“Driver Fail To Provide Identification; (not Stopped In Veh)”

after stopping in front of a house, turn car off, exit and walk up sidewalk, officer standing there asks for identification. Officer was asked if he was making an arrest, replied that yes he is now.

After arrest and short stay in rear of cruiser, was released and given ticket in thread title.

Easy win?

Was it a "reasonable inspection"?

If you were charged with S.33, the officer is right.

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).

Key words being 'in charge of a motor vehicle'. Its reasonable to say that you were in charge of the car.

i would have to argue that there was no stop.

The house in question was being monitored by police because of complaints with teenagers. Police were simply trying to identify people at the door.

They also retrieved the drivers licence from the car during the detainment in the police car.

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

However, in my opinion, if you were in charge of a motor vehicle and the officer observed that, and there is no doubt that you were in charge of a motor vehicle (remember this doesn't mean driving, you basically had the keys on you), and the officer requested your driver's license, if you refused, then you broke S.33 of the HTA.

The officer will say that he was just standing in front of the house and saw you get out of a car, and he wanted to make sure you had a valid driver's license. That's it. I don't think he has to say anything more to have a prima facie case under S. 33.

Of course, as stated before, I am not an expert or a lawyer, and this constitutes only my opinion.

I'd have to agree with Slyk. As you described it, you stopped the vehicle, the officer observed you exit the vehicle, and then asked you for identification. He could see that you were in charge of the vehicle, because you walked out of it. They do not have to pull you over on the road. It does not have to be a "traffic stop." If the version of events are as you described them, then they'd be able to convict you under s. 33 (1).

If you were being asked for ID, and you said "it's in the car, can I go get it," or you identified yourself by some other means, and they did not give you a reasonable opportunity to produce said ID, then the charge likely won't stick.

The wording "in charge of a vehicle" has the same meaning as "care or control".

It includes "present physical custody" and "circumstances where the person has only recently and temporarily relinquished physical custody" (i.e. someone who was driving but exits the vehicle and walks away) (see R. v. Richards 1999 – Ontario Court of Appeal)