Requirement for police to identify themselves when asked?

What requirements are there (acts/statutes/regulations) for police to identify themselves?

I would imagine there is something that deals with their uniform and badge. Anybody know where this is?

And are they required to identify themselves in anyway when asked? If we get pulled over at night, can I ask them to identify themselves before I answer any questions or provide my ID?

Thanks

assuming the marked car, flashing lights, siren, uniform and badge isn't enough?

My question is what SPECIFIC laws/acts/statutes/regulations govern their identification (like badge) and is there a requirement to identify themselves if I ask them something like "what is your name and badge number". For example, if it's night, maybe I cannot see the badge number very well, so if I ask them do they have to tell me?

There are some people out there that say police need to show you 3 types of identification when you ask. If that is true (which I doubt it is) I would like to see where the requirement is.

I don't know of any Act or Regulation that would require a Peace Officer to identify themselves. However, there is a possibility that an individual agency may have requirement in their own General Orders with regard to wearing either a visible badge number or name tag and/or identifying themselves when requested.

The officers name and number would also appear on any PON that was issued at the roadside.

If you had a serious doubt about an officer being who they said they were you could always call dispatch and check. But not for every stop, please !

There must be a law somewhere dealing with this to some degree or another.

I did find this with regards to OPP specifically

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE ORDERS

6.11.7: IDENTIFICATION BADGE/WARRANT CARD

Carrying

- A uniform member shall, while in the lawful performance of duty, carry the identification badge/warrant card at all times, whether in uniform or civilian clothes.

- A uniform member shall produce the identification badge/warrant card when required to establish his/her identity in the lawful performance of duty, but shall not use them to obtain a favour/private advantage.

Like I said, It's usually in local policy and procedures, not in law. Violation of the policy or procedure can result in a charge under the Police Services Act.

Unless they are out of uniform there is no requirement. Seems that this is some internet myth that police have to identify themselves with three pieces of ID or that they have to present a business card when asked. Usually it is something that Sovereign citizens have concocted.

There is no such a requirement. In fact I do not even carry business cards.

when In uniform you do not have to talk. But I will make the demand for documents if you are driving. It is a demand and not a request. I will make it again. if they are not presented or they make any motion to be looking for them I will explain the requirements as laid out under the HTA and that I will place them under arrest for failing to identify.

I will make the demand one more time.

I will then arrest you. remember reasonable force can be used to effect the arrest. Should you resist then resist arrest criminal charges will then also be laid. I will then Obtain your ID and release you with the appropriate charges.

I have run across a this before and I will not play their game.

OPSCopper

I assumed it was a myth (3 pieces of ID, business card) and just wanted to confirm that was the case.

So there is nothing that requires an officer to wear their badge in a visible location besides local police force policy?

But I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for an officers name and badge number, especially if the badge is not easily visible (night time, wearing a rain/winter jacket).

Thanks

I don't see how a policy (real or not) requiring an officer identifying themselves has anything to do with charges related to the HTA.

Whether the officer lays a charge or not was not why I was asking.

If an officer were to violate my charter rights at say a RIDE checkpoint but did lay a charge, then I would not know who they were.

Their name would be on the paper that you were served.

While your question is easy, the answer is actually quite complex. Statutorily, there is no legislation that requires an officer to disclose their full identity to you. However, as others have consistently stated already, most officers are bound by the polices/rules of their individual police services. If they contravene that, they can be brought up on charges under the Police Services Act.

What complicates the issue is where someone tries to make an Access to Information request. There is quite a bit of case law in this area but the 2 most cited decisions are Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board (Re) (an appeal decision) and more importantly, the Division Court's decision in Duncanson v. Fineberg. I think most will agree that disclosing the names of officers can put them and their loved ones in peril, as well as significantly impede their ability to do undercover work.

However, if you read paragraph 254, you'll see that even the TPS agrees that there are times in specific cases where such disclosure is necessary.

So, that's the general police requirements.

However, from a practical perspective, if the accused can raise issue that he/she did not know the person was an officer, than it challenges virtually all the evidence of the Crown. After all, if any 'demand' is made by an officer, the accused must have a reasonable basis to know that such demand is truly coming from an 'agent of the Crown'. That is why the police policies are in place and why officers are issued badges/shields. This way, the Crown can argue that the defendant should have known the person was an agent of the Crown because he was wearing a uniform, was in a marked vehicle, was displaying their badge, etc. In other words, they will argue all those items to establish that a reasonable person WOULD have known the demand, detention and/or arrest were truly coming from an 'agent of the Crown'.

So, that's the complicated answer. In short, officers must abide by their police service's rules of identifying themselves. Practically speaking though, they WILL provide their name and badge number so that their testimony/evidence is better accepted in court and survive defense lawyer attacks.

highwaystar wrote:

Practically speaking though, they WILL provide their name and badge number so that their testimony/evidence is better accepted in court and survive defense lawyer attacks.

This, above, is the key piece.

For jsherk, the question (that highwaystar mentions) is, would a reasonable person know that this is a police officer? Clearly, not everyone is reasonable, even though everyone thinks of themselves as being so.

"3 pieces of identification" is Sovereign Citizen horse s***.

argyll wrote:

Their name would be on the paper that you were served.

CORRECTION: What I meant to say was "If an officer were to violate my charter rights at say a RIDE checkpoint but did NOT lay a charge, then I would not know who they were."

I am not disagreeing with anybody's comments here.

My question again would be:

Is it an unreasonable request to ask an officer for their name and badge number IF neither were easily visible? I would suggest that this is completely reasonable request.

Radar Identified wrote:

"3 pieces of identification" is Sovereign Citizen horse s***.

I totally agree.

Thankfully, the Sovereign Citizen (aka. Freeman) arguments are being readily dismissed by the courts now. After the decision in Meads v. Meads, which has been adapted in Ontario by several courts now, including R. v. Ainsworth, their arguments truly are treated like the horse s*** they really are!

The most entertaining decision dealing with the Sovereign Citizen argument is definitely R. v. Duncan.

I highly recommend everyone read the Duncan decision---especially the footnotes: the judge is hilarious!!! Its a work of literary art!

jsherk wrote:

argyll wrote:

Their name would be on the paper that you were served.

CORRECTION: What I meant to say was "If an officer were to violate my charter rights at say a RIDE checkpoint but did NOT lay a charge, then I would not know who they were."

I am not disagreeing with anybody's comments here.

My question again would be:

Is it an unreasonable request to ask an officer for their name and badge number IF neither were easily visible? I would suggest that this is completely reasonable request.

I agree. I have never had a problem giving my name and badge number. Same as being video-taped, I'm doing nothing wrong so fill your boots. I might seize your cell phone if the footage is evidence of a charge such as resist arrest but that's the risk you take. No different than CCTV.

@highwaystar - I have previously read Meads v Meads. The other two are good reads as well, and yes the Duncan one is especially entertaining!

In R. v. Ainsworth it makes mention of R. v. Duncan 2012 O.J. No. 6405 which is different from the the one you mention of R. v. Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160)

But I cannot find R. v. Duncan 2012 O.J. No. 6405 on Canlii ... anybody know what happened to it and where it can be found?

jsherk wrote:

Is it an unreasonable request to ask an officer for their name and badge number IF neither were easily visible? I would suggest that this is completely reasonable request.

That is a reasonable request. I don't see anything wrong with it.

highwaystar wrote:

Thankfully, the Sovereign Citizen (aka. Freeman) arguments are being readily dismissed by the courts now. After the decision in Meads v. Meads, which has been adapted in Ontario by several courts now, including R. v. Ainsworth, their arguments truly are treated like the horse s*** they really are!

Oh yes, the Duncan decision was hilarious. BTW - when I lived in Michigan, I volunteered with an organization that, among other things, documented and tracked the actions of so-called "Sovereign Citizens." This was long before their relatively recent growth in Canada, so I was quite familiar with their tactics a LONG time ago. What's dangerous is that their adherents actually believe that these things are correct, and people died as a result (e.g. the shooting death of the two officers in West Memphis a few years ago).

I spoke with an OPP Inspector today and had a good chat about this identification issue.

He said that as far as he knows there is NO act/statute/regulation that REQUIRES a uniformed police officer to identify themselves to you when you ask, but he would have no issue giving his name and badge number if somebody asked.

All Police are required to carry their warrant card and badge on them when they are on duty, but there is no obligation for a uniformed police officer to show it if you ask.

However he said that OPP policy requires that they wear a name tag (first initial and last name) which should be clearly visible on the outside of their uniform or jacket, so it would not be an issue to ask an officer their name or to see the name tag if it was not clearly visible.

He also confirmed that this was for OPP only and each police force would have their own policy on uniform and where/how identification was displayed.

yo,

if I'm in ma ride, and like yo 5 0 is behind me and they light me up.

you want I should ask him for his ID,

the dude will be like hauling me outta ma ride, slam me on my bonnet and be all up in my stuff,

then down the copshop and black up my hands

oh p leeees dayem yall gota deathwish?

jsherk wrote:

...In R. v. Ainsworth it makes mention of R. v. Duncan 2012 O.J. No. 6405 which is different from the the one you mention of R. v. Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160)

But I cannot find R. v. Duncan 2012 O.J. No. 6405 on Canlii ... anybody know what happened to it and where it can be found?

Its actually the same decision. The Duncan citation used in the Ainsworth decision is actually for "Ontario Judgements"---a Quicklaw citation for unreported decisions. Quicklaw is a paid-based case law database used by legal professionals. Canlii only reports decisions that have actually been published by a reporting service.

When a decision is rendered in Ontario, Quicklaw will publish it using the "OJ" citation----for Ontario Judgements. If its worthy of being reported in a more traditional journal like the Ontario Reports (OR) or Canadian Criminal Cases (CCC), it will be. The proper convention for legal citations in Canada is that you first cite from a traditional reporting service and only refer to an unreported decision when absolutely necessary. This is according to the Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation.

So, if you subscribed to Quicklaw, you'd actually see that additional citation. The judge in the Ainsworth decision SHOULD have cited a published report citation in his decision since they were already available at the time of his judgement. However, no one is going to correct him on such a triviality.

As confirmation, if you look at the Duncan decision, you'll see it was actually decided back in 2012.

@highwaystar - Okay thanks for clarifying. That is good information to know.

Some uniforms, actually most do not have a badge attached to it. All usually have a shoulder crest and majority now have vests / shirts with police written on the front and back.

Some do not carry a badge or business card outside their cruiser while in uniform (potential to drop it anywhere) but do keep those items inside their cruiser. I don't know of anyone that wouldn't give a business card if asked.

Guess if there is doubt of the officer being legit, call 911 and confirm if you are stopped by a real officer. Yes, if you are still moving you can use your cellphone to call 911