OHTA.ca

Hi, it's my first time posting, here just need some information and/or advise.

Here's the situation as to how I was served the three summons in the subject I have provided an image for further explanation.

In the image provided I followed the route coloured in red.

The officer followed the route coloured in blue.

The time was 12:00AM

I was looking for parking on a one way street in Toronto. The original spot I had found was permit only so I had to relocate to find another spot.

Following the red route I had come to a complete stop at stop sign at an intersection to allow traffic to pass before I merged.

The first vehicle was the police officer who followed the blue route and came to a stop at the blue square location which the traffic light was indicating green.

After several vehicles passed I parked at the grey square location (public parking, no fee since it was passed enforcement) behind a vehicle (black square).

As I was about to exit my vehicle the Officer walked towards me and requested I surrender documentation.

After providing my documentation he returned to his vehicle (presumably to run some checks).

He then returned and provided me with his reasons.

According to the Officer he had followed me and ran my plate in which he found that my license was suspended because of unpaid fees.

I questioned the officer to the validity of his statement, since I had driven down 4 different roads with the last vehicle behind me being a Taxi Cab (before I turned in to completely empty one way streets to look for parking).

The officer insisted he was following me and admitted to me his direction of travel, which was apparent anyway since I observed him follow the path in blue and come to a complete stop.

So my problem (aside from my infractions) is this.

I feel I was targeted and the officer was just taking his chances in asking for my documents.

Does this fall under unlawful arbitrary seizure of documents? (There was no reasonable and probable grounds for the officer to ask for documentation)

Is it even considered a traffic stop under MVA since my care (edit: car) was already in park.

The officer mentioned that everything was being recorded and video'd.

Will his invalid statement be recorded and will it prove that there was absence of reasonable and probable grounds?

When I request disclosure will I be provided with a copy of the recordings?

Thanks in advance for any information and advise that can help me move forward with my case.

- O.P.

Police are allowed to stop you at any time to check if your documents are in order. They weren't, you got the summons.

OptimusPrime wrote:I feel I was targeted and the officer was just taking his chances in asking for my documents.

Does this fall under unlawful arbitrary seizure of documents? (There was no reasonable and probable grounds for the officer to ask for documentation)

Is it even considered a traffic stop under MVA since my care (edit: car) was already in park.

As stated above, police can stop a vehicle at any time to check documentation. The fact that you were parked doesn't negate this authority as you had just been driving. Keep in mind that the officer likely ran your licence plate before he stopped you. He would have known your plate was expired and that you were suspended (presuming you're the owner). So it likely wasn't even a "random" stop. He probably already had a good idea you were committing one or more offences.

If you request disclosure, the video should be provided if available.

Stanton wrote:

OptimusPrime wrote:I feel I was targeted and the officer was just taking his chances in asking for my documents.

Does this fall under unlawful arbitrary seizure of documents? (There was no reasonable and probable grounds for the officer to ask for documentation)

Is it even considered a traffic stop under MVA since my care (edit: car) was already in park.

As stated above, police can stop a vehicle at any time to check documentation. The fact that you were parked doesn't negate this authority as you had just been driving. Keep in mind that the officer likely ran your licence plate before he stopped you. He would have known your plate was expired and that you were suspended (presuming you're the owner). So it likely wasn't even a "random" stop. He probably already had a good idea you were committing one or more offences.

If you request disclosure, the video should be provided if available.

As I previously stated there would be no way he could have run my plate given his direction of travel. In fact almost impossible given that my headlights were on.

His invalid statement was "I followed you and ran your plate"

My argument was "That's not possible, I came from over there (the red path in the image), you came from over there (path in blue). No one had followed me and the only vehicle behind me (up until I made my turn) was a taxi in my direction of travel"

OK so in the disclosure I can request the recordings (thanks for answering that)

My remaining questions are these:

Will I be able to argue the absence of reasonable and probable grounds?

As explained in my situation, the officer did not run my plate seeing as the only way he could have seen my car was from a side profile. My headlights were ON not allowing any view of my plate details. The only way he found the details in my record was by running my license card after he had requested it (unreasonably, a random car making a legal turn and parked in a legal parking spot) in which case would violate S.8 "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure"

What reasonable or probable grounds could the officer had observed on a vehicle, visibly fit for driving and no apparent indications of contravening any HTA's, making a legal turn and parking in a legal spot.

"I saw a young guy in a coupe and decided to ask him for documents" - is that even legal?

Will I be able to argue discreditably as the office lied (on record) about how he had come to request my documentation?

Lied about my direction of travel. He stated he followed me down blue route (in image). Which is proven also by where he was located (IN FRONT OF ME) when he came to request my documents.

I just feel my situation raises some issues because the officer lied to me (apparently on record) and it was a random search because he WAS NOT even following me. No one was.

As we've stated above, random stops are allowed as per the Supreme Court. Police do NOT require grounds to believe an offence has occurred to stop a vehicle and check documentation.

Stanton wrote:As we've stated above, random stops are allowed as per the Supreme Court. Police do NOT require grounds to believe an offence has occurred to stop a vehicle and check documentation.

Can you please provide me with a source(s) or case law indicating that Police do NOT require reasonable or probable grounds to search and detain?

As far as I'm aware (I apologize for my ignorance) the charter of rights and freedoms protects citizens against arbitrary search (s.8.) and detention (s.9).

I apologize again, since your the only one replying... Do you have any insight on whether or not the officer lying (on record) can allow for a stay in proceedings?

- I'm not a legal professional, but whether I act in proxy or on my own, it would be nice to know more -

OptimusPrime wrote:As far as I'm aware (I apologize for my ignorance) the charter of rights and freedoms protects citizens against arbitrary search (s.8.) and detention (s.9).

Driving is not a human right, it's a privilege. Your vehicle was not targeted for a random search. You were asked for documentation, which you don't have the ability to deny while you're behind the wheel of a vehicle. It's in the Highway Traffic Act. You have to provide documentation when asked to do so.

OptimusPrime wrote:Can you please provide me with a source(s) or case law indicating that Police do NOT require reasonable or probable grounds to search and detain?

See the following link:

Rights are not absolute, they are only to the extent that can be justified in a free and democratic society. Specifically, this text from the conclusion:

"While the routine check is an arbitrary detention in violation of s. 9 of the Charter, the infringement is one that is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

OptimusPrime wrote:

Stanton wrote:As we've stated above, random stops are allowed as per the Supreme Court. Police do NOT require grounds to believe an offence has occurred to stop a vehicle and check documentation.

Can you please provide me with a source(s) or case law indicating that Police do NOT require reasonable or probable grounds to search and detain?

As far as I'm aware (I apologize for my ignorance) the charter of rights and freedoms protects citizens against arbitrary search (s.8.) and detention (s.9).

I apologize again, since your the only one replying... Do you have any insight on whether or not the officer lying (on record) can allow for a stay in proceedings?

- I'm not a legal professional, but whether I act in proxy or on my own, it would be nice to know more -

Unlike the US Constitution, the rights in the Charter as stated in Section 1 are not absolute. Basically if the government can think of a good reason to violate your rights they can. Radar's case reference illustrates that this is one of those instances.

We could tell you what you want to hear but you will go to court and lose. If I were you I would get your documents in order and head to court with a great story about why you didn't know you licence was suspended and make a deal.

Radar Identified wrote:

OptimusPrime wrote:Can you please provide me with a source(s) or case law indicating that Police do NOT require reasonable or probable grounds to search and detain?

See the following link:

R. v. Ladouceur

Rights are not absolute, they are only to the extent that can be justified in a free and democratic society. Specifically, this text from the conclusion:

"While the routine check is an arbitrary detention in violation of s. 9 of the Charter, the infringement is one that is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

Thank you very much For this answer. I have read through it.

So my remaining question:

He lied on record. Can I discredit the officer's findings based on him falsifying where and how he spotted me.

If you're right you may cause him some professional issues but the bottom line is you were suspended, your plate was expired and you didn't have insurance. The nature of how he came to stop you isn't going to alter those facts.