“Police Entrapment”

We were totally entrapped by a police officer on Friday evening, we were coming up on an 80 km series highway in a truck and fully loaded trailer. We approached a vehicle which we maintained speed behind for a little while. Suddenly when it turned to a dotted line (meaning we could pass legally) the vehicle ahead of us slowed down considerably.. to the point we were going just slightly under the posted speed limit. At this point we thought they were letting us pass so we proceeded to pass.. As we are about half way passed, the vehicle SPEEDS UP!!, he went faster and so did we to try and get around. We could not hit our brakes as we had a trailer, and now we see incoming lights so I panicked and yelled at my husband hat this guy was going to kill us (unmarked vehicle, we did not know it was an officer at this point) we floored it around the vehicle ND once we made it safely around we slowed down. He then pulled us over and he gave us a ticket for going 102km in an 80km. He clocked us passing and we only sped up because he was too, we could have been killed! He totally entrapped us, we want to fight it in court, I think he should be charged! Your opinion?

Your thread title indicates you think this was entrapment by police. It was not. As for it being entrapment by the other driver, I don't believe it is. For this to have been entrapment the police officer and the other driver would have had to colluded to convince you to pass. Which means the officer and the other driver would have had to have perfectly timed their approach to each other. The odds of this are zero.

You state that the driver in front of you slowed to just under the speed limit and then you decided to pass. Passing safely in this case must surely mean you have to exceed the speed limit and therefore you were at the mercy of the police radar. As far as I know there is no consideration given in Ontario for speeding when trying to safely pass as there is is some US jurisdictions. So as far as the police officer is concerned you were speeding and it does not matter that you were speeding to pass somebody.

As far as having the other driver charged I doubt this will happen. Your assumption that the other driver slowed to let you pass is just that, an assumption. There could be many other reasons for him slowing down. Maybe he saw something ahead and decided it prudent to slow down. Maybe he had a radar detector and had warning of the oncoming police car. Your assumption that he was slowing to let you pass is not something I would rely on in court.

As far as you not being able to slow down because you were pulling a trailer I'd say that would fall under the conditions of you going too fast. You are always supposed to be in control of your vehicle and that includes being able to bring it to a safe stop. This is not something I would ever state in court as part of a defence.

But, as always, request disclosure from the courts and then decide if you want to fight the ticket.

I think the original poster was saying that the car they were passing - the one that sped up - was the police car.

This would not be considered entrapment. For entrapment to occur, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that: (1) the police officer provides an opportunity for someone to commit an offence; and (2) the police officer convinces someone to commit the offence.

The proper thing to do if you cannot safely pass the vehicle, it would be to slow down and turn back and continue behind the vehicle.

The car in front of you was driving practically at the speed limit (80km) by your own admission. You had been accustomed to a higher speed and decided to make the pass. Already, you're speeding making that pass. There's no allowance for speeding while making a pass in Ontario. No one put you in that position. Now lets pretend you couldn't pass the vehicle beside you. The solution would to slow down and put yourself back behind that car.

My own short opinionated thoughts about this which don't mean much of anything... you weren't ready to make a pass. It sounds like you took way too much time to do it, didn't nearly have enough speed to do it, and relied on other drivers to overcompensate for it. What leads me to that conclusion? Two things. A vehicle seemingly out of nowhere appears in the incoming lane. Either (a) you didn't have enough visual clearance to make a pass; or (b) you just took way too long. The other, the speed. During this pedal to the metal period where your husband "floored it", you hit about 102km. So unless the officer has reduced your charge significantly, how fast could you have been possibly moving before this while trying to get around? Especially considering the added length of a trailer, when do you expect to finish a pass by doing lets say 85km? Passing should be done quick.

If you plan on taking this to trial, i'd suggest you request a copy of the officers notes before you walk in blind with assumptions. It'll contain all the information pertaining to your stop. It's better to know than to be blindsided with it during a trial.

Good luck.

How was this not entrapment? We were cruising at a steady speed behind the undercover cop.. He slowed down and moved to the shoulder slightly which was a signal to pass him.. Only when we were half way passed him at only a couple kms over the limit, he proceeded to floor it.. It is entrapment because we would not have accelerated if he didn't speed up and we would not have passed if he didn't signal for us to pass him.. I feel we were targeted.. and if this is legal it's a shady way of catching people speed.. I'm fighting this in court for sure, I think this was also wreckless endangerment because someone could have been killed! I'm shocked that some of you think this is OK, it absolutely is not! These cops are suppose to protect the peace, not try and put people at risk out there. I thought it was some punk messing with us and all along its a cop?!? I feel we were targeted here..

Going 'just slightly under the speed limit ' is not an invitation to overtake.

You were already speeding while following the officer.

Is that not a bit of failed logic in the entrapment theory you've provided?

Why would an officer need to go through all this trouble when you're already sitting behind him and speeding?