5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Motor Vehicle Law at the Roadside (13:III)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Motor Vehicle Law at the Roadside (13:III) (view source)
Revision as of 01:22, 24 November 2019
, 01:22, 24 November 2019added some links etc.
(2018 Manual Edits) |
m (added some links etc.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = motor}} | {{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = motor}} | ||
Most motor vehicle law issues begin at the roadside, in an interaction with a police officer, or other peace officers. This section discusses common issues encountered at the roadside, and provides an outline of your rights when you are stopped by a peace officer. | Most motor vehicle law issues begin at the roadside, in an interaction with a police officer, or other peace officers. This section discusses common issues encountered at the roadside, and provides an outline of your rights when you are stopped by a peace officer. | ||
| Line 6: | Line 5: | ||
Police officers have the power to stop drivers to check for the fitness of the motor vehicle, possession of a valid driver’s license, proper insurance, and sobriety of the driver. Police officers do not need a warrant, or even reasonable and probable grounds to perform such stops. '''The fact that you are driving on a public highway is enough to justify a vehicle stop.''' | Police officers have the power to stop drivers to check for the fitness of the motor vehicle, possession of a valid driver’s license, proper insurance, and sobriety of the driver. Police officers do not need a warrant, or even reasonable and probable grounds to perform such stops. '''The fact that you are driving on a public highway is enough to justify a vehicle stop.''' | ||
According to the Supreme Court of Canada in ''R v Ladouceur'', [1990] 1 SCR 1257, 56 CCC (3d) 22, random checks by the police for motor vehicle fitness, possession of valid driver’s license and proper insurance, as well as sobriety of driver constitute arbitrary detention contrary to s | According to the Supreme Court of Canada in [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1990/1990canlii108/1990canlii108.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20ladouc&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Ladouceur'', [1990<nowiki>]</nowiki> 1 SCR 1257, 56 CCC (3d) 22], random checks by the police for motor vehicle fitness, possession of valid driver’s license and proper insurance, as well as sobriety of driver constitute arbitrary detention contrary to s 9 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK)'', 1982, c 11 [''Charter'']. However, these checks are considered reasonable limits under s 1 of the Charter so long as they are “truly random routine checks”: [https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2004/2004canlii18216/2004canlii18216.html?resultIndex=1 ''R v McGlashen'', [2004<nowiki>]</nowiki> OJ No 468, 115 CRR (2d) 359]. The ''Ladouceur'' decision was affirmed in [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2005/2005scc37/2005scc37.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20orbanski&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Orbanski'', 2005 SCC 37, [2005<nowiki>]</nowiki> 2 SCR 3]. | ||
Pursuant to Motor Vehicle Act s 79 a peace officer may arrest without warrant any person: | Pursuant to ''Motor Vehicle Act s 79'' a peace officer may arrest without warrant any person: | ||
a) whom the officer finds driving a motor vehicle, and who the officer or constable has reasonable and probable grounds to believe was driving in contravention of Motor Vehicle Act ss 95 or 102 (driving while prohibited) (s 79(a)); or | a) whom the officer finds driving a motor vehicle, and who the officer or constable has reasonable and probable grounds to believe was driving in contravention of ''Motor Vehicle Act'' ss 95 or 102 (driving while prohibited) (s 79(a)); or | ||
b) whom the officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe is not insured or who is driving without a valid and subsisting motor vehicle liability insurance card or financial responsibility card (s 79(b)); or | b) whom the officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe is not insured or who is driving without a valid and subsisting motor vehicle liability insurance card or financial responsibility card (s 79(b)); or | ||
c) whom the officer has reasonable and probable cause to believe has contravened Motor Vehicle Act s 68 (leaving the scene of an accident) (s 79(c)) | c) whom the officer has reasonable and probable cause to believe has contravened ''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 68 (leaving the scene of an accident) (s 79(c)) | ||
and may detain the person until he or she can be brought before a justice. | and may detain the person until he or she can be brought before a justice. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 21: | ||
When stopped by a peace officer while ''driving'', you must, upon request, provide your driver’s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. If these items are located in the glove compartment or other out-of-sight location, it may be advisable to ask the officer for permission to retrieve them before reaching for them, so that the officer does not think that you are reaching for a weapon. | When stopped by a peace officer while ''driving'', you must, upon request, provide your driver’s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. If these items are located in the glove compartment or other out-of-sight location, it may be advisable to ask the officer for permission to retrieve them before reaching for them, so that the officer does not think that you are reaching for a weapon. | ||
When a legal breath sample is demanded by a peace officer, a driver must forthwith provide a sample of breath to determine the concentration of alcohol in the driver's body. See s. | When a legal breath sample is demanded by a peace officer, a driver must forthwith provide a sample of breath to determine the concentration of alcohol in the driver's body. See s 320.15(1) of the ''Criminal Code''. More information on breath samples is available in [[Motor_Vehicle_Offences_for_Drugs_and_Alcohol_(13:IX) | section IX]] of this chapter. | ||
Additionally, if a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a driver is impaired by a drug other than alcohol they must submit to a Standardized Field Sobriety Test ("SFST"). More information on SFST is available in section IX of this | Additionally, if a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a driver is impaired by a drug other than alcohol they must submit to a Standardized Field Sobriety Test ("SFST"). More information on SFST is available in section IX of this chapter. | ||
You have specific obligations at the scene of a collision. They are outlined in the next section of this chapter: [[Duties_after_a_Motor_Vehicle_Collision_(13:IV)|Duties After a Collision]] | You have specific obligations at the scene of a collision. They are outlined in the next section of this chapter: [[Duties_after_a_Motor_Vehicle_Collision_(13:IV)|Duties After a Collision]] | ||
| Line 34: | Line 33: | ||
With the exception of providing license, registration, and insurance, providing a sample of breath, and providing a statement at the scene of a collision in which you were involved, you are not obligated to make a statement to the police, or to answer their questions. | With the exception of providing license, registration, and insurance, providing a sample of breath, and providing a statement at the scene of a collision in which you were involved, you are not obligated to make a statement to the police, or to answer their questions. | ||
If you are detained, you have the right to contact a lawyer before you make any statement. In ''R v Suberu'', 2009 SCC 33, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the right to speak to a lawyer arises as soon as a person is detained, even though they have not been formally arrested yet. In ''R v Grant'', 2009 SCC 32, the court found that “detention” begins as soon as there is physical or psychological restraint imposed by the police that prevents a person from leaving. | If you are detained, you have the right to contact a lawyer before you make any statement. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc33/2009scc33.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20suberu&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Suberu'', 2009 SCC 33], the Supreme Court of Canada found that the right to speak to a lawyer arises as soon as a person is detained, even though they have not been formally arrested yet. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc32/2009scc32.html?resultIndex=1 ''R v Grant'', 2009 SCC 32], the court found that “detention” begins as soon as there is physical or psychological restraint imposed by the police that prevents a person from leaving. | ||
In summary, your right to silence continues to operate when you are stopped in a vehicle by the police. If the response to you (politely) asking whether you are free to go is anything other than an unqualified “yes”, you should assume you are being detained, and may wish to exercise your right to remain silent so as to avoid making statements that may incriminate you. '''Any admissions that you make at the roadside can be, and most likely will be, used against you in court.''' Remember that police officers are collecting evidence at the roadside. If you are arrested, you should ask to speak to a lawyer as soon as possible, and avoid making any statements or admissions until you have had an opportunity to speak to a lawyer. | In summary, your right to silence continues to operate when you are stopped in a vehicle by the police. If the response to you (politely) asking whether you are free to go is anything other than an unqualified “yes”, you should assume you are being detained, and may wish to exercise your right to remain silent so as to avoid making statements that may incriminate you. '''Any admissions that you make at the roadside can be, and most likely will be, used against you in court.''' Remember that police officers are collecting evidence at the roadside. If you are arrested, you should ask to speak to a lawyer as soon as possible, and avoid making any statements or admissions until you have had an opportunity to speak to a lawyer. | ||
| Line 62: | Line 61: | ||
b) (Repealed) | b) (Repealed) | ||
c) in the case of a person engaged in work which requires frequent alighting and in which | c) in the case of a person engaged in work which requires frequent alighting and in which the maximum vehicle speed is 40 km per hour, or; | ||
the maximum vehicle speed is 40 km per hour, or; | |||
d) the person is under the age of 16 | d) the person is under the age of 16 | ||
Courts have upheld the rules enforcing mandatory seat belt use as they are held not to be an infringement of an individual’s ''Charter'' rights. The provisions are integral to the broad legislative scheme promoting highway safety and minimizing the overall human and economic cost of accidents. The alleged infringement of a person’s right to free choice is so insignificant that it cannot be considered a measurable breach of ''Charter'' rights: ''R v Kennedy'', [1987] BCJ No 2028, 18 BCLR (2d) 321 (CA). | Courts have upheld the rules enforcing mandatory seat belt use as they are held not to be an infringement of an individual’s ''Charter'' rights. The provisions are integral to the broad legislative scheme promoting highway safety and minimizing the overall human and economic cost of accidents. The alleged infringement of a person’s right to free choice is so insignificant that it cannot be considered a measurable breach of ''Charter'' rights: [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1987/1987canlii2453/1987canlii2453.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20kennedy%2C%20%5B1987%5D%20&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Kennedy'', [1987<nowiki>]</nowiki> BCJ No 2028, 18 BCLR (2d) 321 (CA)]. | ||
{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= September 19, 2019}} | |||
{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters8-14}} | {{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters8-14}} | ||