• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Military Police [MP] Superthread

  • Thread starter Thread starter cf_2000
  • Start date Start date
Actually, you have to be careful not to mix up three different concepts and infractions here.

The anti-drunk driving campaigns have gotten us used to the slogan "Don't drink and drive", but there are actually no laws against doing these two activities separately and even in that order, so long as:

1) Your blood alcohol levels remain below the legal limit in your province (infraction no. 1, which requires proof by way of a qualified tech using a certified machine under the criminal code, and carries its automatic consequences); and,
2) you are not impaired while driving. This impairment can be from any cause, not just alcohol, and is a second type of infraction. Absent a proof of large alcohol consumption or being above the legal limit (see above), this is more difficult to prove, and requires various impairment  tests to be administered and noted by the L.E.O. That is also the reason why LEOs prefer to do these tests as a precursor to sending the driver to take a breathalyzer test, as it is simpler to prove in court and more difficult to beat by the driver. It is also why LEOs want some form of machine and "objective" limit of the same nature to be developed for marihuana before it becomes legal: much simpler than proving actual "impairment". However, impairment without any evidence on blood alcohol levels or even proof of alcohol consumption is an infraction and can be proven by other usual admissible forms of evidence - including ordinary witnesses (which LEOs are in law).

Finally, seldom mentioned these days, there is the third infraction of having alcohol bottles/cans open in the vehicle or being consumed while driving. This infraction does not require you to be impaired or above/below the legal limit of blood alcohol levels: it's simply an infraction to carry it and simple observation of the fact is sufficient -but it usually leads to a simple ticket/seizure on the spot of the beverage and a few demerit points/fine combination.

The thing with Lightguns report is that, the person having made it home, the only infraction that Lightguns could have testified to is the third one: drinking alcohol in the car. He does not know if the blood level is above/below the legal limit while driving - and the police cannot just show up at your house and ask you to "blow in the machine" - that's only for roadside. And unless he observed some seriously improper driving maneuvers by the driver, he can't really testify as to the fact that this driver was impaired. 
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Actually, you have to be careful not to mix up three different concepts and infractions here.

The anti-drunk driving campaigns have gotten us used to the slogan "Don't drink and drive", but there are actually no laws against doing these two activities separately and even in that order, so long as:

1) Your blood alcohol levels remain below the legal limit in your province (infraction no. 1, which requires proof by way of a qualified tech using a certified machine under the criminal code, and carries its automatic consequences); and,
2) you are not impaired while driving. This impairment can be from any cause, not just alcohol, and is a second type of infraction. Absent a proof of large alcohol consumption or being above the legal limit (see above), this is more difficult to prove, and requires various impairment  tests to be administered and noted by the L.E.O. That is also the reason why LEOs prefer to do these tests as a precursor to sending the driver to take a breathalyzer test, as it is simpler to prove in court and more difficult to beat by the driver. It is also why LEOs want some form of machine and "objective" limit of the same nature to be developed for marihuana before it becomes legal: much simpler than proving actual "impairment". However, impairment without any evidence on blood alcohol levels or even proof of alcohol consumption is an infraction and can be proven by other usual admissible forms of evidence - including ordinary witnesses (which LEOs are in law).

Finally, seldom mentioned these days, there is the third infraction of having alcohol bottles/cans open in the vehicle or being consumed while driving. This infraction does not require you to be impaired or above/below the legal limit of blood alcohol levels: it's simply an infraction to carry it and simple observation of the fact is sufficient -but it usually leads to a simple ticket/seizure on the spot of the beverage and a few demerit points/fine combination.

The thing with Lightguns report is that, the person having made it home, the only infraction that Lightguns could have testified to is the third one: drinking alcohol in the car. He does not know if the blood level is above/below the legal limit while driving - and the police cannot just show up at your house and ask you to "blow in the machine" - that's only for roadside. And unless he observed some seriously improper driving maneuvers by the driver, he can't really testify as to the fact that this driver was impaired.

A couple minor nuances on that, though you're mostly right

"Straight impaired" - 253(1)(a) C.C., impaired operation of a motor vehicle - only considers impairment by alcohol or a drug, So not quite 'by anything', though in practice thats most of what we see. But you won't see a criminal code impaired driving charge due, for instance, to fatigue. I did get a hilarious straight impaired conviction (breath instrument wasn't working) where he damned near fell out of his car (on camera) and called me 'occifer', and then tried to kick me while I was searching him. Not the best idea with dash cam running. I got the same guy a month later when, on pulling him over, he literally backed into and struck my cruiser. Quite funny.

Open liquor in vehicle is provincial/territorial statute, not criminal. Not that you said anything wrong, I'm just adding more detail. It's usually a pretty considerable fine. Still, for this one you'll need someone to be able to offer evidence that crosses the 'beyond reasonable doubt' threshold that what was being consumed was actually alcohol, and not pop, near beer or what have you. I actually did once have  case of a guy frinking near-beer (.5% ABV) in a motor vehicle. I guess in the strictest technical sense I could have hammered him with the ticket because the beverage wasn't 0%, but as I did not believe .5% 'non alcoholic' beverages to be within the intent of the law I didn't.
 
For reference.

From Ask a CAF Recruiter,

DAA said:
Yes, a post secondary degree in Criminology would qualify you to apply for MP (NCM) as well as MPO (Offr).

MP's are sometimes seconded to Global Affairs Canada and assigned to Embassies for employment.  Requirements vary.
 
CBH99 said:
Doubtful.

It would be your word vs. his word, without any form of actual evidence to base a decision on.  Tossed.

Again, I doubt a crown prosecutor would even waste their time with it.  If they did, it would probably be because they didn't bother to look at it until the morning of trial, in which case they would probably just toss it. 

Sometimes a phone call from a lawyer is all it takes for the crown to look at a file and say "Yeah, your right.  It's gone."

Negative.

I work in law enforcement, and that kind of thing is very much frowned upon.  Not only that, but there is no discernible proof the offence took place.

He might say he witnessed the infraction, but because he is off duty, he wouldn't have any dash-cam video to prove it.  Therefore, it would just be your word vs. his word - and thrown out.

Not only that, but the crown prosecutor would probably have a word with him, as it would be a complete waste of their time.


(If that happened to you, the complainant sounds like a douche-bag.)

Are you actually in a front line capacity with Law Enforcement? (Enforcing Federal/Provincial legislation), because everything you've said so far isn't true at all.
 
justaskingVAC said:
Are you actually in a front line capacity with Law Enforcement?

When I first read LEO on here, I assumed it meant Police Officer.

Until I read this,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer
 
Anyone who has gone through the MP training in recent years able to shed some light on what the course is like? I mean as it compares to BMQ. Inspections? Weekends taken away? Indoc? After hours?
Basically just wondering what to expect!
 
cac1993 said:
Anyone who has gone through the MP training in recent years able to shed some light on what the course is like? I mean as it compares to BMQ. Inspections? Weekends taken away? Indoc? After hours?
Basically just wondering what to expect!

It not as rigorous and strict as BMQ, however you will have daily PT and Inspections. Your days will be 0530-1630, however you'll find yourself and your course mates using your downtime to study, practice your skills and training.

You will have weekends off, as long as your leave passes are approved (so don't do anything stupid, work hard, work as a team).

The Commandant is very big on "One Team" mentality. You will be training and in the future working with reservists; in the past there were Academy staff that bad mouthed reservists.... LCol Battista does not tolerate it and you'll find yourself looking for a new career.

He's also big into fitness, you'll definitely be more fit when you leave. Some days are absolute bag drives (The Payne Train, The Murph, 20 Minutes of Mayhem), but most are well done. I was rarely sore or felt like it was too difficult, it was certainly still challenging. There was one Friday where he took us through a morning of yoga to help us destress and recover.

Use your time and your mind wisely, but it is an adult learning environment and you'll be treated as such... As long as you don't give them a reason to treat you like a bunch of kids on BMQ again.

 
Just an aside note, noticed the new recruiting videos for the MP trade reflecting the new academy. Good job.
 
Any idea on numbers needed for 2017? Thinking about putting my diploma to use when I re-enter as an option.
 
EpicBeardedMan said:
Any idea on numbers needed for 2017? Thinking about putting my diploma to use when I re-enter as an option.

We're always undermanned

If you want in, just do it. They'll find a spot if you're selected.
 
LunchMeat said:
We're always undermanned

If you want in, just do it. They'll find a spot if you're selected.

Cheers, contacted the CFRC this am and he said 100 people for this year.

Going to try it out.
 
Been accepted for my VOT to MP.  Start Aug 8th.  Two English courses and one French.  Seems like they are pumping out a lot of new MPs considering the trade is on the smaller side.

Really looking forward to starting course.

Anyone else on the forum starting Aug 8th?
 
CCM81 said:
Been accepted for my VOT to MP.  Start Aug 8th.  Two English courses and one French.  Seems like they are pumping out a lot of new MPs considering the trade is on the smaller side.

Really looking forward to starting course.

Anyone else on the forum starting Aug 8th?

How long did it take?
 
Submitted VOT last July. Initial BPSO interview shortly after.  April "new" MPAC. Offer mid May.
 
CCM81 said:
Submitted VOT last July. Initial BPSO interview shortly after.  April "new" MPAC. Offer mid May.

Holy sh*t, that's pretty good!

Was the BPSO interview something you had to book yourself, or is it done for you through DMCPG?
 
The BPSOs office called me to book the initial.  I did the first interview with the BPSO, as well as a personality test.  CFAT score was valid and was high enough so I choose not to redo.

From there I was told that if merit listed I would be selected for further interviews.  The next interview was done by a Sgt MP.  This is when I submitted drivers abstract, employment history, etc.

 
CCM81 said:
The BPSOs office called me to book the initial.  I did the first interview with the BPSO, as well as a personality test.  CFAT score was valid and was high enough so I choose not to redo.

From there I was told that if merit listed I would be selected for further interviews.  The next interview was done by a Sgt MP.  This is when I submitted drivers abstract, employment history, etc.

How long did the interview with the MP Sgt take? An did they come to you or did you visit them at the guardhouse?
 
It will be interesting to find out what the new MPAC is and what they all do.. that's the next step for me to join.
 
Gazoo362 said:
How long did the interview with the MP Sgt take? An did they come to you or did you visit them at the guardhouse?

I went to the MP detachment.
 
Bbmoveup said:
It will be interesting to find out what the new MPAC is and what they all do.. that's the next step for me to join.

It's an interview, from a qualified assessor/investigator.

It can typically be anywhere from 1-3 hours.

They will come to you, or you will go to them depending on your proximity to a base and MP unit.
 
Back
Top