- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 5,907
- Reaction score
- 1,575
Do you think that car booting should be considered a consensual interaction on private property or criminal extortion?
From: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/denver-boot-legal-1.4061275
Edmonton parking enforcement firm waging battle with police over use of Denver Boot
Owners have been jailed for using wheel immobilization device, which police say amounts to mischief
...
In a written statement, EPS Detective John McConnell states that use of the boot is a criminal act. "There's the act of mischief to another person's vehicle by rendering it inoperable. A second criminal charge of extortion may be appropriate when the vehicle owner is approached in the lot and forced to pay a fee before the device is removed."
...
Cantwell maintains what he is doing is legal because the lots RFM patrol are private property and anyone who parks in them is entering into a legal contract to abide by the rules. Those rules are spelled out on signs both at the entrance, and within parking lots.
"If there's a sign in a parking lot, it's your job to read the sign," he explains. "You get out of your car and read the sign. You make your decision whether or not you belong there. If it turns out you get booted because you read the sign and decided to ignore it — it's your own fault."
In Edmonton, RFM is charging drivers $300 plus tax to have the device taken off of their cars.
But his interpretation of the law has never been tested in a Canadian court. The only case law authorities can cite comes from a 1992 decision in Scotland's version of the Supreme Court. It found use of the boot to be a form of extortion, stating: "It is illegal for vehicles to be held to ransom."
...
From: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/denver-boot-legal-1.4061275
Edmonton parking enforcement firm waging battle with police over use of Denver Boot
Owners have been jailed for using wheel immobilization device, which police say amounts to mischief
...
In a written statement, EPS Detective John McConnell states that use of the boot is a criminal act. "There's the act of mischief to another person's vehicle by rendering it inoperable. A second criminal charge of extortion may be appropriate when the vehicle owner is approached in the lot and forced to pay a fee before the device is removed."
...
Cantwell maintains what he is doing is legal because the lots RFM patrol are private property and anyone who parks in them is entering into a legal contract to abide by the rules. Those rules are spelled out on signs both at the entrance, and within parking lots.
"If there's a sign in a parking lot, it's your job to read the sign," he explains. "You get out of your car and read the sign. You make your decision whether or not you belong there. If it turns out you get booted because you read the sign and decided to ignore it — it's your own fault."
In Edmonton, RFM is charging drivers $300 plus tax to have the device taken off of their cars.
But his interpretation of the law has never been tested in a Canadian court. The only case law authorities can cite comes from a 1992 decision in Scotland's version of the Supreme Court. It found use of the boot to be a form of extortion, stating: "It is illegal for vehicles to be held to ransom."
...
