knowledge'. We in Canada have one set of criminal statutes; everyone who comments publicly on matters under scrutiny here, let alone someone who moderates the discussion, should know that. Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867 establishes the sole jurisdiction of Parliament over criminal law in Canada. Feel encouraged to google out "Criminal Code of Canada". Ad 2) If the existence of something is in dispute, it cannot be the one who disputes it who should be called upon to establish the material finding. I did not assert that the CC defines the "possession of defaced VIN". Someone else did. I merely pointed out there is no such offence listed in the CC. You are welcome to try to prove me wrong.

Best,
J.

Let me tell you something. There is no exclusivity on this board. Discussions are open to readers worldwide, and the same rules apply to all. You were not asked for a link because I, personally, don't know the law, or because I am unable to research it. (Obviously, you haven't been around here very long.) And I'll tell you something else. The law on this board says that members treat each other and the moderators with courtesy and respect.

Here's another link some might find helpful.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159"]The Rules - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[SteveP]

And there lies a loophole or the remedy to an injustice within the 'code'

thank you for finding that.... :clap:

Regardless of whatever loopholes may exist as they pertain to defending oneself against a charge of having a vehicle with obliterated or altered VIN numbers, I really think DM and his lawyers better be trying to find loopholes as they pertain to a charge of murder. JMO

 

[Blomquist]

The point of my post is to show how within the code there is usually a remedy to that which is colour of law, that, somehow is not in sync with actual law.

IMO anything that breaks with natural or inherent law is a crime. My post had nothing to do with people who are guilty, merely pointing out there is remedy within legislation that is somewhat lacking for viability insofar as actual law in concerned.

 

[onlooker62]

Essentially, here's how it is. There is a law on the books in Canada, that amounts to "Possession of stolen goods" However it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the defendant either knew or reasonably ought to have known that the goods were stolen. This provision exists to exonerate someone who bought something stolen thinking full well that they were making a legitimate purchase. Innocent until proven guilty prevails at all levels of the law.

 

[Blomquist]

Regardless of whatever loopholes may exist as they pertain to defending oneself against a charge of having a vehicle with obliterated or altered VIN numbers, I really think DM and his lawyers better be trying to find loopholes as they pertain to a charge of murder. JMO

The charge of murder would fall under common law as opposed to statute or code. The law to which all legislation should be based on is common law which is basically No harm, No loss, No Injury..murders falls into this category.

The loopholes I was referring to was insofar as statute and code is concerned. Common Law needs no loophole... sorry if I didnt make my post clear.

 

[cefair]

Blomquist said:

I think we should also remember that the Criminal CODE of Canada is not Law. It is a code just as it says it is.

Basically it is a guideline or a 'code' which needs to be deciphered to see IF a law has been broken IMO

I really question this sweeping assumption. The Criminal Code "codifies" most criminal offences and procedures in Canada. Its official long title is "An Act respecting the criminal law" (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended). Important Canadian criminal laws not forming part of the code include the Firearms Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the Contraventions Act.

I think we're getting way off topic here.

 

[Archangel7]

The charge of murder would fall under common law as opposed to statute or code. The law to which all legislation should be based on is common law which is basically No harm, No loss, No Injury..murders falls into this category.

The loopholes I was referring to was insofar as statute and code is concerned. Common Law needs no loophole... sorry if I didnt make my post clear.

Please research the difference in codified law and common law. Your post is misleading to others whom may not know better.

 

[toom]

I would want to know how they were so sure that the defendant KNEW that property was stolen...

I don't see your point. If you go to a legitimate business and buy a whole vehicle you normally have to register it before you drive it off the lot. I've never been involved in a private sale but I assume it's similar. Good luck doing that without a VIN.

Parts are a little trickier, yes, but conversely easier to demonstrate you didn't know they were stolen.

 

[Blomquist]

Please research the difference in codified law and common law. Your post is misleading to others whom may not know better.

Look up the meaning of the word LAW and then look up meaning of the word CODE...should become abundantly clear what each means. Go one step further and look up the meaning of Act..that should get you thinking ;-)