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?
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?
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?
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?
Last edited by rank on Wed Jan 13, 2016 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
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.
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.
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 don't think so. There is only one Nuge, but certainly more than one Ted Nugent in the world.
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.
I think I might rather face obstruction that dangerous driving or impaired.
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.
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...
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...
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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."
@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."
I love it when people tell me that -- mmmkay... :roll:
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...
=======================================================================
Comments are my (slightly jaded) opinion only, and do not reflect the views of anyone else, esp. my employer
I got ticket for failing to stop at stop sign in Toronto. i heard that the police officer must see the stop line, if there is one, from where he was sitting. That is exactly my case, Is it a strong case? If so do i need a picture to show that there is a stop line and a picture to show that he could not see the stop line from where he was sitting?
I got a ticket, Disobey stop sign, sec 136.1.a on dec 6th
I made a left in an intersection and was pulled over by a police officer in an unmarked car who had been sitting down the road. A classic fishing hole situation. I was genuinely surprised when he stopped me and told me I went through a stop sign without even slowing down. I know to shut up and be polite and take the ticket. I…
Yesterday morning, I rear-ended someone. I was going the speed limit. The sun was directly in front of me and it blinded my windshield and my eyes. At the same time, the person in front of me stopped/slowed down (also due to the sun). I started to slow down but didn't stop and I hit them since I couldn't see anything. I was not driving too close initially. I…
I was driving in the county at night and hit a limousine stretched out side ways across the road. The limo had its lights on and had side lighting as well. The police officer charged me with careless driving because it was "fully lit up".
It took me to the next day to figure out what had happened - what I remember made no sense. What I had run across was a "false visual reference" illusion.
I was on hwy 37 trying to make my girlfriends ganadmas mass and I live an hour away and I had an hour to get there so I was going fast but not 50 over untill some idiot got on my tail soo close that I was to concentrated on him that I kept going faster untill I got pulled over at 147 on an 80 km hwy.
I alreaddy lost 3 points and this time was just the…
Hello, got stopped today for rolling a stop sign. Ticket says failure to stop, but quotes hta 1361b.
Doesn't 1361b mean failure to yield?
Is this a fatal error? Or could it be amended at trial. How can I prepare a defence if I don't know if I'm defending the failure to stop or the failure to yield?
After he was providing me with a ticket for failure to obey to the stop sign (I am pretty sure I stopped but less than 3 seconds recommended by my driver ed. instructor), I know everybody say that..as an excuse.
Then he stopped me again to return the documents.
Any advice and feed back would be really appreciated.
Can you get evidence for whether someone had an advanced green at an intersection? My dad was making a right turn on a red (after stopping) into a plaza parking lot. He got hit by someone making a left turn from the opposite lane. The driver told the officer called to the collision that he had an advance green. My dad said he came out of nowhere which makes me…
So i was driving on Eglinton Avenue East near Rosemount Ave.
The school bus was on the the curb on the opposite side of the road while i was travelling on the middle lane of the three-laned Eglinton Avenue East (five lanes apart plus a raised median island seperating the traffic)
I could not see the school bus as my view of the bus was being obstructed by the cars in front of me and on my left hand…
Lots of good information on getting disclosure from the Crown here.
Now, I am just wondering if I will be relying upon evidence of my own at trial... do I have to voluntarily send this material to the Crown in a reasonable time before the trial, or only if they request disclosure from me?
This morning I had an exam for university. I was studying the entire night and i wanted to catch like maybe 1-2 hours of sleep before the exam so i went to sleep. I woke up like 5 hrs after and realize that I was about to miss my exam. I still could have made it so I asked my dad for his car since I was in a huge rush and he gave it to me.
I went on the highway and I was going at 135 km/h but…
the police officer was in in the opesite oncumming lane he was fallowing another car so close that i was not even able to see his cruser till he was buy he said that i was going 111 in a 80 he said he hade me on radar he only asked for me drivers licencs and never asked for my insurence so on the ticket there no insurence dose enyone think i can beat this i wana take it to cort becuse he was…
Hi I have a couple questions so I'll explain my situation and any advice would be appreciated.
Can't remember exact date so lets call it some time in 2008 I got a fine for $5000.00 for driving without in insurance. I never paid the fine and in 2012 I was pulled over and the officer asked to see my license. Although I had it on me I figured it would be under suspension for the unpaid fine from…
Alright, so I did something really stupid the other day, I was driving down a country road and wanted to hit the curves so I passed 3 cars at once, inadvertently making it up to very much past 50 over (80 limit)... Much to my chagrin there was a cop coming in the opposite direction who immediately skidded on the gravel shoulder and who I thought was 100% going to turn around and pull me over,…
Anyone know how backed this courthouse is? I submitted my ticket for trial at the end of August, and still no letter. Im scared it got lost in the mail, can i call the courthouse and find out my courtdate? Or would i have to go in personally?
I recently received a ticket for failure to use low beams - while following - Ticket was issued Sec 168 (
- it was on the 401 and no one was within 500 meters of me, I was warning a oncoming vehicle that there was an officer hiding (which is not illegal or I could not find a law against it) it was a police vehicle travelling at very high rate of speed in the opposite direction with no lights on…
I received a warning letter from MTO for a 2pts ticket.What happened is that the police officer issued a "unsafe left turn" and then changed the ticket to "failed to signal" at the scene, but she submitted both tickets!!! And I !!!ONLY!!! received the latter ticket from her(I requested trial for "failed to signal"). I recently received notice from MTO that I'm convicted for "unsafe left turn".
Hello everyone! I was given a ticket for using a hand-held communication device while driving. It was 3 am, I was at a stop light and the cop saw me with the my phone in my hand. I told him i was just checking the time on it. I received the notes a few weeks ago ill copy them down below. Any help is appreciated although i believe there's no hope for me. The cop recorded me saying what phone i…
I got pulled over about 15 or so days ago the court till this date has not received the summons what is the legal time period that the court has to follow to accept the summons from the office court says its 15 days is the legal timeframe the officer has to serve it on the court
I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
Last Friday I was pulled over by an OPP motorcycle cop who informed me I was going 134. I was on the SB 404, I did see him parked under a bridge and when I passed him he was not on his bike.
I'm hoping to get some insight for a defense in this case.
I was in lane 1 and I had a car in front of me, and a car behind me, also there was a car speeding down Lane 3 passing everyone and moved quickly into…
