Random stops

Have the police always been able to pull drivers over for random stops to check insurance and drivers licenses?

Yes they have. I am guessing you got caught doing something you are not supposed to be as a result of one.

ops

Absolutely not your assumption is unfounded.I have but one minor speeding ticket In the last 21yrs.It's a question that came up on another board and I disagree with the practice as it permits profiling which is why they can't do it in the US.This more or less makes it a police state In my opinion.Why should a person come under police scrutiny without reason?I have never been pulled over just to check my papers,there has always been a valid reason or at least a weak attempt at it.I would feel this to be an invasion of my privacy otherwise.Is it a Canada wide practice or provincial?No offense intended and none taken.thanks

They do as they please.

The last time I was stopped????

I was parked doing a crossword puzzle. I looked up and there was a cop with his lights flashing behind me.

I just ignored him and did as I was doing.

Eventually he came to the car and asked me for info.

To me that was funny.

A time before that my car broke down out near Tweed.

I was on the phone to the OPP when they came to my door.(a help with tow as well)

First case was just nosy cop second was concerned OPP.

Yes they can and should check these things out.

Cheers

Viper1

I would have no problem with either of those situations.What I'm talking about is being pulled over to check insurance for no other reason than going down the street while abiding the law.For instance I would not expect to be stopped at random just because of the time of day or night or because I have a fast car or bike. I have always had a good job and could afford nice vehicles at a young age (16).I was stopped years ago for pulling on to a main road from the curb and not turning my lights for a 50 meters until making a turn onto a side road where I see my they were not on.I had a Grand National and the police thought I was stealing it as they saw this kid get into the car and leave in a stealthy fashion.Again I had no issues as I drew attention to myself.I was wondering when and if could ever become profiling.I thought there had to be some other reason than just because they can and was told so by an RCMP office.

Generally, motor vehicles are pulled over because the driver is alleged to have committed and offence. However, driving is a privilege in Ontario and as such I would expect the police to pull people over to confirm that they in fact have a drivers licence, insurance and a permit for the motor vehicle. Unless our officers read minds, the only way that this can be done is to stop people. As long as they treat everyone equally and don't profile people based soley on their race, sex or perceived religion, i see nothing wrong with a "random" stop.

What about stopping you while you're walking down the sidewalk.

You did absolutely wrong, but he stops you and asks for ID.

can you politely refuse by asking the officer the following two questions?

- officer, am I being detained?

- If not, may I resume walking?

They can conduct random stops in places like Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Australia, among others. The US prohibits random stops due to the Terry v. Ohio case; the officer has to have "reasonable suspicion" that an offence has been committed or is about to be committed, however, the intepretation is extremely vast and "reasonable" seems to be a relative concept depending on the state.

matt123 wrote:

This more or less makes it a police state In my opinion.

Just curious: Are you afraid that the government is about to bust your door down and haul you off to the gulag for making that post?

diehard wrote:

What about stopping you while you're walking down the sidewalk.

You did absolutely wrong, but he stops you and asks for ID.

can you politely refuse by asking the officer the following two questions?

- officer, am I being detained?

- If not, may I resume walking?

I don't believe you need to show i.d. when walking around in Canada.

I don't think even on a bicycle that you need I.D.

The cops are there to help in those cases.

Cheers

Viper1

"I don't think even on a bicycle that you need I.D."

Under the HTA, a cyclist does have to identify themselves and is subject to arrest if they refuse to do so.

Section 218

Decatur wrote:

"I don't think even on a bicycle that you need I.D."

Under the HTA, a cyclist does have to identify themselves and is subject to arrest if they refuse to do so.

Section 218

Sure but you can use any name you like. No need for I.D.

unless I am mistaken.

Cheers

Viper1

Since driving requires a licence, it is perfectly legal for a police officer who observes you driving to stop you and demand that you present a valid drivers licence. Just like for example a liquor inspector can demand that an establishment that is selling liquor present a valid liquor licence or a Ministry of Natural Resources officer can demand that someone he observes fishing present a valid fishing licence. Simply walking down the street is different as that is not an activity that requires a licence, thus if an officer asked you for ID while you walking down the street you could refuse and they would have to let you go unless they had grounds to detain you.

"Just curious: Are you afraid that the government is about to bust your door down and haul you off to the gulag for making that post?"

Only if the Liberals get back in power.I have confidence it will be late October before they figure out there's an election.Their too busy trying to change peoples habits during peak hours.That way he can sell more of our tax payer subsidized power the the States.Queens park should hold session off peak and teach us all how to be more frugal.

There is a fair bit of case law surrounding random stops and their legality. Simon or someone more knowledgeable with case law may correct me, but to the best of my knowledge Courts have typically allowed them. While they violate your charter right not to be arbitrarily stopped or detained, the first section of the charter also states there may need to be limits to these rights. One of the big examples of random stops is RIDE checkpoints. While they violate your right not to be arbitrarily detained, the Courts have ruled that impaired drivers are such a menace that the benefit of the stop outweighs the Charter violation.

The main points that Courts tend to look is the randomness of the stop (i.e. making sure it wasnt based on a prohibited type of profiling such as race) and if it was for the lawful intended purpose. For example, Courts tend to frown upon the HTA being used as a tool for criminal investigations. They dont want police claiming they stopped a vehicle for a document check when in fact they stopped it because they believed the occupants had stolen property with them.

Some more recent case law has also been very pro-Charter, stating that since youre required under the HTA to provide your information to the police when operating a motor vehicle involved in an accident, its a compelled statement and cant be used against you in a Criminal proceeding. I personally think its going to add some unnecessary difficulty to impaired investigations, but Ontario Court of appeal has upheld the decision.

Link: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/20 ... ca429.html

FYI, although Terry v. Ohio prohibits "random stops," the Michigan State Police have acquired "data extraction devices" which can pull all kinds of data out of iPhones and some other smartphones, without the knowledge of the user, during a traffic stop.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/ ... CB20110421

Viper1:

Very bad advice indeed.

"Sure but you can use any name you like. No need for I.D.

unless I am mistaken."

Police will make every effort to confrirm who you are and where you live, even if it's verbal identification only. If you simply lie about it, that would then put you in the realm of the Criinal Code for Obstructing a Peace Officer.

Best to take your lumps and fight the ticket in traffic court than in Criminal court.

Finally a well thought out coherent explanation.Thank you Stanton