“Plaincloths Officer Stopped Me For Not Checking”

So I just left my house and stopped at a STOP sign from my street turning left (it was not an all-way stop). I stopped and checked my right then left and did not see any cars and started my turn. All of a sudden a jeep appeared to the right of me about 3 seconds later driving very close. I glanced at him and thought how is that possible. The jeep did not honk or signal for me to stop so I continued down the second street and stopped before a main road to merge with traffic. My eyes were on the traffic to see if I can turn left. An opening came up and I turned left. I checked my rear mirror and saw the jeep following me. I thought to myself perhaps he was having road rage. I slowed down because I was coming up towards a red light and he pulled up beside me, honked, and flashed a badge. So I turned towards the right lane and stopped.

He flashed his badge quickly again, I only saw "constable" and he started to tell me "where did you learn to drive like that, what if there were children. you did not check for me coming through and you turned from your side street; " and told me to get my license and proof of insurance. I stumbled because I was nervous and he kept telling me to hurry it up because "does it look like I have a lot of time?" I told him I checked my right and did not see him. He replied that if I checked I would have seen him. He then asked me whether I would be home in the evening because he would charge me. I asked him what are you charging me with as well as what time, he just ignored me and went off. At the moment I am waiting for him at my house, confused.

I don't understand first why I did not see him. I checked my right after stopping. Also, if I did not see him would he not have crashed into me whether than pulling next to me 3 seconds after I successfully turned? (The curb on both sides of the street that I turned into can only fit 2 lanes but it expands into places where people can park) Would it be possible he was driving much faster than the 40km/h in the residential area and I missed him? Would he be just pissed off because I cut him off by accident? At this point I don't even know what he is charging me with. Some insight would be very much appreciated. Thanks for reading.

Huh?

He let you drive home and your waiting for the ticket??

As of this moment of me typing this reply I am still waiting for him. My day basically had been ruined with me staying home and waiting.

They've got up to 7 days to file the charges. You don't have to stay home waiting, just go about your business normally. If the police are going to charge you, they'll find a way to get the ticket to you. In the mean time, you might want to re-visit the scene of the incident and take some of your own notes. The officer might've forgotten or decided to let it go, who knows?

He sounded pretty pissed off, and was in such a rush that he denied any sort of conversation.

What possible charge would he give me? Failing to stop at a STOP sign? Failing to yield? Careless driving? it seemed strange that he waited so long before he signaled me to pull over with his horn. He waited till we were on a main road first instead of in the side road where this incident occurred.

Edit: Any tips on what I should look for while taking the notes? The place in question is a few houses down from my house.

Oh for goodness sake... Don't accept any ticket from him. Why on earth would you sit there waiting for him. You should have told you you don't accept a ticket, you didn't do what he said you did...simple...do not accept a ticket from him...don't sign anything at all.... he has to pass the ticket to you directly and you have to accept it for it to be valid.....

Video any interractions on a videophone and keep at least an audio recording device in your vehicle.....also remember you have the right to ask a peace officer (on duty or not) for 3 pieces of identification to verify his claim of who he says he is... If he cant provide ....ignore him.

I'm still in shock that you are actually waiting for him......

CoolChick wrote:he has to pass the ticket to you directly and you have to accept it for it to be valid.....

While it is true that the ticket must be "served personally" to the defendant (section 3(3) of the Provincial Offences Act), whether you accept it or not has no bearing on its validity. "I don't accept it" doesn't render it invalid. The officer only has to say "here's your ticket" and that's it (in most cases). Actually, the Provincial Offences Act says that if the defendant (ddtt in this case) doesn't respond within 15 days, he is deemed not to dispute the charge. The only thing that happens then is a Justice will examine the ticket and see if it is "complete and regular on its face," in other words, has no fatal errors. If it has a fatal error, the Justice must quash it; if not, a conviction is entered - and it's all legal. (See section 9 (1) of the Provincial Offences Act.)

Also useful is this case. City of London v. Erdesz, 2009 The defendant was given a by-law ticket, but it is under the Provincial Offences Act. The officer told that defendant he was going to get ticketed; the defendant retreated into his house. The officer couldn't get him to come out, so he left the tickets in the mailbox. The Justice at the first trial thought that he was not "served personally," so she stayed the proceedings. It went to appeal and the Superior Court Justices ruled that leaving it in the mailbox was sufficient to count as "served personally," and the first Justice was mistaken in her ruling. In his ruling on the appeal, Justice P.B. Hockin stated:

In my view, the justice of the peace held the view that there could only be personal service if the ticket was left in the physical possession of the defendant. In that, she was in error.

We'll have to wait and see what ddtt gets charged with, if anything. Then we can figure out how to help. Also, forgot to mention: They have 7 days to file the charges, but up to 30 days to deliver the notice to the defendant.

CoolChick wrote:.....also remember you have the right to ask a peace officer (on duty or not) for 3 pieces of identification to verify his claim of who he says he is... If he cant provide ....ignore him.

Now that part is BS....there is not 3 pieces of ID. There is only 1 piece of ID that would identify an officer.

There are cases (assault police) that have gone thru criminal courts that a peace officer "readily identifiable" (full uniform) is already identified as a peace officer.

hwybear wrote:

There is only 1 piece of ID that would identify an officer.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of ID should we ask an officer for?

Assuming, he/she is in full uniform.

And, if it is a badge, would it have the word "Constable" on it?

The "warrant card" is the piece of ID that confirms the officer. The card has the officers name, police service and rank.

Many different occupations have "badges" (fire, EMS, MTO, some security guards, CBSA, MNR, MOF, MOE, etc).

This is why in the assault police cases from criminal courts, arguements of officer identity was an issue. It was proven that officers in full uniform is identity. Uniform is visible and the name and/or badge is on the front.

If you take note of uniforms, police uniforms are constant province wide. Dark blue shirts, solid red/blue stripe on pant. A higher ranked officer wears a white shirt. Where as a auxiliary officer/cadet and special contables wear light blue shirts.

Now plain clothes and/or off-duty that is a different. They are not readily identifiable, therefore should have identification available.

Identity issues, where to start on that.....when is the last time anyone asked a:

- airline pilot?

- customs officer?

- store cashier?

- person in scrubs in an ER if they were a doctor?

- mechanic at a garage?

- JP or Judge?

- propane refueler person (so they don't blow me up)

or better yet....

- police background check on any maintenance worker in/on your house?

All good points, but the initial post in this thread mentioned a person in plain clothes, and said he flashed a "badge" that had the word "Constable" on it. That's what makes me wonder if the initial poster didn't meet someone who is actually in another line of work, and prompted me to wonder just how we do know if somebody in plain clothes, claiming to be a police officer, is a police officer.

Proper1 wrote:All good points, but the initial post in this thread mentioned a person in plain clothes, and said he flashed a "badge" that had the word "Constable" on it. That's what makes me wonder if the initial poster didn't meet someone who is actually in another line of work, and prompted me to wonder just how we do know if somebody in plain clothes, claiming to be a police officer, is a police officer.

Exactly....not in uniform....the "tin" in itself does not mean anything. The warrant card gives the holder the authorities.

If this was an auxiliary, are they always "on-duty" like a regular constable is? I think I remember a few getting in trouble for taking the "tin" from their hat and putting it in their wallet to flash around.

Auxiliary officers do not have powers of a police officer. They are all hard working civilians working alongside the police, but in uniform.