OK so Jshreck has been taking some heat for the concept of providing the DL as being not required and therefore inadmissable in court. Personally, I think that argument would fall on deaf ears in the lower court and any chance at victory would have to be in the highest court. That would be quite something. When pigs fly I think, but along that line of thought, allow me to continue....... Back in college, a buddy of mine was walking home from the bar while drinking his beer. Officer pulls over and gets him in the back of the car. Proceeds to charge him with liquor in public. Officer: Can I have your I.D. please. Buddy: I don't have it. Officer: What's your name? Buddy: Ted. Officer: Ted what? Buddy: Ted Nugent. Officer...(apparently not a fan of the Nuge) hands my buddy a ticket made out to Ted Nugent. Obviously that fine went unpaid. So my questions to the learned officers on the forum; 1. what is the charge for driving when you forgot all your I.D. at home? It happens all the time to me. 2. What is the charge for lying to a police officer about your identity?
OK so Jshreck has been taking some heat for the concept of providing the DL as being not required and therefore inadmissable in court. Personally, I think that argument would fall on deaf ears in the lower court and any chance at victory would have to be in the highest court. That would be quite something. When pigs fly I think, but along that line of thought, allow me to continue.......
Back in college, a buddy of mine was walking home from the bar while drinking his beer. Officer pulls over and gets him in the back of the car. Proceeds to charge him with liquor in public.
Officer: Can I have your I.D. please.
Buddy: I don't have it.
Officer: What's your name?
Buddy: Ted.
Officer: Ted what?
Buddy: Ted Nugent.
Officer...(apparently not a fan of the Nuge) hands my buddy a ticket made out to Ted Nugent. Obviously that fine went unpaid.
So my questions to the learned officers on the forum;
1. what is the charge for driving when you forgot all your I.D. at home? It happens all the time to me.
2. What is the charge for lying to a police officer about your identity?
Thanks. Whichever is the more serious depends on the driver and specific circumstances I suspect. Who does he make the ticket out to if he doesn't have a name? I guess if it's criminal (obstruction) then the driver gets arrested and held in jail until......when? If he never provides his name they can never charge him right?
OPS Copper wrote:
These charges
Fail to surrender DL under the HTA
Ad Obstruct police which is a criminal charge and much more serious than the hTA charge.
ops
Thanks. Whichever is the more serious depends on the driver and specific circumstances I suspect.
Who does he make the ticket out to if he doesn't have a name? I guess if it's criminal (obstruction) then the driver gets arrested and held in jail until......when? If he never provides his name they can never charge him right?
Last edited by rank on Wed Jan 13, 2016 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Most cruisers now have the capability to pull up driver photos during the traffic stop. So if you say you are Ted Nugent and they pull up his picture and you lied, you will be arrested on the spot for obstruct justice and personation.
Most cruisers now have the capability to pull up driver photos during the traffic stop. So if you say you are Ted Nugent and they pull up his picture and you lied, you will be arrested on the spot for obstruct justice and personation.
Not really. Criminal charges are very serious. I'd honestly rather get charged for every single violation in the HTA than 1 criminal offense. Criminal offenses show up on background checks, so applying for jobs would be affected, plus I know for certain criminal charges you can't leave the country with (I.e. Vacation, visiting family). I'd rather have no license than losing my job / not being able to leave the country.
Not really. Criminal charges are very serious. I'd honestly rather get charged for every single violation in the HTA than 1 criminal offense. Criminal offenses show up on background checks, so applying for jobs would be affected, plus I know for certain criminal charges you can't leave the country with (I.e. Vacation, visiting family). I'd rather have no license than losing my job / not being able to leave the country.
I don't think so. There is only one Nuge, but certainly more than one Ted Nugent in the world.
screeech wrote:
Most cruisers now have the capability to pull up driver photos during the traffic stop. So if you say you are Ted Nugent and they pull up his picture and you lied, you will be arrested on the spot for obstruct justice and personation.
I don't think so. There is only one Nuge, but certainly more than one Ted Nugent in the world.
I think I might rather face obstruction that dangerous driving or impaired.
UnluckyDuck wrote:
Not really. Criminal charges are very serious. I'd honestly rather get charged for every single violation in the HTA than 1 criminal offense. Criminal offenses show up on background checks, so applying for jobs would be affected, plus I know for certain criminal charges you can't leave the country with (I.e. Vacation, visiting family). I'd rather have no license than losing my job / not being able to leave the country.
I think I might rather face obstruction that dangerous driving or impaired.
You are missing my point...no matter what name the driver gives, they can pull up that persons picture, if it doesn't match then the criminal investigation begins...There are many other investigative steps as well, not just with the picture...
You are missing my point...no matter what name the driver gives, they can pull up that persons picture, if it doesn't match then the criminal investigation begins...There are many other investigative steps as well, not just with the picture...
They arrest and transport to jail and he goes before a judge. Until they give their name they are not released. I have arrested a few john Does and their resolve usually lasts until they sober up or get before a judge and they realize they are going to real jail. Plus if they have a criminal record they have had fingerprints in the system so they get printed and checked against those record. I think there is a case where a guy was arrested for a immigration matter and he just passed 8 years in jail because he refuses to tell his real name. Oh and you will still face the dangerous operation and impaired charges. Just because you do not provide a name does not terminate those investigations. You are just facing obstruct plus dangerous plus impaired if that is the case. ops OPS
They arrest and transport to jail and he goes before a judge. Until they give their name they are not released. I have arrested a few john Does and their resolve usually lasts until they sober up or get before a judge and they realize they are going to real jail.
Plus if they have a criminal record they have had fingerprints in the system so they get printed and checked against those record.
I think there is a case where a guy was arrested for a immigration matter and he just passed 8 years in jail because he refuses to tell his real name.
Oh and you will still face the dangerous operation and impaired charges. Just because you do not provide a name does not terminate those investigations. You are just facing obstruct plus dangerous plus impaired if that is the case.
OK so.....driver is pulled over for RIDE, blows .09 and is about to charged with impaired. Officer: DL, ins, registration please. Driver: Do I have to give it to you? Officer: No. Driver: Then I won't. Officer: You are being arrested for obstruction and suspicion of DUI. I am taking you to the station for brethalyzer. You have the right to remain silent..... Driver: OK Meanwhile, back at the station..... Driver is given brethalyzer and fails. Driver is finger printed, but since there are no prints on file that leads nowhere. Officer runs the plates on the car and sees that it is registered to Ted Nugent of Toronto, ON. He pulls up all the Ted Nugent's lisenced in ON and finds a picture of his guy. Officer charges Ted with impaired, obstruction and failing to surrender DL. He is held until his arrainment at which time the judge says "state your name". Ted says "Nope, I ain't gonna". Crown says, "Here is the DL photo judge. It's Ted. We have our man". Judge says in the absence of a defense, I find you guilty.......Ted. Sound about right? Moral of the story: If you're going to drink and drive, steal a car *(note sarcasm intended, for those that thought I was offering advice LOL).
screeech wrote:
You are missing my point...no matter what name the driver gives, they can pull up that persons picture, if it doesn't match then the criminal investigation begins...There are many other investigative steps as well, not just with the picture...
OK so.....driver is pulled over for RIDE, blows .09 and is about to charged with impaired.
Officer: DL, ins, registration please.
Driver: Do I have to give it to you?
Officer: No.
Driver: Then I won't.
Officer: You are being arrested for obstruction and suspicion of DUI. I am taking you to the station for brethalyzer. You have the right to remain silent.....
Driver: OK
Meanwhile, back at the station.....
Driver is given brethalyzer and fails. Driver is finger printed, but since there are no prints on file that leads nowhere. Officer runs the plates on the car and sees that it is registered to Ted Nugent of Toronto, ON. He pulls up all the Ted Nugent's lisenced in ON and finds a picture of his guy. Officer charges Ted with impaired, obstruction and failing to surrender DL.
He is held until his arrainment at which time the judge says "state your name". Ted says "Nope, I ain't gonna". Crown says, "Here is the DL photo judge. It's Ted. We have our man". Judge says in the absence of a defense, I find you guilty.......Ted.
Sound about right?
Moral of the story: If you're going to drink and drive, steal a car *(note sarcasm intended, for those that thought I was offering advice LOL).
Take away all the criminal stuff mentioned, it's also an arrestable offence under the HTA for a driver failing to identify. So if you decide to say nothing when the officer asks for your name, you can also sit in jail until you are identified. That includes a passenger that's not wearing a seatbelt.
Take away all the criminal stuff mentioned, it's also an arrestable offence under the HTA for a driver failing to identify. So if you decide to say nothing when the officer asks for your name, you can also sit in jail until you are identified. That includes a passenger that's not wearing a seatbelt.
With regard to lying to an officer being grounds for an obstruction charge, EVERYONE lies to police. Why is it they never charge the liars in a traffic accident? We all know that in a two person accident there is at least one liar and maybe two. I had the misfortune of falling victim to one of these liars a while ago....the officer chose to believe the liar and charge me. It cost me a two day trial and $15,000 in legal fees. At trial, it became obvious....pathetically so.....that the other driver was lying. Why did the police not go back and charge him with obstruction? When the truth came out, why did they not go back and charge him like they should have done in the first place? That never happens. Ever seen it done?
With regard to lying to an officer being grounds for an obstruction charge, EVERYONE lies to police. Why is it they never charge the liars in a traffic accident? We all know that in a two person accident there is at least one liar and maybe two. I had the misfortune of falling victim to one of these liars a while ago....the officer chose to believe the liar and charge me. It cost me a two day trial and $15,000 in legal fees. At trial, it became obvious....pathetically so.....that the other driver was lying. Why did the police not go back and charge him with obstruction? When the truth came out, why did they not go back and charge him like they should have done in the first place? That never happens. Ever seen it done?
Lying is not necessarily obstruction . Obstruction under s. 129 states : 129 Every one who (a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer, (b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or (c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure, Just because you weren't convicted at a trial doesn't necessarily mean the other people lied. At the end of the day the officer conducted his investigation into the collision and formed grounds to charge you with an offence. Its likely you exercised your right to a trial and happened to put up a defense and were acquitted of the accusation(s).
Lying is not necessarily obstruction .
Obstruction under s. 129 states :
129 Every one who
(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,
(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or
(c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,
Just because you weren't convicted at a trial doesn't necessarily mean the other people lied. At the end of the day the officer conducted his investigation into the collision and formed grounds to charge you with an offence. Its likely you exercised your right to a trial and happened to put up a defense and were acquitted of the accusation(s).
People have their own perceptions of the truth. Different angles an accident is viewed at, for example, can change things dramatically. This does not make one side lying and the other being truthful. Both sides honestly believe they are telling the truth, as they know it to be. That's why we have a trier of fact, to make a determination of guilt, or innocence, based on the facts presented to them. If someone is flat out lying, on the stand, under oath or affirmation, then they are committing the criminal offence of perjury. I do believe there should be more of these people charged.
People have their own perceptions of the truth. Different angles an accident is viewed at, for example, can change things dramatically. This does not make one side lying and the other being truthful. Both sides honestly believe they are telling the truth, as they know it to be. That's why we have a trier of fact, to make a determination of guilt, or innocence, based on the facts presented to them. If someone is flat out lying, on the stand, under oath or affirmation, then they are committing the criminal offence of perjury. I do believe there should be more of these people charged.
It is a sad fact that in our legal system, people are not held to account for the damage they cause. PC's are free to conduct shoddy investigations and make determinations that they aren't qualified to make, when the prudent course would have been to call in an officer trained in accident reconstruction. The Crown buddies up to witnesses that are free to say whatever they darn well please to get themselves off the hook and even coached by the crown. And the accused can't say anything at roadside for fear of it being used against him. Ahhh, but not to worry...justice will prevail right? Yeah....maybe.....if the accused has enough money. Then the accused is the victim because a cop felt he needed to lay a charge 15 minutes after he arrived at an accident scene. If that cop was held accountable for acquittals, he might have taken more care. If witnesses are held accountable for lying, they might think twice before trying to save their own skin.
Nanuk wrote:
Lying is not necessarily obstruction .
Obstruction under s. 129 states :
129 Every one who
(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,
(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or
(c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,
Just because you weren't convicted at a trial doesn't necessarily mean the other people lied. At the end of the day the officer conducted his investigation into the collision and formed grounds to charge you with an offence. Its likely you exercised your right to a trial and happened to put up a defense and were acquitted of the accusation(s).
It is a sad fact that in our legal system, people are not held to account for the damage they cause. PC's are free to conduct shoddy investigations and make determinations that they aren't qualified to make, when the prudent course would have been to call in an officer trained in accident reconstruction. The Crown buddies up to witnesses that are free to say whatever they darn well please to get themselves off the hook and even coached by the crown. And the accused can't say anything at roadside for fear of it being used against him.
Ahhh, but not to worry...justice will prevail right? Yeah....maybe.....if the accused has enough money. Then the accused is the victim because a cop felt he needed to lay a charge 15 minutes after he arrived at an accident scene. If that cop was held accountable for acquittals, he might have taken more care. If witnesses are held accountable for lying, they might think twice before trying to save their own skin.
@rank So it is very important to understand what information the law says you are required to give. So if you are doing something in Ontario that requires a license (driving, hunting) then you are required to provide that license when asked. In addition to your license, when driving you are required to also produce your insurance and registration when asked. Also, when being charged with an offence of any kind, you are required to identify yourself when asked to do so. Identifying yourself can mean just verbally providing the information they ask for, although the only information you MUST give them when asked, is your name, address and date of birth. So if you forget your license at home, the officer will of course ask you to identify yourself. I would suggest you do not lie and that you do identify yourself correctly to avoid further charges. Just remember to never volunteer anything and always wait to be asked for it: "Do I have to give that to you?" "Can I be charged with something else if I do not give it to you?" "Alright here it is, but it is NOT voluntary and I am only giving it to you because I am required too."
@rank
So it is very important to understand what information the law says you are required to give. So if you are doing something in Ontario that requires a license (driving, hunting) then you are required to provide that license when asked.
In addition to your license, when driving you are required to also produce your insurance and registration when asked.
Also, when being charged with an offence of any kind, you are required to identify yourself when asked to do so. Identifying yourself can mean just verbally providing the information they ask for, although the only information you MUST give them when asked, is your name, address and date of birth.
So if you forget your license at home, the officer will of course ask you to identify yourself. I would suggest you do not lie and that you do identify yourself correctly to avoid further charges.
Just remember to never volunteer anything and always wait to be asked for it:
"Do I have to give that to you?"
"Can I be charged with something else if I do not give it to you?"
"Alright here it is, but it is NOT voluntary and I am only giving it to you because I am required too."
I love it when people tell me that -- mmmkay... :roll:
jsherk wrote:
"Alright here it is, but it is NOT voluntary and I am only giving it to you because I am required too."
I love it when people tell me that -- mmmkay...
=======================================================================
Comments are my (slightly jaded) opinion only, and do not reflect the views of anyone else, esp. my employer
So heres my case, does it have any validity? Im argueing that the officer did not have a justified view of where and if my car stopped or not, which it did.
This is the officers view of the stop sign i "disobeyed"
Another possible viewpoint, just so i can say that he cant see regardless
As you can see he cannot see the line where i must stop
As close are possible (which he wasnt) to the intersection,…
I need some help to settle a "Right of Way" argument. I know this question has probably been asked a thousand times before, but after doing a search, I was unable to find a posting on the forum, or the specific section in the OHTA relating to it.
Scenario:
Two cars approach an intersection where the east and westbound directions are controlled by stop signs, and the north and southbound…
I was pulled over for doing 123 in an 80 zone on highway 7 near Peterborough. The officer reduced it to 109 in an 80. It was HIGHLY unlikely that I was going 109, let alone 123, so for the merit of it I am taking this to court. Court case mid January.
Please could you help me to decipher the officer's notes. Are there any errors in the notes or on the ticket that you can see?
Ive already done searches, read the act as best i can but still haven't read a complete answer. Where in the HTA does it state that the front license plate must be attached to the front bumper? I have it on the passenger sun visor (if ppl remember the old temp permits that taped to the pass side of windshield) i figured that this spot would be the same. However now they have got rid of…
Was pulled over earlier today for going 95km/h in posted 60km/h, 2nd offense (same cop that pulled me over the first time >.<) ticket of $265. going down dougall toward cabana where it goes from the 80 to 60 zone (yes was over slightly coming in and kept speed)
Just wondering what the best way to handle this? (location: windsor ontario)
I am a bartender and last saturday night while I was working someone backed into my car (2000 Acura Integra) in the prking lot. One of the cooks in the kitchen ran to tell me my car alarm is going off. Immediately I ran outside to discover my driver side mirror smashed on the ground and my driver door dented. There was nobody around to claim responsibility. I had already begun to suspect one…
Scenario regarding speeding charge - if a charge is not reduced at all at roadside, i.e. the charge, for example is "speeding 75 km/h in a 60 km/h zone contrary to s. 128," should that not mean the prosecution needs to prove that you are guilty of what you are being charged with, and not, simply, of speeding generally? I understand that if they prove a charge of even 61 km/h in a 60 km/h, they…
In a nutshell, in York Region, ran a stale yellow, cop was on a 407 off ramp and tickets me for red light. 2 week old pink slip, I forgot I put the new behind the expired one so I got a ticket for that as well.
Had the first court date adjourned because I did not receive disclosure. I used the Ticketcombat template and faxed it over, they told me I never left a phone number. No surprise there, I…
Was stopped in an OPP speed trap on eastbound QEW near Hamilton at 1:30 AM last week (Apr 25th). Officer said I was doing 131 km/h based on radar gun but I thought I was around 120 km/h (I let off the gas and looked at my speedo when I saw the 2 cars on the shoulder). It was a dark stretch and it was not busy but there were a few other cars on the highway. I asked to see the reading but they said…
1) Discovery info includes 3 pages of Genesis radar manual. Officer's notes show he used "Atlantic Laser" to measure speed. Didn't show model # (only s/n). The Genesis was used earlier on in the day, but not for my case. Can I grill him on this or is it simply a clerk's error in sending me the wrong manual?
I got a ticket for an expired licence sticker. The next day I went to the Ministry office to renew my sticker. I thought that I HAD to pay any outstanding tickets BEFORE I was eligible to renew my sticker. The lady at the desk informed me that I had an outstanding balance and 407 bill that I had a to pay and I told her that I was aware of that. I thought everything was cleared.
Last week I was driving though downtown and because of the slippery / wet conditions could not stop when the light was turning yellow to red and slid in to the intersection. I was hit by another car (near the headlamp). None of us were injured, there was significat damge to the cars. The air bags did not deploy.
I was given a ticket that reads : Red Light - fail to stop - H.T.A sect 144 (18) Fine…
I was just wondering if there was any text in the HTA that suggests that when driving on a highway with three lanes going in each direction, drivers should generally always be in the rightmost lane unless they are passing.
At first, I thought 154(b) was what I was looking for, but now I'm not so sure?
"Officials in West Vancouver, Canada apparently aren't satisfied with the driver-slowing properties of traditional speed bumps. Yesterday, the town unveiled a new way to entice motorists to ease off the gas pedal in the vicinity of the ÃÂcole Pauline Johnson Elementary School: A 2-D image of a child playing, creating the illusion that…
Does anybody know how you can check the status of your Demerit Points and how many you have collected over the last two years?
I just received a ticket as I was travelling through Barrie and am debating whether or not to fight it. My decision will be based on whether or not an infraction I received a year ago came with Demerit Points.
I have a question I would like to ask concerning turning right on a red light.
I was approaching on the right turn only lane to the traffic light which turned from amber to red. As soon as the red light came on, there were advance green left turn arrow for the intersection I was for the cars that were traveling right to left and left to right of me. Since there was a lot of traffic from where I…
So I got pulled over for speeding and following too close, on HWY 11 north of Barrie. The airplane caught me! I will fight this as I have fought ALL my tickets and won EVERY ONE of them (one per year... man I need to drive slower). So any thoughts out there on how to fight this one? Does the Crown have to bring the 2 officers in the plane, plus the one in the cruises to court? If 1 in 3 doesn't…
I am new to this forum and before making this post I did some digging and was unable to find anything on this method of officer note taking.
A little back ground of my case:
charged with 25km/h over the posted limit.
After numerous disclosure requests, finally received a detailed disclosure including several pages of the lidar manual and typed officer notes describing the events of my…
My wife was just pulled over for running a yellow light and instead was ticketed for an expired drivers licence. The license expired on her birthdate 4 months ago and she didn;t recieve a renewal. $325 !!!!!!
Hope someone can help. She was ticketed under HTA 32 (1) with the offense shown as
"Drive Motor Vehicle no license"
Can anyone tell me if this is worth the effort to get a reduction in the…
So I got pulled over for supposedly for running a stop sign. The problem is that I did a complete stop, waited a split second and started again. And yes I did stop behind the white line.
He took my information and went back to his car to write me up a ticket, came back and gave me my fine and explained to me the process. He gave me a reduced fine (65$ and ne points).
Someone has an accident in a car worth very little on highway 401 but the car is not drivable (but not in terrible shape), there is a police report filed right away in which no other cars were involved, however the car did strike a guardrail. Is it possible to handle this without involving insurance? Or is a forgone conclusion insurance will be notified by the police?
I made a minor mistake on my disclosure request - I put a "Request Date" of September 10, 2014 instead of 2015. The rest of the form is correct including offense date, fax date, trial date.
Will this affect my disclosure? Do I need to clear it up?
Also, I noticed the Ticket Combat disclosure form has a lot more information than what was posted in on this site. Is it OK to send a second…
