|
|
|
Random roadside stop
- Thread starter Onagoth
- Start date
They can ask for proof of insurance, driver's license, vehicle registration. While doing that they can check for seatbelts, sniff for alcohol, do a roadside mechanical inspection of your vehicle, and inspect the parts of your car that are in plain sight for contraband, alcohol, radar detectors.
THey can do what ever they want... and it depends on a lot of things whether they can make any charges stick .. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/07/17/court-search-charges017.html
a cop can make a random stop not random by making up any reason he wants anyway
Personally just hand them the info... if you've got nothing to hide why fight it and if you've got something to hide and they find it... well you know what you did so man up and deal with it.
Thats my mentality and yes its cost me a lot of money but I feel better karmically and morally.
Thats my mentality and yes its cost me a lot of money but I feel better karmically and morally.
Onagoth
Well-known member
Its not like cops can just make up reasons for anything....its called probable cause
They need ZERO probable cause to do a traffic stop to check documentation.
The HTA and Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act are quite specific - you must physically hand over government-issued driver and vehicle documentation on demand, and insurer-issued insurance documentation on demand.
Those Acts are also quite specific as to penalties if you fail to do so.
In 1990 the courts confirmed the constitutional acceptability of random traffic stops in R v Ladouceur (1990) http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1990/1990canlii108/1990canlii108.pdf , and that ruling has held and been used to support similar rulings ever since. The key ruling in Ladouceur is that the police need no "probable cause" to do a traffic stop to check documentation.
Last edited:
GayManLoveIsOK
Well-known member
simply state that you will be recording this interaction and feel free to ask them as many questions as you like...they usually smarten up when you tell them that they are being recorded...
Turbodish is correct; you must present your proof of licensing and insurance. You are required to have them with you. Being able to prove your status, to police, is not the only reason for carrying such documents. While a police officer may be able to obtain your status, via computer, this is not the case for a regular citizen. How would the other party be able to ascertain such things, if you were in a collision?
OpenGambit
Banned
On a list of worst things to do during a traffic stop...
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
Welcome to the forum. Please don't pay attention to the trolls
I find your wording ("proof of licensing") very interesting. What if I don't give my license to the officer but a paper photocopy? Do I still get a ticket?
Section 33, of the HTA, states that a driver must carry his license with him, at all times when operating a vehicle. There are times when a photocopy is acceptable, for certain documents, but the applicable laws will then state "or a true copy." That isn't the case, where your license is concerned.
It used to be that they couldn't pull you over without reason such as seeing you without a seat belt,expired tags ect.You had the right to ask why you were stopped and they would have to have a good reason before inspection.Americans are appalled when they get pulled over in Windsor for nothing and liken it to a police state,I have to agree.This is just another example the continuous erosion of rights and we allow it without question.Same goes for the .05 bac law.Where does it stop when we allow non existent laws to be applied?I don't think people realize how few rights we have left.
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither "BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither "BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
Last edited:
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
Every year, there is a ton of people in Ontario getting ticketed because they forgot their license (in another wallet, purse, jacket, pants, or car). Most of these tickets are dropped if the driver is actually licensed, usually well before getting to court, because court time is getting more and more expensive, and it can’t be wasted on people pleading their cases.</SPAN>
However, we live in 2011, an age of wondrous computing deployments, and every police car happens to have a terminal. The cops can easily confirm if the license is valid (or if it has been revoked). So, just thinking out loud here… WHY NOT CHANGE THE LAW AND MAKE THE PHOTOCOPY A VALID ALTERNATIVE to confirm licensing? That way we could keep a photocopy in the glove box of every car or motorcycle that we operate. We fulfill the requirement (confirm if we are licensed or not), and we don’t get any tickets that ultimately waste tax payers money in court (not to mention thousands of wasted man-hours a year of people driving to court to show the license to the prosecutor, who drops the tickets afterward).</SPAN>
Even better, why not load the license to a cell phone application? The banking industry is planning to “load” a credit card into an app for smart phones, so every phone becomes a “tap-and-go” paying device. I imagine an alternative app where I could load my license, registration, etc. The cop says “License and registration please” and I say “Right here, officer, please scan it”, showing him my cell phone screen. He scans it and knows if license, registration, and ownership are in order. </SPAN></SPAN>
Yeah? When exactly was that?
The only reason it came before the courts in Ladouceur in 1990 was because the relatively-recent implementation of the Charter of Rights opened the door for random roadside stops to possibly be ruled unconstitutional. Clearly that did not happen.
And how many people forget their cell phone at home from time to time, in another purse, jacket, pants, or car? How is that any different from leaving your government-issued driver's license in those locations? Or are you suggesting that you should be able to keep multiple copies of your license in all sorts of different media formats, and the cops would be expected to be able to discern the validity of each as they encounter them?
And what about document control when a driver's license can be replicated in multiple locations and formats? Current Ontario law stipulates that you may not have duplicate driver's licenses in your possession. Expired licenses must be destroyed as soon as you are in receipt of a replacement. Given that a license is a pretty key piece of identification, just how wise is it to permit the proliferation of multiple copies of said identification?
That was 27yrs ago and the son on the head of the Essex County RCMP who was a passenger in my car took control of the situation as I had a cop trying search my car for fun.You could not be stopped randomly at the time they had to have a reason to pull you over.It's a fact I was the driver.The cop tried to search him until he checked his ID and recognized the name.He was told by the old man what to do if that situation ever arose.How is it we think it is ok to come under police scrutiny for no reason?I will never agree with profiling as that is what it comes down to. It allows profiling to occur and that s why Is illegal in the US.It is a disgusting practice for a free society and an intrusion of our most basic rights.
How can a non existent law such as the .O5 bac show up our driving abstract and your insurance be able to see that you had a suspension .I would have no problem if .05 was made law.But it's not law so what does that make it?It's the frog in the water scenario and the they are turning up the flame.How you see it depends on what side of the beaker you on.
How can a non existent law such as the .O5 bac show up our driving abstract and your insurance be able to see that you had a suspension .I would have no problem if .05 was made law.But it's not law so what does that make it?It's the frog in the water scenario and the they are turning up the flame.How you see it depends on what side of the beaker you on.
Last edited:
Your understanding of the law at the time is flawed. Ladouceur was charged under a section of the HTA that was most recently updated in 1980. That is over 30 years ago. Your stop would have fallen under the same law that Ladouceur's did. Ladoucer's stop was eventually deemed to be lawful based on case law going back to 1963, R. V Waterfield. Both the HTA implementation date and the case law supporting it far predates your 27-years-ago stop.
Your stop seems more to be a question of whether the cop had legal grounds to conduct a vehicle search. The random stop itself for purposes of verifying documentation was not improper at that time.
An administrative suspension for .05 BAC would be for less than 30 days at most and as such cannot be considered by an insurance company when setting your insurance rates.
As for "police scrutiny", if you are engaged in a licensed and regulated activity, you may be subject to police scrutiny to ascertain that you are indeed licensed and permitted to conduct that activity. If you don't want to undergo such scrutiny, your choice is clear - do not drive and you will avoid being subject to such scrutiny.
Last edited:
|
|
|
|
|