The idea of failing to provide DL

OK so Jshreck has been taking some heat for the concept of providing the DL as being not required and therefore inadmissable in court. Personally, I think that argument would fall on deaf ears in the lower court and any chance at victory would have to be in the highest court. That would be quite something. When pigs fly I think, but along that line of thought, allow me to continue.......

Back in college, a buddy of mine was walking home from the bar while drinking his beer. Officer pulls over and gets him in the back of the car. Proceeds to charge him with liquor in public.

Officer: Can I have your I.D. please.

Buddy: I don't have it.

Officer: What's your name?

Buddy: Ted.

Officer: Ted what?

Buddy: Ted Nugent.

Officer...(apparently not a fan of the Nuge) hands my buddy a ticket made out to Ted Nugent. Obviously that fine went unpaid.

So my questions to the learned officers on the forum;

1. what is the charge for driving when you forgot all your I.D. at home? It happens all the time to me.

2. What is the charge for lying to a police officer about your identity?

These charges

Fail to surrender DL under the HTA

Ad Obstruct police which is a criminal charge and much more serious than the hTA charge.

ops

OPS Copper wrote:

These charges

Fail to surrender DL under the HTA

Ad Obstruct police which is a criminal charge and much more serious than the hTA charge.

ops

Thanks. Whichever is the more serious depends on the driver and specific circumstances I suspect.

Who does he make the ticket out to if he doesn't have a name? I guess if it's criminal (obstruction) then the driver gets arrested and held in jail until......when? If he never provides his name they can never charge him right?

Most cruisers now have the capability to pull up driver photos during the traffic stop. So if you say you are Ted Nugent and they pull up his picture and you lied, you will be arrested on the spot for obstruct justice and personation.

Not really. Criminal charges are very serious. I'd honestly rather get charged for every single violation in the HTA than 1 criminal offense. Criminal offenses show up on background checks, so applying for jobs would be affected, plus I know for certain criminal charges you can't leave the country with (I.e. Vacation, visiting family). I'd rather have no license than losing my job / not being able to leave the country.

screeech wrote:

Most cruisers now have the capability to pull up driver photos during the traffic stop. So if you say you are Ted Nugent and they pull up his picture and you lied, you will be arrested on the spot for obstruct justice and personation.

I don't think so. There is only one Nuge, but certainly more than one Ted Nugent in the world.

UnluckyDuck wrote:

Not really. Criminal charges are very serious. I'd honestly rather get charged for every single violation in the HTA than 1 criminal offense. Criminal offenses show up on background checks, so applying for jobs would be affected, plus I know for certain criminal charges you can't leave the country with (I.e. Vacation, visiting family). I'd rather have no license than losing my job / not being able to leave the country.

I think I might rather face obstruction that dangerous driving or impaired.

Dangerous driving and impairs are criminal, not HTA.

You are missing my point...no matter what name the driver gives, they can pull up that persons picture, if it doesn't match then the criminal investigation begins...There are many other investigative steps as well, not just with the picture...

I know impaired and dangerous are criminal. Exactly why one might prefer to be charged with obstruction.

They arrest and transport to jail and he goes before a judge. Until they give their name they are not released. I have arrested a few john Does and their resolve usually lasts until they sober up or get before a judge and they realize they are going to real jail.

Plus if they have a criminal record they have had fingerprints in the system so they get printed and checked against those record.

I think there is a case where a guy was arrested for a immigration matter and he just passed 8 years in jail because he refuses to tell his real name.

Oh and you will still face the dangerous operation and impaired charges. Just because you do not provide a name does not terminate those investigations. You are just facing obstruct plus dangerous plus impaired if that is the case.

ops

OPS

screeech wrote:

You are missing my point...no matter what name the driver gives, they can pull up that persons picture, if it doesn't match then the criminal investigation begins...There are many other investigative steps as well, not just with the picture...

OK so.....driver is pulled over for RIDE, blows .09 and is about to charged with impaired.

Officer: DL, ins, registration please.

Driver: Do I have to give it to you?

Officer: No.

Driver: Then I won't.

Officer: You are being arrested for obstruction and suspicion of DUI. I am taking you to the station for brethalyzer. You have the right to remain silent.....

Driver: OK

Meanwhile, back at the station.....

Driver is given brethalyzer and fails. Driver is finger printed, but since there are no prints on file that leads nowhere. Officer runs the plates on the car and sees that it is registered to Ted Nugent of Toronto, ON. He pulls up all the Ted Nugent's lisenced in ON and finds a picture of his guy. Officer charges Ted with impaired, obstruction and failing to surrender DL.

He is held until his arrainment at which time the judge says "state your name". Ted says "Nope, I ain't gonna". Crown says, "Here is the DL photo judge. It's Ted. We have our man". Judge says in the absence of a defense, I find you guilty.......Ted.

Sound about right?

Moral of the story: If you're going to drink and drive, steal a car *(note sarcasm intended, for those that thought I was offering advice LOL).

Take away all the criminal stuff mentioned, it's also an arrestable offence under the HTA for a driver failing to identify. So if you decide to say nothing when the officer asks for your name, you can also sit in jail until you are identified. That includes a passenger that's not wearing a seatbelt.

In the scenario above the officer would not answer no. The driver has to provide those things.

Wow...

With regard to lying to an officer being grounds for an obstruction charge, EVERYONE lies to police. Why is it they never charge the liars in a traffic accident? We all know that in a two person accident there is at least one liar and maybe two. I had the misfortune of falling victim to one of these liars a while ago....the officer chose to believe the liar and charge me. It cost me a two day trial and $15,000 in legal fees. At trial, it became obvious....pathetically so.....that the other driver was lying. Why did the police not go back and charge him with obstruction? When the truth came out, why did they not go back and charge him like they should have done in the first place? That never happens. Ever seen it done?

Lying is not necessarily obstruction .

Obstruction under s. 129 states :

129 Every one who

(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,

(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or

(c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,

Just because you weren't convicted at a trial doesn't necessarily mean the other people lied. At the end of the day the officer conducted his investigation into the collision and formed grounds to charge you with an offence. Its likely you exercised your right to a trial and happened to put up a defense and were acquitted of the accusation(s).

People have their own perceptions of the truth. Different angles an accident is viewed at, for example, can change things dramatically. This does not make one side lying and the other being truthful. Both sides honestly believe they are telling the truth, as they know it to be. That's why we have a trier of fact, to make a determination of guilt, or innocence, based on the facts presented to them. If someone is flat out lying, on the stand, under oath or affirmation, then they are committing the criminal offence of perjury. I do believe there should be more of these people charged.

Nanuk wrote:

Lying is not necessarily obstruction .

Obstruction under s. 129 states :

129 Every one who

(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,

(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or

(c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,

Just because you weren't convicted at a trial doesn't necessarily mean the other people lied. At the end of the day the officer conducted his investigation into the collision and formed grounds to charge you with an offence. Its likely you exercised your right to a trial and happened to put up a defense and were acquitted of the accusation(s).

It is a sad fact that in our legal system, people are not held to account for the damage they cause. PC's are free to conduct shoddy investigations and make determinations that they aren't qualified to make, when the prudent course would have been to call in an officer trained in accident reconstruction. The Crown buddies up to witnesses that are free to say whatever they darn well please to get themselves off the hook and even coached by the crown. And the accused can't say anything at roadside for fear of it being used against him.

Ahhh, but not to worry...justice will prevail right? Yeah....maybe.....if the accused has enough money. Then the accused is the victim because a cop felt he needed to lay a charge 15 minutes after he arrived at an accident scene. If that cop was held accountable for acquittals, he might have taken more care. If witnesses are held accountable for lying, they might think twice before trying to save their own skin.

screeech wrote:

Both sides honestly believe they are telling the truth, as they know it to be. .

Hahahahaha. That's a good one schreech.

@rank

So it is very important to understand what information the law says you are required to give. So if you are doing something in Ontario that requires a license (driving, hunting) then you are required to provide that license when asked.

In addition to your license, when driving you are required to also produce your insurance and registration when asked.

Also, when being charged with an offence of any kind, you are required to identify yourself when asked to do so. Identifying yourself can mean just verbally providing the information they ask for, although the only information you MUST give them when asked, is your name, address and date of birth.

So if you forget your license at home, the officer will of course ask you to identify yourself. I would suggest you do not lie and that you do identify yourself correctly to avoid further charges.

Just remember to never volunteer anything and always wait to be asked for it:

"Do I have to give that to you?"

"Can I be charged with something else if I do not give it to you?"

"Alright here it is, but it is NOT voluntary and I am only giving it to you because I am required too."

jsherk wrote:

"Alright here it is, but it is NOT voluntary and I am only giving it to you because I am required too."

I love it when people tell me that -- mmmkay...