“R.i.d.e. Programs Are Illegal”

The Supreme Court of Canada cases that allegedly determine whether or not RIDE programs are legal were determined in 1985 and 1988.

While the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the program several justices were in dissent in 1985, including the Chief Justice.

They were in dissent because they are aware other arguments can be made to prove the RIDE program is unlawful.

In this thread I intend on proving just that.

Justice's of the Supreme Court agree that the RIDE program is unlawful as they violate your s. 9 Charter rights. However, this violation is saved under s. 1 of the Charter.

But here's the part they never told you.

Section 1 only saves breaches of the Charter. Section 1 does not apply to other existing rights and freedoms you have in Canada.

Section 26 of the Charter states:

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

The Canadian Bill of Rights is alive and well despite the Charter coming into force.

Prior to the Charter the Canadian Bill of Rights was only a federal statute rather then a constitutional document. It had no application to provincial laws. The very purpose for creating the Charter was to protect peoples rights and freedoms from intrusion, particularly by the forces of provincial governments.

The Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter is broad and jealously guarded in jurisprudence.

The Canadian Bill of Rights only applies to federal laws, and not provincial laws.

The Criminal Code and its impaired driving provisions are federal law, to where the Canadian Bill of Rights still applies.

When a peace officer demands a breath sample, they do so under s. 254 of the federal Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court already proved R.I.D.E. programs are unlawful because they violate the citizens right against arbitrary detentions. Again, these arbitrary detentions are only saved by s. 1 of the Charter.

But the Canadian Bill of Rights says:

Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to

(a) authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person;

The Canadian Bill of rights uses the words "arbitrary detention" while the Charter uses the words arbitrarily detained. The difference in words is not meaningful as s. 2 (c)(i) of the Bill of rights states:

(c) deprive a person who has been arrested or detained

(i) of the right to be informed promptly of the reason for his arrest or detention

Thus the words "detained or "detention" are interchangeable and have the same meaning in Canadian law.

Police officers, when acting or purporting to act in their official capacity as agents of the state, only act lawfully if they act in the exercise of authority which is either conferred by statute or derived as a matter of common law from their duties.

It is for this reason that the actions of police officers must find legal justification in statutory or common law authority.

However, common law does not supersede the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Under the R.I.D.E. program, the police are stopping and detaining motorists arbitrarily to investigate whether or not they might be committing a criminal offence.

These random stops by the police under the R.I.D.E. program are indistinguishable from detention for questioning or investigation and, without validly enacted legislation to support them, are unlawful.

No statutory authority for the signal to stop your vehicle can be found in the Criminal Code. The Federal Government has also not enacted the Canadian Bill of Rights notwithstanding clause into the Criminal Code.

The R.I.D.E. program stop can only be found under s. 48 of the provincial HTA.

It would be contrary to the long standing protection accorded individual liberty by the common law and detrimental to the individual's fundamental right to be free from arbitrary interference to conclude that this action of the police is authorized and lawful.

It is the function of the Parliament, not of the courts or the Province and Territories, to authorize arbitrary police action that would otherwise be unlawful as a violation of rights traditionally protected at common law and under the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The police are stopping motorists on an entirely arbitrary basis to question them and determine if they have been drinking. The police have no grounds to reasonably suspect that the driver has committed, was committing or was about to commit a criminal offence before the driver is requested to stop.

The random stopping of a driver for the purposes of the spot check procedure, although of relatively brief duration, results in the driver being detained within the meaning of s. 9 of the Charter and s. 2(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Since the Supreme Court already determined the stops are a violation of law and only the Charter is excluded because the stop is saved under s. 1, it does not make the stop legal under s. 2(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

What the Supreme Court of Canada decisions do, is confirm the R.I.D.E. program and vehicle stops are still unlawful under s. 2 (a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Under the R.I.D.E. program, the police are stopping and detaining motorists arbitrarily to investigate whether or not they might be committing a criminal offence.

Well if WalMart, Best Buy, Future Shop and a whole lot of other retailers can stop you at the exit door so someone can look in your bag or check your receipt, sometimes forcefully, and get away with it with little or no fuss I don't see why the police can't stop you at a RIDE check

StewieS wrote:

Well if WalMart, Best Buy, Future Shop and a whole lot of other retailers can stop you at the exit door so someone can look in your bag or check your receipt, sometimes forcefully, and get away with it with little or no fuss I don't see why the police can't stop you at a RIDE check

Interesting analogy, but here's what I think:

Best Buy, Future Shop etc, are Private Property, so they actually can "ASK" you to check your bags As Long As You Are INSIDE their Store.

However, even with that they can NOT force you to show your bag contents or make you do anything in terms of confiscating or holding you.

We once owned a retail store, and sometimes there were thefts, but the Police told us to never touch or go after the alleged robbers, or we could face assault charges or other problems. They wanted us to simply call the police and they would handle it!

Our Highways and roads are not private but public property.

RIDE programs are held on public highways, but since they arbitrarily check you for DUI there seems to be a violation of probable cause.

Randomly checking if someone is driving under the influence is simply harassment IMO.

However, given the fact that a lot of people do still drink and drive, such a program is probably needed to help as a deterrent.

I also heard that security guards shouldnt touch you if the alarm on the exit went off as they may be charged with assault, wrongful imprisonment or even kidnapping. Thats why I never stop when that happens to me. Although I saw a security guy at LCBO handcuff a guy with booze in his pockets and I see all the time security guards dragging shoplifters outside through the mall and wait for the police officer to arrive. Really interesting what rights they have.

The RIDE program is the worst tool in the tool box.

First, many (not all) RIDE programs are held on long weekends. The cops are getting paid overtime.

Second, a driver has no obligation to answer any questions once stopped. He is obligated to only provide his drivers licence, ownership and insurance. You can produce the documents without saying one word.

A police officer is entitled to question any person; however, the officer has no power to detain a person for questioning. If the person questioned declines to answer, the police officer must allow him to proceed on his way unless he arrests him on reasonable and probable grounds. But the police have no reasonable and probable grounds.

How is the cop going to determine anything from a RIDE stop?

Moreover, even if the cop smells booze, its not even to demand a breath test. Even if the driver admits to have been drinking its still not enough to demand a breath test for drinking and driving is not illegal.

It is beyond dispute that it is not an offence to operate a vehicle after consuming alcohol. The consumption of alcohol is an ingredient of the offence but the offence is only committed if a persons ability to operate the vehicle is affected by the consumption of alcohol (s. 253(a)), or having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in his blood exceeded the legal limit (s. 253(b)).

Admitting to having alcohol in your body does not provide the officer with reasonable and probable grounds that you have committed an offence under s. 253 of the Criminal Code. You can have a BAC level of .01 to .08, but this doesn't mean your ability to operate the vehicle is affected by the consumption of alcohol, so having, or admitting to having this much alcohol in your system proves nothing.

Section 254 of the Criminal Code requires that the officer subjectively have an honest belief that the suspect has committed an offence under s. 253 and objectively there must exist reasonable grounds for this belief.

R. v. Bernshaw, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254, at para. 48.

Therefore, evidence that a driver had consumed alcohol, in and of itself, does not suffice to ground a demand for breath samples, because it is not an offence to operate a motor vehicle after having consumed alcohol.

Even if someone blows, it is clear that it cannot be said that a "warn" or "fail" result provides reasonable and probable grounds. If that were the case, it was open to Parliament to indicate this intention in the Criminal Code. Yet, despite all the CCC amendments, nowhere in s. 254 is it indicated that a "warn" or "fail" result on an approved screening device is deemed to provide reasonable and probable grounds.

Thus, it is necessary to determine as a question of fact in each case whether or not the officer had an honest belief based on reasonable and probable grounds that the suspect had committed an offence under s. 253 of the Code.

The officer would have no clue. The officer has no idea where you came from and you were not stopped for driving issues; you were stopped in a random RIDE check.

The requirement in s. 254 that reasonable and probable grounds exist is not only a statutory but a constitutional requirement as a precondition to a lawful search and seizure under s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 8 requires that reasonable and probable grounds exist in fact.

None exist.

How anyone has ever been convicted under s. 253 at a RIDE check is beyond me. It's also beyond the law!

admin wrote:We once owned a retail store, and sometimes there were thefts, but the Police told us to never touch or go after the alleged robbers, or we could face assault charges or other problems. They wanted us to simply call the police and they would handle it!

What kind of authority do you have under a citizen's arrest? My recollection is that a property owner or an agent of the property owner may detain anyone caught committing an offence (which does not include "I saw him stealing yesterday" - must be on the spot). Anyone else may detain a person only for indictable offences. No idea on what kind of force is allowed under a citizen's arrest.

Section 494. (Criminal Code)[6]

Any one may arrest without warrant/s

(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or

(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes

(i) has committed a criminal offence, and

(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person

Any one who is

(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or

(b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property

may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.

Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.

-Section 494, sub. 1, (a) is the "General Power of Arrest" for non-peace officers.

- Section 494, sub. 1, (b) is known as the "Assist Power of Arrest" and includes assisting another citizen who witnessed a "Criminal Offence" and, therefore, "... is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person ...". This section of the Criminal Code of Canada IS that authorization.

- Section 494, sub. 2, is the "Owner/Agent" power of arrest. It applies to both security and all other staff (or friends/neighbours if it is a dwelling) of any given property (The reason companies tell their staff they can't make such an arrest is because if the person making the arrest is hurt/killed by the criminal, the company becomes liable for the injury or death. Further, most people are neither equipped or trained to make proper arrests which greatly increases the likelihood of injury or death to the citizen).

- in Section 494, sub. 2, (b) "...a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property." includes criminal offences that are not on that property at all. If someone steals from a store, the security personnel who pursue the thief can (but rarely ever do) leave the property to continue the pursuit. When the pursuit is broken off the thief is no longer considered to be "freshly pursued" and therefore others are no longer permitted to assist in the apprehension of the criminal (it, then, becomes a matter for the Police to handle). Note that 494(1)(a) allows for arrest related only to indictable offences, while 494(2) allows for arrest for any offence against the laws of Canada,[7] most notably small value theft.

shmeli wrote:I also heard that security guards shouldnt touch you if the alarm on the exit went off as they may be charged with assault, wrongful imprisonment or even kidnapping. Thats why I never stop when that happens to me. Although I saw a security guy at LCBO handcuff a guy with booze in his pockets and I see all the time security guards dragging shoplifters outside through the mall and wait for the police officer to arrive. Really interesting what rights they have.

Shmeli, is this what you witnessed?

This one's for Lawman

I got lost in a town that I'm totally unfamiliar with after leaving a club. I guess a cop noticed that I didn't appear to know where I was going, so he pulled me over. I considered this to be an illegal stop but that didn't stop him from arresting me on suspicion of impared driving. Back at the station house I asked him why he pulled me over in the first place, and his reply was simply "you looked lost". It wasn't a R.I.D.E. program stop, but in my opinion it was certainly an arbitrary stop. Have you ever heard of a similar situation? If so, what was the result?

Wal Marts tactic for violating your rights is a 67 year old lady who looks like your mom working the exit door

anytime the alarm goes off as im exiting or i have a large item they wish to see the receipt, i keep walking.

up to THEM to prove Im unlawfully removing an item to which i havent paid for-the onus isnt on the consumer to prove they paid.

i tell them to go ask the cashier if i paid for it.

as for ride checks--its a double edge sword.