I can understand if I was driving the vehicle and the cop had reasonable or probable grounds to pull me over and ask for ID, reg, insurance etc....
but i was just sitting there....
I looked at the HTA and saw this
As to carrying licences and surrender on demand
33. (1) Every driver of a motor vehicle or street car shall carry his or her licence with him or her at all times while he or she is in charge of a motor vehicle or street car and shall surrender the licence for reasonable inspection upon the demand of a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 33 (1).
would this be how the officer could legally ask for ID???
If i was standing outside the car, could they still ask for ID???
Yes, the Highway Traffic Act requires that you identify yourself. Even if you don't have identification, you're required to provide your name, address, etc.PaulinCanada wrote:would this be how the officer could legally ask for ID???
Generally no, but I'd say it's somewhat dependent on the circumstances. For example, you're speeding home and pass a police officer who pulls out to catch up to you. As you go around a bend, the officer momentarily loses sight of you as you pull into your driveway and hop out. In my opinion, the officer has reasonable grounds to believe you had just been driving, therefore you have an obligation to identify yourself. If they were just randomly driving by with no evidence you were driving, I'd say no, you're not required to identify.PaulinCanada wrote:If i was standing outside the car, could they still ask for ID???
I only bring up the first example because I've seen a few people who seem to think there's some kind of "home free" rule like in tag if you beat the police officer back to your house.
If you are standing outside a car, I concur with Stanton, depends on the circumstances, you would be best advised to I.D. yourself, esp if you have nothing to hide or havent done anything wrong. HOWEVER, you are not required to ID yourself thru your driver's licence, why, because in fact you may not even have one. Even if you do you are not required to show it if you were not '"in charge" of the car.
Investigative detention, which is geared for criminal matters, does require that the officer advise you of the reason for the stop, provide you with your rights and allows for a cursory search of your person. However even under investigative detention, IÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢m not aware of any requirement to identify yourself. IÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢m not saying DONÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢T identify yourself, but you are protected by the Charter.
Under the Highway Traffic Act (and several other Provincial acts), there is a requirement that you identify yourself. IÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢m not aware of any obligation for the officer to advise you of the reason for the stop in these circumstances. Random stops are allowed under the HTA and youÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢re simply compelled to identify yourself. Now if the officer had reason to believe youÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢ve committed a specific offence and was to question you in regards to it, they should at least caution you, else any confession would likely be inadmissible in Court. While these requirements may be a violation of your Charter rights, you are protected somewhat. Recent case law is quite clear in that Criminal Courts should exclude any compulsory statement/identification provided under Provincial laws.
- liquor licence act
- trespass to property act
- wildlife conservation act
and many more..
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca