OHTA.ca

I know that the RIDE program has been covered extensively in these great forums, but I have a question about the stop itself:

I recently was stopped for a RIDE Program and the officer asked me to roll the window down all of the way (I had it at half and could easily communicate with them). I told them that I could hear them just fine and they insisted I roll it down all of the way. Again I told them that I could hear them just fine and then they told me they needed to smell my breath. After giving a 'gross' face to them I reluctantly rolled the window down. I had not been drinking. Was I correct in refusing initially? What are my rights?

They then asked me if I had anything to drink that evening to which I replied "Let me as you a question: Is it against the law in the province of Ontario to consume alcohol and operate a motor vehicle?". I received a perplexed look. Then they responded "Sometimes" to which I smiled. It was probably the best response I had ever received when I've asked that question.

Then then proceeded to ask me where I was going (I pointed with one finger ahead and said "That way") and then of course they asked me where I had come from (I pointed one finger behind me and said "That way"). I was then sent on my way.

I'm not a big fan of baseless stops but I thought I'd let others weigh in on rights and opinions on RIDE programs.

Thank you

Curious

The ride program has already been deemed to infringe on the Constitution, yet for some reason... they've allowed it for the purpose of security. Anytime you enter a motor vehicle, the police have significantly more rights than they would normally have and use 'safety' as the justification for this unparalleled power. I'm not a big fan either, but there's not much you can do... unless you want to constitutionally challenge it - which is completely possible.

The baseless questions they ask is usually to see if you have coherent responses/slurred speech, it's not as if they really care about the answer to the questions. It's already been raised of the multiple charter infringements of police conduct when it comes to the HTA, but it is mostly allowed due to 'enforcing safety'.

For example, your presumption of innocence is quashed when a police officer stops you to check if you're drinking. In other words, he stops you assuming you're guilty and you have to prove your innocence. In doing that, he's arbitrarily detaining you, another charter infringement. Also, when you're driving a motor vehicle, police essentially have unlimited power to stop you at any time, to check your license, insurance and fitness of the vehicle - again, presumption of innocence, and opens the doorway to racial profiling/harassing certain people for no reason. I'm not a big fan, but to correct the prehistoric case laws that allow officers to do this, you'd have to raise a constitutional question to the Supreme Court, which no one really has the time or resources to do right now.

By the way, all of these rights granted for the purpose of 'enforcing safety' is to protect society from *all* the hazardous drivers that drive the roads without insurance and/or a drivers license, which... is argued so detrimental to public safety, that you have to strike down multiple Charter rights for the purpose of enforcing 'fundamental justice'.

If someone's swerving out of their lane, or just a horrible driver - sure go ahead and stop him, question him, etc. You have probable grounds, but making all these exceptions because maybe 1 in 100 people drive without insurance is not in the public's interest... In my opinion, there is an argument to be made.

I agree with sonic's comments above.

This question about the window was asked not too long ago here, and has some good discussion about it, and you will see my comments and my position in that topic.

Sonic wrote:The ride program has already been deemed to infringe on the Constitution, yet for some reason... they've allowed it for the purpose of security. Anytime you enter a motor vehicle, the police have significantly more rights than they would normally have and use 'safety' as the justification for this unparalleled power. I'm not a big fan either, but there's not much you can do... unless you want to constitutionally challenge it - which is completely possible.

And get the Supreme Court to reverse its earlier decision which already said it's okay? Don't bet on it.

Radar Identified wrote:And get the Supreme Court to reverse its earlier decision which already said it's okay? Don't bet on it.

Agreed. It is what it is and it's been decided.

These "know your rights" conversations have been going in circles on here the last little while. Ride checkpoints are legal. An officer is allowed to check for signs of impairment. Whether it be the smell or alcohol on your breath, your speech patterns, your eyes, etc. Want to obstruct that process by hiding behind a closed window? You're only opening yourself up to more intrusive measures. Don't want to answer where you're going? Whatever, don't. While you don't have to give him your coordinates, you should probably just pick your battles.

Radar Identified wrote:

Sonic wrote:The ride program has already been deemed to infringe on the Constitution, yet for some reason... they've allowed it for the purpose of security. Anytime you enter a motor vehicle, the police have significantly more rights than they would normally have and use 'safety' as the justification for this unparalleled power. I'm not a big fan either, but there's not much you can do... unless you want to constitutionally challenge it - which is completely possible.

And get the Supreme Court to reverse its earlier decision which already said it's okay? Don't bet on it.

There's numerous instances where the Supreme Court has overruled and/or declared it's own rulings outdated. 20 years ago, it may have been necessary to stop every single car to check insurance, but advancements in technology can make it possible to check insurance without having to stop the vehicle today. Therefore, there is validation to the argument...

If you want, I can cite 10+ case laws where the Supreme Court overruled a previous decision?

bend wrote:

Radar Identified wrote:And get the Supreme Court to reverse its earlier decision which already said it's okay? Don't bet on it.

Agreed. It is what it is and it's been decided.

Want to obstruct that process by hiding behind a closed window? You're only opening yourself up to more intrusive measures. Don't want to answer where you're going? Whatever, don't. While you don't have to give him your coordinates, you should probably just pick your battles.

Say this once in law school, I dare you...

Sonic wrote:There's numerous instances where the Supreme Court has overruled and/or declared it's own rulings outdated. 20 years ago, it may have been necessary to stop every single car to check insurance, but advancements in technology can make it possible to check insurance without having to stop the vehicle today. Therefore, there is validation to the argument...

In the context of insurance and some other things, maybe. For over 0.08, the only way to determine is to stop the vehicle. Stating the obvious, technology has not as of yet enabled us to find if a driver is over 0.08 without stopping them - and a driver may not exhibit behaviour of being over 0.08 in a brief observation of their driving habits.

Yes the Supreme Court has reversed decisions (e.g. assisted suicide). I don't think this decision will be reversed any time soon, if at all.

Do I personally like random stops? No. But it is what it is.

Radar Identified wrote:

Sonic wrote:There's numerous instances where the Supreme Court has overruled and/or declared it's own rulings outdated. 20 years ago, it may have been necessary to stop every single car to check insurance, but advancements in technology can make it possible to check insurance without having to stop the vehicle today. Therefore, there is validation to the argument...

In the context of insurance and some other things, maybe. For over 0.08, the only way to determine is to stop the vehicle. Stating the obvious, technology has not as of yet enabled us to find if a driver is over 0.08 without stopping them - and a driver may not exhibit behaviour of being over 0.08 in a brief observation of their driving habits.

Yes the Supreme Court has reversed decisions (e.g. assisted suicide). I don't think this decision will be reversed any time soon, if at all.

Do I personally like random stops? No. But it is what it is.

Yeah, I think you were misinterpreting my argument. I'm not arguing to overturn RIDE programs. I meant in general, the ability to stop any driver on the road, and ask for proof of insurance and drivers license is unnecessary and outdated. For insurance, I'm not sure entirely how it works, but I'm pretty sure that police officer are able to identify through license plate numbers in their system if a vehicle is insured, that's why you can get a ticket for only not handing an insurance card, even though technically you couldn't prove you had insurance either. Whereas, in other instances someone else get's a ticket for driving a vehicle without insurance.

The only other reason to stop a driver would be to check for vehicle fitness, and/or if a driver is licensed. I think that should be negligible as it's already permitted that they could stop a driver on the grounds of probable cause. If a vehicle has a broken windshield, or has a flat tire, one headlight not working, etc - you can evaluate that visually, which would give you cause to stop the vehicle. In respect to a driver being licensed, I think that's it so negligible that a driver would drive without a license, as they have to actually know how to drive first of all, that it's not worth allowing police officers to stop every vehicle on the road, as that opens up more problems (racial profiling, police harassment, etc) which all have to be weighed in the public interest. Also, generally a driver driving without a license (at least in regards to an underage driver), would exhibit unusual driving behaviour and/or miss certain rules of the road, which would give police probable cause to conduct a stop. The counter argument would be someone with a suspended license driving... but police can identify if a vehicle has someone with a suspended license in their computer.

In terms of RIDE programs, I don't think that is something that will get overturned anytime soon... but giving the police the ability to stop every vehicle on the road, without any real cause is unnecessary to check for insurance/fitness/registration against numerous Charter rights is debatable and not in the public's interest - that's where I'm arguing a Charter Challenge can be pursued.

Sonic wrote:

Say this once in law school, I dare you...

Is there a point to be made here, or are we just going to lower ourselves to one liners? Feel free to discuss. It's a forum.

bend wrote:

Sonic wrote:

Say this once in law school, I dare you...

Is there a point to be made here, or are we just going to lower ourselves to one liners? Feel free to discuss. It's a forum.

Someone is simply implying to take advantage, or abide by the rights given to a person. Your suggestion implies that by using the rights awarded to you, police are going to use more intrusive methods to violate your rights... Lastly, you conclude by suggesting that you should pick your battles, otherwise inferring that by deciding not to have your charter rights infringed, you will be seen in a negative light and will not receive an optimal outcome.

While your opinions may be valid, and proven by anecdotal evidence - your suggestion implies that a citizen's rights are not mandatory, but a privilege and that there are situations where it would be better to allow infringement of your rights rather than inconvenience law enforcement. The problem with the statement is that it is fundamentally flawed by implying that rights are something that should only be abided by at times, and that abiding by them has the potential to cause negative outcomes. Even if true, that is blatant infringement of the Charter and not supported by law...

Any argument that can be inferred to 'use your rights wisely' will generally be demeaned by anyone with any legal experience because if rights become privileges, they no longer offer protection and consequently, no longer serve a purpose. It's never wise to tell someone to pick their battles wisely when referring to legal rights.

As a side note, this was simply on the basis of the suggestions implied by your comments - whether or not you actually are legally required to open a window is not the issue.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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).

Sonic wrote:Someone is simply implying to take advantage, or abide by the rights given to a person. Your suggestion implies that by using the rights awarded to you, police are going to use more intrusive methods to violate your rights... Lastly, you conclude by suggesting that you should pick your battles, otherwise inferring that by deciding not to have your charter rights infringed, you will be seen in a negative light and will not receive an optimal outcome.

I'd argue it's not a right to drive and the police have been given the right to reasonably investigate drivers randomly for impairment based on interaction. If the officer believes you are obstructing that process by keeping your window closed, he's just going to request you step outside your vehicle and he'll question you that way. Until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, that's the way it is. If anyone believes anything about the process violates their rights, I guess they could probably spend time and money challenging it. They probably wont, though. Until then, i'll be careful with my words because the users and readers of this forum shouldn't be treated as guinea pigs.

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.

Sonic wrote:While your opinions may be valid, and proven by anecdotal evidence - your suggestion implies that a citizen's rights are not mandatory, but a privilege and that there are situations where it would be better to allow infringement of your rights rather than inconvenience law enforcement. The problem with the statement is that it is fundamentally flawed by implying that rights are something that should only be abided by at times, and that abiding by them has the potential to cause negative outcomes. Even if true, that is blatant infringement of the Charter and not supported by law...

My answer to this would be pretty similar to the last and we could probably go in circles here. Driving is not considered a right. The ride program is legal. The officer checking for impairment based your interactions with him is legal. Avoiding the officer by keeping your window closed is just going to lead to you being asked to step outside the vehicle. Don't want to answer questions? It's up to the individual what they answer and how they react to it.

bend wrote:

Sonic wrote:Someone is simply implying to take advantage, or abide by the rights given to a person. Your suggestion implies that by using the rights awarded to you, police are going to use more intrusive methods to violate your rights... Lastly, you conclude by suggesting that you should pick your battles, otherwise inferring that by deciding not to have your charter rights infringed, you will be seen in a negative light and will not receive an optimal outcome.

I'd argue it's not a right to drive and the police have been given the right to reasonably investigate drivers randomly for impairment based on interaction. If the officer believes you are obstructing that process by keeping your window closed, he's just going to request you step outside your vehicle and he'll question you that way. Until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, that's the way it is. If anyone believes anything about the process violates their rights, I guess they could probably spend time and money challenging it. They probably wont, though. Until then, i'll be careful with my words because the users and readers of this forum shouldn't be treated as guinea pigs.

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.

Sonic wrote:While your opinions may be valid, and proven by anecdotal evidence - your suggestion implies that a citizen's rights are not mandatory, but a privilege and that there are situations where it would be better to allow infringement of your rights rather than inconvenience law enforcement. The problem with the statement is that it is fundamentally flawed by implying that rights are something that should only be abided by at times, and that abiding by them has the potential to cause negative outcomes. Even if true, that is blatant infringement of the Charter and not supported by law...

My answer to this would be pretty similar to the last and we could probably go in circles here. Driving is not considered a right. The ride program is legal. The officer checking for impairment based your interactions with him is legal. Avoiding the officer by keeping your window closed is just going to lead to you being asked to step outside the vehicle. Don't want to answer questions? It's up to the individual what they answer and how they react to it.

Police do have the rights to reasonably investigate drivers for certain purposes, but to suggest that you choose your battles carefully in itself suggest that you would be treated differently for abiding by your rights. That statement is in itself problematic, like I said earlier, just because something is a privilege, does not mean your rights do not apply. When a police officer asks where you're going for example, you can ask if it matters - sure you're being frustrating, but they are your rights. Any negative, or illegal treatment of someone for abiding by their rights is a significant infringement of their protected rights. If a police officer only has the right to investigate if you've been drinking, take a roadside screening test and check if license/ownership/insurance and vehicle fitness is in order... any other questions do not have to be answered. To suggest to willingly surrender a right in order to not inconvenience the officer is a very controversial statement.