Ok here's the situation, a close friend of mine came to a stop and exited his viehicle on private property. At this point of exiting the vehicle, he came to notice a silenced cruiser behind (no lights or visible indication that the officer was intent on stopping his vehicle) The officer demanded his proof of insurance and idicated that his tags were not registered to that particular vehicle. He was cited for no insurance, and missuse of expired licencing tags. I know from a personal experience from an accident on private property of a mall parking lot, that unless the owner of the property in which the offence was commited on enlists the services of the police to handle the matter, they have no jurisdiction if there is no offence commited justifying arrest of a criminal nature.

My question is... can a police officer charge you with these violations if he A) did not idicate on a public road via his emergency lighting that he wished you to stop. (entrapment?)

B) Can violation citations for tags and insurance be imposed on private property without the property owners consent.

It was not until he was exited the vehicle, turned the vehicle off, and was standing on private property when the officer approached him directly to indicate he had an issue with his vehicle.

I would also like to point out the vehicle was also taken from the private property and impounded without justification from the property owner.

If I am wrong about this... then the police have alot of cars they should be collecting in peoples driveways and garage's for improper registration and insurance.

The officer claims he saw him drive the vehicle on a public road here in ontario.. However the officer did not stop him on said public property.

For all the officer knew.. he was merely testing the engine in a driveway..

Entrapment is the act of a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense which would be illegal and the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.........so unless the officer stopped by your friends home, told him to toss plates on the vehicle and drive down the road without insurance, it is not entrapment.

Yes, the police can follow the vehicle off of the road and into the parking lot and issue offence notices/summons.

One last Question if I may... My friend was also charged with no insurance. He does however have another vehicle and insurance..

I'm told there is a grey area there regarding that as it is the driver that is insured and the vehicle is a triviality.

Would the insurance on his other truck somehow be enough evidence that he has a valid policy?

Thanks for the advice.. PS I'm not kidding... it is my friend who is in trouble, I don't drive, licence suspended due to a heart problem. But the morons let me fix them??

The truck should not have been towed.

The driver's insurance would cover him unless he had some other clause.

By him I mean "him"

His insurance will-not cover the other truck.Unless he called his agent

and set it up.(usually they will give you 3-5 days grace)

You don't get a slip it is just a rider to his insurance.

And Yes they can follow onto private property to follow up a case.

Cheers

Viper1

viper1 wrote:The truck should not have been towed.

I would have towed the vehicle to prevent the continuation of the offence . It is still uninsured off the owners property. Now the person can ask the vehicle go back to their residence.

His insurance will-not cover the other truck.Unless he called his agent and set it up.(usually they will give you 3-5 days grace)

You don't get a slip it is just a rider to his insurance.Cheers

Viper1

Thought a "rider" was used when I would rent a vehicle? I pay an extra $25 or something per year for this.

hibear wrote Thought a "rider" was used when I would rent a vehicle? I pay an extra $25 or something per year for this.

Not sure about the $25.

When you have paid-up insurance," then you buy another car you are covered for up to 14 days"

It is like a rider.(ryder)

You will likely need a copy of your other slip but you are covered on your new purchase just like if you rented a car. ie: no need to pay the extra $25.

Little things like this make being married to an insurance broker a little cheaper.

Cheers

Viper1

MiDdLeToNe wrote:One last Question if I may... My friend was also charged with no insurance. He does however have another vehicle and insurance..

I'm told there is a grey area there regarding that as it is the driver that is insured and the vehicle is a triviality.

Would the insurance on his other truck somehow be enough evidence that he has a valid policy?

Thanks for the advice.. PS I'm not kidding... it is my friend who is in trouble, I don't drive, licence suspended due to a heart problem. But the morons let me fix them??

If he was buying it or test driving yes he is covered.

Cheers

Viper1

MiDdLeToNe wrote:I know from a personal experience from an accident on private property of a mall parking lot, that unless the owner of the property in which the offence was commited on enlists the services of the police to handle the matter, they have no jurisdiction if there is no offence commited justifying arrest of a criminal nature.

Most of the Highway Traffic Act does not apply to private property, however, if the officer witnessed the vehicle being driven on a highway (public road) he can follow it onto the property and issue tickets there. There are other acts related to driving that do apply to private property, including the Insurance Act, various environmental laws, by-laws, etc.

MiDdLeToNe wrote:Would the insurance on his other truck somehow be enough evidence that he has a valid policy?

Vehicle itself still has to be insured. When I get a rental vehicle these days, I always check to make sure the insurance paperwork is present, the result of reading one of hwybear's posts from last year.