“Ride Program, Your Rights, Weigh In”

Sonic wrote:

Decatur wrote:In reply to a few of Sonics comments,

The police do not have access to any database that will tell them if a vehicle or driver are insured. The reason you may see some drivers charged with failing to have a valid insurance card is that this offence can be laid against the driver of the motor vehicle.

A charge of driving without insurance can only be laid against the registered owner of the motor vehicle. This is a reverse onus offence for the sole reason that the police and prosecutor have no access to insurance company data and the driver/owner must provide proof that they in fact have insurance.

Recent court case,

R. v. Persaud, 2015 ONCJ 344

e) After so doing, he stopped the Dodge motor vehicle, and requested the Drivers Licence, Ownership Registration and Proof of Insurance from the male driver, who was the sole occupant of the vehicle.

f) The driver produced an Ontario Drivers Licence in the name of Nel Prashad, born on December 11th 1959 with an address of 62 Skyvalley Drive in Brampton, Ontario. The digitized photograph on the Licence matched the likeness of the driver, and the officer was satisfied with his identification.

g) Mr. Prashad did not produce the permit nor any proof of insurance with respect to the vehicle.

h) After a brief conversation with the driver, the officer permitted him to leave without laying any charges.

i) On September 4th 2014 at approximately 3:35 pm he called State Farm Insurance "and received certain information" and he was not satisfied that the said motor vehicle was insured.

j) He then charged the defendant with "Permit Motor Vehicle to be operated Without Insurance" contrary to section 2(1) (b) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

Does that not suggest police DO have access if they so request. Even if that requires a phone call, police officers DO have access to your insurance.

i'm surprised that an insurance company would release personal information by phone to somene who cant be identified. I'd never call someones insurance company. Not my job to prove you have insurance. If i have any doubt I lay the appropriate charge or charges and let the accused person deal with the prosecutor.

As for identifying drivers who may not be licenced or may be suspended, the only indication that police get of a susupended person is if that person is also the owner of the motor vehicle in question. Therefore the only may to determine if a driver has a valid licence is to pull that vehicle over and check.

This may be true, but I'm not entirely convinced on it. When my brother's license became suspended, I was stopped considerably more often than normal to ask for license and registration. He was not the owner of the vehicle, unless you're implying it's a coincidence. I was also under the impression that they had access to license suspensions under a vehicle, as he was always registered as a secondary driver.

That would be because when the officer ran your plate, you were also run and a close hit would have come up with someone with the same last name and close particulars. If your brother had ever driven your car as well, and was stopped by police, he would have been associated to your motor vehicle in the police agencies local database.

"probable cause" is a very American term and even though there is usually another reason to pull over a motor vehicle it is not a requirement under the Highway Traffic Act at this time mainly because driving in Ontario is not a right. It is a privilege that has to be earned and may be taken away.

We both agree, that legally, driving is considered a privilege. However, just because it's a privilege doesn't necessarily mean that other rights are legally allowed to be violated. For example, just because you're driving the police isn't allowed to stop you and search your vehicle without reasonable grounds. Probable cause was just used interchangeably by me in place of reasonable grounds, the Canadian requirement (in this context).

Search of the motor vehicle is a totally separate issue.

I'm not fully understanding what the argument against ride checks is. They are there to make the roads safer.... I have a right to drive in public roadways and not be wrecked by an intoxicated driver. The program was started, I'm assuming, because of public outcry to do something about impaired drivers and a high accident/fatality rate from it (as it is sponsored by madd)?

All you have to do is roll your window down and say "No" to the officer when he asks if you have been drinking, and take the pamphlet. Do you really have to get so butthurt about it that you have to give him a hard time, when the whole point of the operation is to make the roads safer for YOU? As far as I see it, the only reason you wouldn't want to roll your window down is if you have been drinking, in which case you should be nailed for it and your presupposed "constitutional rights" about the whole thing can keep you company in a jail cell.

I get that in other situations the police being able to stop you and harass is an issue, but ride targets a specific issue and is legal, and aims to reduce the harm from impaired driving. What I missing here? I honestly don't understand what the problem is!

I've done enough reading about the effectiveness of RIDE programs to accept the fact that statistically speaking they do NOT do anything to increase safety compared to normal police methods including patrolling, tips etc.

I've also read that LEOs love the RIDE program because they are often during paid overtime periods (holidays, weekends).

So yes I am annoyed by random without-cause checks by police with a financial incentive to do this sort of non police work that statistically speaking does not help reduce crime or reduce loss to life or damage to property. I as a Canadian citizen have a right to travel unmolested and to go about my business without the government's intervention.

RIDE programs really remind me alot of recycling programs: they look good and everyone thinks that the programs actually do good in the world but the reality is that they do not and often cause more inconvenience and trouble than they are worth.

ottman

bend wrote:Also, when picking my battles I choose not to get argumentative or snarky over what I believe to be irrelevant questions from an officer. No one has to incriminate themselves. That's perfectly fine. While I don't personally answer every single question myself, I'm polite and respectful about it. Picking your battles doesn't just mean do as your told, it also means not everything asked of you requires a combative reaction and going to battle over.

As for me, I do not get rude, argumentative, snarky or combative in my dealings with police. I can very nicely and very politely ask if there is a law that requires me to do XYZ, and I can very nicely and very politely answer "no comment" to any questions asked.

manwithaplan wrote:I'm not fully understanding what the argument against ride checks is. They are there to make the roads safer.... I have a right to drive in public roadways and not be wrecked by an intoxicated driver. The program was started, I'm assuming, because of public outcry to do something about impaired drivers and a high accident/fatality rate from it (as it is sponsored by madd)?

At a recent council meeting in my Township, the council had asked the OPP to report some annual statistics for Ontario enforcement so they could compare to the township numbers. The report they brought back included the fact that in 2014 the OPP stopped over 1 million people at RIDE checks in that year, and issued only 650 impaired charges. 650 divided by 1,000,000 means that only 0.065% (less than 1%) of people stopped were charged. So the police violated the charter rights of 1 million people to lay 650 charges. So I have a problem with a charter violation that is legally being allowed to occur for "public safety" reasons, when in fact the impact to public safety is almost negligible. And what the statistics don't show is how many of those 650 charges were actually successfully prosecuted.

I cannot find the those specific statistics I mentioned above, but to show that the percentage I am quoting is not out of line, here are some numbers from Waterloo Region which show a percentage of 0.05%

manwithaplan wrote:All you have to do is roll your window down and say "No" to the officer when he asks if you have been drinking, and take the pamphlet. Do you really have to get so butthurt about it that you have to give him a hard time, when the whole point of the operation is to make the roads safer for YOU? As far as I see it, the only reason you wouldn't want to roll your window down is if you have been drinking, in which case you should be nailed for it and your presupposed "constitutional rights" about the whole thing can keep you company in a jail cell.

All you have to do is say "no comment" to all questions asked... what so hard for people to get about that? Why is legally exercising my Charter Rights mean that I am giving the officer a hard time?

Those stats don't show the effect that RIDE has on people not drinking and driving in the first place.