I get pulled over in a ride program, middle of the night in the middle of no where trying to get home.

Of course I was not drinking, but instead some cop ask's for everything and finds my plate sticker expired.

I got no mail and didn't even notice it was past due.

Ticket $110 !!

I mean I look online it says charge is $85, whats the extra $25 for? his great service to the public?

Ok I didn't notice it was due, but again, $110 is high

Am I getting ripped off for $25?

It is a set fine of $85 and the remaining is a Victim surcharge and court costs to bring the total up to $110.

I'm not sure if it would work, but if it were me, I'd fight it on the grounds that the traffic stop was for the purpose of checking for impairment, so the lisence sticker charge "should" be inapropriate. My officer-buddy told me you can't be stopped for NO reason in ontario (except for an officially coordinated RIDE program checking for drunks).

I have a feeling the cop was out of order when he commenced to look for OTHER violations, but I have no material to back up my hunch. Someone else here may.

I think I recall someone telling me that a cop can pull you over to even check for things like if you have your license and registration in tact...not sure how true that is though...(actually the guy who told me this was a paralegal )

As for being ticketed with something else when stopped by RIDE, I would think that the law would give permission to the police to look and moderate for other suspicious looking activities and violations at the same time.

I'm pretty sure there needs to be Probable Cause to stop a motorist. The officer must witness an offence or have some reasonable suspicion that an offence has occurred.

The R.I.D.E. program is seen as and exception to the rule. We allow our rights to be violated in the interest of fighting impaired driving. As such, we expect this detention to be directed at confirming sobriety, and ONLY confirming sobriety.

I would motion for all evidence to be suppressed due to illegal detention. The officer did NOT witness ANY offence "PRIOR" to the traffic stop. All evidence was collected as a result of the R.I.D.E. program which is designed ONLY to target impaired drivers.

Here's an example (in New York mind you) of a defendant who got off an impaired charge, a pot charge, and a high-beam charge, all because reasonable cause was not proven in court.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... tBody;col1

Bookm wrote:

Probable Cause to stop a motorist. New York

Exactly...go back to the USA.

We stop motorists all the time for expired stickers. As we drive we check the plates or see the expired validation. Stop them and issue the offence notice every time, even 1 day expired.

We can stop any vehicle anytime, just to ensure the vehicle is insured and the driver has a licence. Do I do that, no. There are so many acts and sections, I always have a reason for the stop anyway.

On RIDE we do check the validation on plates, every pickup I check (as it is visible to the front). About 50% of the time expired plates will result in "no insurance" or "unsafe vehicle".

The subject of Police powers regarding traffic stops is thoroughly covered here:

http://www.canlii.ca/eliisa/highlight.d ... 23355.html

Sadly, it appears Bear is correct with respect to our pathetic lack of civil rights when it comes to being stopped. The police CAN stop anyone, anytime, for no other reason other than to check Lisence, Insurance, and mechanical condition of the vehicle. There is a section that deals with R.I.D.E.-type programs that highlights the fact that police must not exceed their authority by investigating matters BEYOND these particular issues. Perhaps you could argue that your eventual ticket was for something outside the intended scope the R.I.D.E. program which is considered an acceptable inconvenience for the purpose of getting drunks off the road and making the highways safer for responsible drivers such as yourself

"Check stop programs result in the arbitrary detention of motorists. The programs are justified as a means aimed at reducing the terrible toll of death and injuries so often occasioned by impaired drivers or by dangerous vehicles. The primary aim of the program is thus to check for sobriety, licenses, ownership, insurance and the mechanical fitness of cars. The police use of check stops should not be extended beyond these aims. Random stop programs must not be turned into a means of conducting either an unfounded general inquisition or an unreasonable search...."

In this case, Lisence, Ownership and Insurance were provided, and no mechanical defects were noted. No "safety" concerns resulted from this stop, but the stop transgressed in to NON-safety related statute violation. Sure it's a long-shot, but I'D try it, if I were me . Your problem is going to be that the plate is in "plain view". So I'd only try this weak defense if the Crown was not willing to offer a decent plea deal.

"The detention authorized by s. 216(1) of the Highway Traffic Act is circumscribed by its purpose. The detention is limited to the roadside and must be brief, unless other grounds are established for a further detention. The police may require production of the documents which drivers are required to have with them and may detain the vehicle and its occupants while those documents are checked against information available through the computer terminal in the police vehicle. The police may also assess the mechanical fitness of the vehicle, examine equipment for compliance with safety standards and from outside of the vehicle, make a visual examination of the interior to ensure their own safely in the course of the detention: R. v. Ladouceur, supra at 1286-87; R. v. Mellenthin, 1992 CanLII 50 (S.C.C.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615 at 623-24, 76 C.C.C. (3d) 481; R. v. E. (G.A.) (reflex-logo) reflex, (1992), 77 C.C.C. (3d) 60 (Ont. C.A.). More intrusive examinations or inquiries directed at matters not relevant to highway safety concerns are not authorized by s. 216(1) of the H.T.A.: R. v. Mellenthin, supra."

Your sticker expires on your Birthday!

The ticket sucks,but it's your responsibilty to check to make sure your info is in order and up to date.

I support that police can stop you anytime and make sure your documents are in order,just think of all the drunks and thieves,drugs these stops get!

Bookm wrote:

In this case, Lisence, Ownership and Insurance were provided, and no mechanical defects were noted. No "safety" concerns resulted from this stop, but the stop transgressed in to NON-safety related statute violation. Sure it's a long-shot, but I'D try it, if I were me . Your problem is going to be that the plate is in "plain view". So I'd only try this weak defense if the Crown was not willing to offer a decent plea deal.

Easy way around that if that was ever made case law. On a RIDE notice a expired plate, so just wait a few seconds for the vehicle to leave, jump in a cruiser, now there is a reason to stop the vehicle 100m down the road and issue the expired plate charge.

Have to remember, we ALL pay for our stickers. There is about 5% that legitimately forget, the other 95% are vehicles don't pass e-test, don't have insurance and about 20% do not have a driver's licence.

It gets a tad tricky when you own SIX cars though.

ex.: I here a noise under the hood of my principal car. I get it home, run in and call insurance to switch to one of my other cars. I whip back out and get straight to work (just on time). It's very easy to forget that the other car doesn't have a sticker on it. And it's expensive to put a $70 sticker on a car you may drive 3 days of the year. To be fair, the sticker should be magnetic and transferable from car to car (as long as it's the same owner).

I've managed to miss the sticker thing TWICE in the last 20 years, and both times resulted in a warning (both were local municipal cops).

Bookm wrote:

It gets a tad tricky when you own SIX cars though.

Sheesh, I'm in the wrong profession then...have 1 car and a bicycle.