A relative was driving his vehicle in a lawful manner, with a valid license sticker and insurance, when he was pulled over by a police officer, who claimed his license was expired.

Sure enough, the license was expired.

The officer then said he needed to check if there was any suspension on the license, which there was not.

First questions: If he wasn't aware if there was a suspension, then how could he have known if the license had been expired in the first place? If he checked for license expiration on his cruiser computer before stopping my relative, wouldn't he have seen then if there had been a suspension? And, if that is true, does that suggest the police officer lied and simply stopped the vehicle without knowing the license was expired? Please understand I am asking these questions not knowing the answers; perhaps my suspicion is incorrect.

Second questions: Is it worth going to a trial or asking for a reduced fine under the following circumstances:

- My relative had paid for insurance and plates for two vehicle at a cost for exceeding the cost of renewing his license, clear evidence that he had not intentionally chosen to drive with an expired license but was simply unaware.

- My relative has not been in an accident for more than 40 years.

- My relative didn't receive a license renewal form and even showed his license, apparently expired, when he renewed his plate stickers at Service Ontario, which likewise didn't notice.

- my relative is far-sighted and couldn't have read the expiring date without reading glasses.

- my relative is elderly and living on a fixed and limited income.

- The circumstances of his being checked may be questionable.

Police are allowed to stop random vehicles to ensure drivers are licenced, insured, etc. If the officer knew your relatives licence was expired, that would certainly be more than enough reason to conduct a traffic stop. Its also perfectly normal for police to collect the drivers documents then return to their cruiser to conduct further queries, write up notes, tickets, etc. In short, there is nothing improper or abnormal with what youre describing.

I would still strongly recommend however that your relative request a first attendance meeting. Ensure theyve renewed their licence to show the Crown theyve fixed the problem. I doubt the Crown will withdraw the charge entirely, but theyll probably be offered a reduce fine. Your relative can also request more time to pay from the Court.

In terms of going to trial, I dont see any defence. I understand your relative probably didnt mean to commit the offence, but its ultimately the drivers responsibility to ensure theyre licenced. Theyd have to demonstrate they exercised due diligence and took all reasonable steps possible to ensure compliance with the law. From a legal standpoint I dont see that. Your relative, somewhat understandably, assumed they were licenced, but didnt really take any steps to verify that information.

Stanton wrote:

Police are allowed to stop random vehicles to ensure drivers are licenced, insured, etc. If the officer knew your relatives licence was expired, that would certainly be more than enough reason to conduct a traffic stop. Its also perfectly normal for police to collect the drivers documents then return to their cruiser to conduct further queries, write up notes, tickets, etc. In short, there is nothing improper or abnormal with what youre describing.

I would still strongly recommend however that your relative request a first attendance meeting. Ensure theyve renewed their licence to show the Crown theyve fixed the problem. I doubt the Crown will withdraw the charge entirely, but theyll probably be offered a reduce fine. Your relative can also request more time to pay from the Court.

In terms of going to trial, I dont see any defence. I understand your relative probably didnt mean to commit the offence, but its ultimately the drivers responsibility to ensure theyre licenced. Theyd have to demonstrate they exercised due diligence and took all reasonable steps possible to ensure compliance with the law. From a legal standpoint I dont see that. Your relative, somewhat understandably, assumed they were licenced, but didnt really take any steps to verify that information.

Thanks for your help and perspective. A couple of points:

(1) The officer told my relative he could not renew his license until he paid the fine. Needless to say, my relative wants to renew the license right away. But, if the officer is correct, my relative can't do so until the fine is dealt with. Is that correct?

(2) I am aware of the law regarding both random and not-random stops and the three seminal cases that went to the Supreme Court (I am a U.S. lawyer and did a quick check this morning). What I am not clear about is this: Is it possible for a police officer to check his computer and see a license is expired without also seeing whether the license is under suspension? If it is not, it would appear the officer lied to my relative about the reason for the stop, as the officer claimed he stopped the vehicle because of an expired driver's license but then had to check if there had been a suspension. The reason for my interest is this: While the Court has ruled police can make randomized stops as in a RIDE program, or even a non-randomized stop (and that was by a 5-4 vote), I don't believe the court has dealt with a case when the officer lied about the reason for the stop. So my question is a factual inquiry: When police check their computer for a driver's license and see that it is expired, would that officer also see on the same screen whether the license was suspended?

Finally, how does one go about requesting a first attendance meeting in Ontario, where the options on the ticket are either to pay, to plade guilty with an explanation and appear at the court or to request a trial?

Thanks again for your help.

1) No, your relative should be able to renew their licence right away since theyve yet to be convicted of the offence.

2) It would be dependent on what type of software the officer had in his cruiser, what type of query was made and what databases were accessible at the time. Since the persons actual licence contains more detailed information, a second check with the confirmed identify in hand is pretty common. I know youre thinking there was some type of deception involved but I genuinely dont see it.

3) Enter a plea of not guilty and contact the Court or Crowns office and enquire if first attendance meetings are possible. Most jurisdictions should offer them.

Stanton wrote:

1) No, your relative should be able to renew their licence right away since theyve yet to be convicted of the offence.

2) It would be dependent on what type of software the officer had in his cruiser, what type of query was made and what databases were accessible at the time. Since the persons actual licence contains more detailed information, a second check with the confirmed identify in hand is pretty common. I know youre thinking there was some type of deception involved but I genuinely dont see it.

3) Enter a plea of not guilty and contact the Court or Crowns office and enquire if first attendance meetings are possible. Most jurisdictions should offer them.

Thanks Stanton for all your help.

I noticed something else too: The police officer wrote down the wrong year of birth on the ticket. Don't think that is listed as a fatal error but might that give me some leverage; Also, wondering if I should raise this in a first attendance meeting or save it for trial. It might be nice to cross-examine the police officer, ask him about his thoughts about drivers making an unintended mistake and not checking the driver's license, then ask him to read the birth year from his ticket and the license.

A 75-year-old relative who hasn't had an accident in 40-plus years was driving his vehicle in a lawful manner, with a valid license sticker and insurance, when he was pulled over by a police officer -- the officer said my relative was pulled over because his driver's license was expired.

Sure enough, the license was expired - my father-in-law had never received a renewal notice in the mail, can't see his license without reading glasses and had even shown his then-expired license at Service Ontario when he had renewed his plate sticker a few months earlier but they had said nothing.

The officer then said he needed to check if there was any suspension on the license, which there was not.

Then the officer wrote a ticket for driving without a license but wrote down my relative's date of birth incorrectly -- he was off by a year.

Needless to say, the ticket and the possibly resulting insurance increase would be a big blow to my relative, who along with his elderly wife, live off a fixed income after a lifetime of working.

In no way, shape or form did my relative intend to drive without a valid license -- he has paid more than $2,000 a year to insure two vehicles and additional money for their plate stickers and those have always been paid on-time. The day after he received the ticket he obtained a valid license.

I plan to have him request a trial to preserve his options along with an Italian interpreter since my relative's English isn't great.

I also have some doubts about the officer:

(1) He told my relative, who was there with his wife, that he would have to pay the fine before he could get a new license, something that is flatly untrue and actually resulted in my relative not getting his new license until the next day, after he had spoken with me.

(2) He told my relative he had pulled over the care because of an expired driver's license, then after he saw the license, said he had to check his computer to see if the license had been suspended (which it had not). Perhaps the officer was telling the truth and the computer screen he checked first only stated that date of expiration, but it seems quite possible to me that such a screen would also show any indication of suspension. If the latter were true, that would mean the officer did not check the driver license before stopping the vehicle, instead stopping it only in the hope of finding a offense, than lied about it. I would tend to give this theory less credence if the same officer hasn't lied about getting a new license. Needless to say, I would request disclosure requesting to see screen shots that show the progression when an officer checks on the expiration of a driver's license (with any personal info about a driver redacted)/

I've only begun to research this matter but it seems that an incorrect is not an automatic fatal error. But perhaps, in the totality of circumstances, it might persuade a prosecutor or court to dismiss the ticket.

I'd greatly appreciate any words of advice from the many folks here with experience and expertise that I lack.

northexposure wrote:

A 75-year-old relative who hasn't had an accident in 40-plus years was driving his vehicle in a lawful manner, with a valid license sticker and insurance, when he was pulled over by a police officer -- the officer said my relative was pulled over because his driver's license was expired.

You told us your relative was driving with an expired licence = no licence to drive, which means he is not driving in a lawful manner. Thankfully no collision, I don't know any insurance that would cover a claim with a unlicensed driver

HB

Ps.... Your posts merged together, same event

hwybear wrote:

northexposure wrote:

A 75-year-old relative who hasn't had an accident in 40-plus years was driving his vehicle in a lawful manner, with a valid license sticker and insurance, when he was pulled over by a police officer -- the officer said my relative was pulled over because his driver's license was expired.

You told us your relative was driving with an expired licence = no licence to drive, which means he is not driving in a lawful manner. Thankfully no collision, I don't know any insurance that would cover a claim with a unlicensed driver

HB

Ps.... Your posts merged together, same event

Thanks for your input and your help moderating the forums. A few points:

(1) I've dealt with insurance companies and have successfully argued for coverage even when the insurance had briefly lapsed using the common law principle of unjust enrichment. I have not had occasion to deal with insurers yet where a driver had let a license lapse so am uncertain if a similar argument would prove successful. Have you ever advocated for a motorist against an insurance company, and if you have, what was your experience?

(2) The reason I posted to the other board was to tap into people with specific knowledge of law enforcement and the courts rather than just general knowledge. That is also why much of the information I posted in the law enforcement/courts forum differed in focus than what I posted in the general forum. For that reason I would prefer that you have kept the thread I started there intact and would ask that you either consider doing do or allow a posting there that linked to this thread. That is entirely your call, of course.

(3) I am curious too about the lawfulness of the conduct of the police officer. The Supreme Court by a 5-4 margin years ago allowed police to stop motorists for no reason whatsoever (after previously allowing random, R.I.D.E stops). The Court has not ruled, yet, on whether an officer can stop a motorist for a made-up reason. Whether or not that is what happened here, I hope to find out, and was hoping to tap into people familiar with what data is populated on the computer screens of police cruisers, another reason I would hope we could at least have a link on the court/law enforcement board to this thread.

I'm afraid you're clutching at straws. You say that the officer clearly indicated that he knew the licence was expired at the time of the stop. That's his reason to pull the vehicle over. He would likely have been running random plates and got a hit which precipitated the stop but he then wanted to do a doublecheck or perhaps run the licence through CPIC as opposed to just the MTO.

The offence is made out. All of your issues about not getting a reminder, him being unable to read the small print, the MTO not advising him upon plate renewal are red herrings. He needed a licence to drive, he didn't have one.

If he's ticket free for 40 years then this one isn't going to affect his insurance rates.

I acknowledge your desire to help but I would suggest his best option is to ask for a reduced fine based on ability to pay. A justice, in my experience, is going to shut you down at a trial pretty quickly if you go after the fact he didn't know or that the officer had some dark intent. You say he lied - did you consider he may have just been mistaken ? Licence reinstatement is an MTO matter, not a police one.

argyll wrote:

I'm afraid you're clutching at straws. You say that the officer clearly indicated that he knew the licence was expired at the time of the stop. That's his reason to pull the vehicle over. He would likely have been running random plates and got a hit which precipitated the stop but he then wanted to do a doublecheck or perhaps run the licence through CPIC as opposed to just the MTO.

The offence is made out. All of your issues about not getting a reminder, him being unable to read the small print, the MTO not advising him upon plate renewal are red herrings. He needed a licence to drive, he didn't have one.

If he's ticket free for 40 years then this one isn't going to affect his insurance rates.

I acknowledge your desire to help but I would suggest his best option is to ask for a reduced fine based on ability to pay. A justice, in my experience, is going to shut you down at a trial pretty quickly if you go after the fact he didn't know or that the officer had some dark intent. You say he lied - did you consider he may have just been mistaken ? Licence reinstatement is an MTO matter, not a police one.

Thanks for your reply and perspective. I've never dealt with a driving offence personally, so I appreciate your help. Have you appeared often before a justice and in what capacity?

As to whether the officer lied or mistaken about replacing the expired licence is a fair question. If I was an officer, I'd certainly want to know about licence reinstatement since I would expect motorists to have questions. Whether that is commonly known among officers is something I can find out through my own police contacts (I'm in a profession in which I deal with police but not about traffic matters). If he was merely mistaken rather than dishonest, that is a lesser concern but still a concern. After all, we want drivers with expired licences to remedy that as quickly as possible and that goal may be frustrated when they are given incorrect information by police.

In any case, I would not go after an officer unless I obtained strong evidence of wrong-doing. All I have now are questions.

Thanks again for your help.

I notice one thing. You were not there and are getting information second hand. Yet you are sure that the officer stopped for made up reason. Maybe your relative is not telling you everything.

You call it a made up reason but the officer told him at the outset he was stopped for having an expired dl and in fact it was expired so that suggests he knew that prior and was not making anything up.

If he was just fishing as you seem to be implying he would have just stopped to check his dl, ins, and registration status which like it or not is allowed in Ontario.

The police are not them to. I only know where they need to go to get reinstated and that any outstanding fines need to be paid off. When it comes to actual details I have no idea. Just like demerit points. I have a vague idea how many are attached to each ticket but am not 100% with any certainty.

Ops

OPS Copper wrote:

I notice one thing. You were not there and are getting information second hand. Yet you are sure that the officer stopped for made up reason. Maybe your relative is not telling you everything.

When I read that the relative will require a translator in Court, I'm also wondering if some of the roadside conversation wasn't properly understood.

northexposure wrote:

argyll wrote:

I'm afraid you're clutching at straws. You say that the officer clearly indicated that he knew the licence was expired at the time of the stop. That's his reason to pull the vehicle over. He would likely have been running random plates and got a hit which precipitated the stop but he then wanted to do a doublecheck or perhaps run the licence through CPIC as opposed to just the MTO.

The offence is made out. All of your issues about not getting a reminder, him being unable to read the small print, the MTO not advising him upon plate renewal are red herrings. He needed a licence to drive, he didn't have one.

If he's ticket free for 40 years then this one isn't going to affect his insurance rates.

I acknowledge your desire to help but I would suggest his best option is to ask for a reduced fine based on ability to pay. A justice, in my experience, is going to shut you down at a trial pretty quickly if you go after the fact he didn't know or that the officer had some dark intent. You say he lied - did you consider he may have just been mistaken ? Licence reinstatement is an MTO matter, not a police one.

Thanks for your reply and perspective. I've never dealt with a driving offence personally, so I appreciate your help. Have you appeared often before a justice and in what capacity?

As to whether the officer lied or mistaken about replacing the expired licence is a fair question. If I was an officer, I'd certainly want to know about licence reinstatement since I would expect motorists to have questions. Whether that is commonly known among officers is something I can find out through my own police contacts (I'm in a profession in which I deal with police but not about traffic matters). If he was merely mistaken rather than dishonest, that is a lesser concern but still a concern. After all, we want drivers with expired licences to remedy that as quickly as possible and that goal may be frustrated when they are given incorrect information by police.

In any case, I would not go after an officer unless I obtained strong evidence of wrong-doing. All I have now are questions.

Thanks again for your help.

I am a newly retired police officer in Ontario so my experience comes from that side of the room.

I don't disagree that it would be useful for an officer to have all the MTO information but so much changes that I tended to just be vague and refer the driver to the MTO. I wouldn't expect an MTO employee to be advising on police matters so far better to let people speak to those who know. I would do the same when asked about insurance matters after a collision.

OPS Copper wrote:

I notice one thing. You were not there and are getting information second hand. Yet you are sure that the officer stopped for made up reason. Maybe your relative is not telling you everything.

You call it a made up reason but the officer told him at the outset he was stopped for having an expired dl and in fact it was expired so that suggests he knew that prior and was not making anything up.

If he was just fishing as you seem to be implying he would have just stopped to check his dl, ins, and registration status which like it or not is allowed in Ontario.

The police are not them to. I only know where they need to go to get reinstated and that any outstanding fines need to be paid off. When it comes to actual details I have no idea. Just like demerit points. I have a vague idea how many are attached to each ticket but am not 100% with any certainty.

Ops

What I wrote and what you claim I wrote are not remotely the same. I wrote the following:

"First questions: If he wasn't aware if there was a suspension, then how could he have known if the license had been expired in the first place? If he checked for license expiration on his cruiser computer before stopping my relative, wouldn't he have seen then if there had been a suspension? And, if that is true, does that suggest the police officer lied and simply stopped the vehicle without knowing the license was expired? Please understand I am asking these questions not knowing the answers; perhaps my suspicion is incorrect."

Then you wrote this: "Yet you are sure that the officer stopped for made up reason."

Perhaps you might want to consider more carefully what I wrote.

argyll wrote:

northexposure wrote:

argyll wrote:

I'm afraid you're clutching at straws. You say that the officer clearly indicated that he knew the licence was expired at the time of the stop. That's his reason to pull the vehicle over. He would likely have been running random plates and got a hit which precipitated the stop but he then wanted to do a doublecheck or perhaps run the licence through CPIC as opposed to just the MTO.

The offence is made out. All of your issues about not getting a reminder, him being unable to read the small print, the MTO not advising him upon plate renewal are red herrings. He needed a licence to drive, he didn't have one.

If he's ticket free for 40 years then this one isn't going to affect his insurance rates.

I acknowledge your desire to help but I would suggest his best option is to ask for a reduced fine based on ability to pay. A justice, in my experience, is going to shut you down at a trial pretty quickly if you go after the fact he didn't know or that the officer had some dark intent. You say he lied - did you consider he may have just been mistaken ? Licence reinstatement is an MTO matter, not a police one.

Thanks for your reply and perspective. I've never dealt with a driving offence personally, so I appreciate your help. Have you appeared often before a justice and in what capacity?

As to whether the officer lied or mistaken about replacing the expired licence is a fair question. If I was an officer, I'd certainly want to know about licence reinstatement since I would expect motorists to have questions. Whether that is commonly known among officers is something I can find out through my own police contacts (I'm in a profession in which I deal with police but not about traffic matters). If he was merely mistaken rather than dishonest, that is a lesser concern but still a concern. After all, we want drivers with expired licences to remedy that as quickly as possible and that goal may be frustrated when they are given incorrect information by police.

In any case, I would not go after an officer unless I obtained strong evidence of wrong-doing. All I have now are questions.

Thanks again for your help.

I am a newly retired police officer in Ontario so my experience comes from that side of the room.

I don't disagree that it would be useful for an officer to have all the MTO information but so much changes that I tended to just be vague and refer the driver to the MTO. I wouldn't expect an MTO employee to be advising on police matters so far better to let people speak to those who know. I would do the same when asked about insurance matters after a collision.

I think we can agree too that when an officer doesn't know the answer, that he or she shouldn't pretend to know the answer. What the officer said placed pressure on my relative to plead guilty and pay immediately so that he wouldn't have to wait long to reinstate his license. If the officer knew that to be untrue, that is misconduct. If he was unsure of the truth, he should have simply suggested going to the MTO.