Thread title: "having 1 or two drinks and getting pulled over"

All I'm saying is just fking say no I didn't drink so they don't get you to do the breathalyzer test.

I said yes the first couple times I had 2 beers. They made me do the breathalyzer test. As soon as I changed cars, they wanted me to walk in a straight line and all that bullshit even when I passed the breathalyzer test.

Sure you can get lucky and get a nice cop who does not discriminate, but when you get a douchebag filled with jealousy, you go home pissed off.

Jealousy, right. You must have displayed some kind of impairment for them to do both an ASD and sobriety test to confirm whether you were impaired or not. If you pass and ASD, and they still suspect you are impaired, they may investigate as to whether you were impaired by drugs

I understand your position 100%, its just you're a fucking LIAR. Why don't you just tell the truth, sure you will probably have to blow in the straw, but if you are not over the limit as you state, then you will be free to go.

Nothing is being made complicated, a person is either over the limit or not, blowing into the machine simply proves or dis-proves this. Every other point you have tried to make, including all your retarded examples, are smoke and mirrors.

You keep saying how, you are compromising yourself if you say you have had a few drinks and if you blow into the straw then you might risk the chance of being over the limit. Well maybe you should never put yourself in that position, you should never drive, if you even suspect there is a chance that you are even remotely under the influence. That way you can tell the officer the truth when he approaches your vehicle and you wont have to worry when he asks you to blow in the straw.

It sounds like to me by your position on this, that you are perpetually worried when you hit a roadblock, because of a few drinks you had, well then DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE. LEAVE YOUR CAR AT HOME, TAKE TRANSIT, A CAB, DO ANY NUMBER OF THINGS INSTEAD OF DRIVING.

I have no sympathies for anyone who drinks and drives I hope they get sent to jail and raped by an 8' tall black man.

I think he displays impairment just by continuing to post here... :ahwow:

Consider R. v. Noble, [1997] 1 SCR 874

Fact 54 as described by Chief Justice Lamer:
The manager of an apartment building in Abbotsford, British Columbia, Mr. Silljer, testified that he went into the parkade of his building at around 1:00 a.m. on March 6, 1994 and found a couple of young men there, one of whom appeared to be attempting to “jimmy into a car” with a screwdriver. One of the men showed Mr. Silljer what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes and stated that they were “having a few tokes”. Mr. Silljer smelled no smoke and asked the men for identification. One said he was not carrying identification, while the other handed over an expired driver’s licence. The manager testified that he thought the licence accurately depicted the man in front of him and told the man that he could retrieve the licence from the RCMP. The respondent was eventually charged with breaking and entering a dwelling place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein, and of having in his possession, without lawful excuse, an instrument suitable for the purpose of breaking into a motor vehicle, contrary to ss. 348(1)(a) and 351(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, respectively.

and later in fact 116

I am satisfied on the issue of identification beyond a reasonable doubt...

In light of these statements, when the trial judge stated that he “can be” satisfied on the identity issue prior to discussing the failure to testify, in my view he indicated that the evidence before him was consistent with proof of identity, and the failure to testify took belief in identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's too late tonight for me to find a definition of "state" as it relates to how " the driver ... must state," so a dictionary definition courtesy of Merriam-Webster will have to suffice.
2 - state - transitive verb
: to express (something) formally in speech or writing
: to give (specific information, instructions, rules, etc.) in writing

If one can be charged against ss. 348(1)(a) and 351(1) of the C.C.C after only identifying himself with an (expired) drivers licence. Surely a statement can be made "in writing" by presenting a driver's licence with your name and address written on it.

More research to come I'm sure.

There is a difference between an expired PICTURE government issued ID and a name, DOB, address written on a piece of paper. Mind you, under the MVA, you must give the officer, in hand, the original (no photocopy) of your DL and insurance. It isn't obstruction under the CCC just because you don't have your ID, but if the officer cannot prove you ID via Police checks on the system, then you are not going anywhere until they figure out who you are. Most people who "forgot their licence" at home, and are trying to BS their way out of the traffic stop are most likely a prohibited driver or have a warrant. That is fact.

Sorry, I don't understand the point you are making. Could you elaborate?
I think it may have to do with how stating your name and anddress verbally or writing your name and address on a piece of paper isn't the same as presenting a driver's licence.

I agree, it is not (unless the piece of paper is a sworn affidavit); so does Justice McIntyre.

In R. v. Chandra (1975), 29 C.C.C. (2d) 570 (B.C.C.A.), Justice McIntyre writes:
In my opinion, mere identity of name affords some evidence of identity of a person. When accompanied by other factors such as the relative distinctiveness of the name, or the fact that it is coupled with an address, or appears upon a licence or other document of significance, its weight is strengthened.

continuing

In Regina v. Nicholson, (1984), 12 C.C.C. (3d) 228, Kerans J.A. writes:
The uncontradicted evidence of Constable Beach is that the offender showed him a driver's licence with a photograph displaying his likeness. It was this evidence in particular which the learned trial judge here found persuasive for guilt. Uncontradicted evidence of this sort was held in R. v. Stillwell, (1982), 40 A.R. 257 (Alta. Q.B.), to be sufficient to support a conviction. Certainly it does tend to show that the offender is known by the name on that licence. I suppose that it is possible that the offender could have produced false identification or that he could have stolen identification which coincidentally bore his likeness. This is utter speculation, however, and can be safely disregarded in the absence of supporting evidence.

It appears that unless the Peace Officer has evidence that the licence presented to them does not identify the person (forwhatever reason), there is no cause for an additional test to be applied.

Now BC MVA section 73(2) seems to double up on laws already in place under BC MVA section 33 with the exception of a difference in language. Sec 33 uses the word "demand" where 73 uses "request." Unfortunatley, CanLii isn't returning anything usable for the query "peace officer request." It's time for another trip back to school to use the bigger library.

So the only two arguments I can see left here is what exactly is a statement and what exactly is the difference between a Peace Officer's request and a Peace Officer's demand..

I'm actually quite interested in this now. Once again, it's late and I'll continue this tomorrow.

Can you clarify, if someone legitimately forgets their license, officer runs the "check" on his computer and verifies you have a dl, no warrants etc etc, you "probably" (circumstances i know) don't get a failure to produce license ticket? Can you elaborate?

I just thought of something,

If the primary motive if a peace officer is to threngthen the evidence of the identity of the driver, they are simply applying items discussed in R. v. Chandra... There probably is a secondary motive here too.

If a Peace Officer made a request for a person to verbally state their name and address in addition to presentation of a valid licence, the Peace Officer wants them to speak to they can collect evidence to form a reasonable suspicion of impairment so an ASD can be used.
Slurring their words, excessive humming and hawing, not remembering their postal code, the escaping air from their mouth having an odour...

Zulutango, can you confirm that this is information you could and would if collected in this manner when deciding if an ASD should be used?

Here's the thing: what you're doing is arguing the law with a person who is there not to split hairs as far as case law, but to ensure the greater safety of the public.

A law blog that I read (pope hat, for those interested) blogs extensively about abuses of power and the like. They do, however, very often suggest the following: Obey the cop in the moment, even if it's something you know you don't necessarily have to do. Then, when the moment has passed, bring it up with the appropriate group(s): with legal help if necessary.

Trying to nitpick or argue with an officer who genuinely believes he or she is doing what is in the best interests of the greater public when identifying people who they are trying to screen for being what is termed a danger to the greater public does no good, and in fact does more harm by essentially cockblocking them from the ability to do their jobs.

Do I need to tell the officers where I was? Nope. Do I need to tell them where I've been going? Nope. Do I need to tell them who the other people are in my car and what our relationship is? Nope.

Do I answer when they ask me? Yep. Because it's no skin off my nose if they know, and it'll make both their job and my stop easier.

Following the exact letter of the law is something that pretty much nobody does. 51 km/hr. Jaywalking now and again. And so forth, and so on. The letter of the law doesn't stop me from being courteous when dealing with people who (on the whole) are looking out for my and the public's good.

This thread is becoming more and more ridiculous.

How extraordinarily improbable, hypothetical circumstances and real court cases can co-exist on a thread on RS is mind boggling.

Use some common sense.

You live here. Educate yourself to what the law is, and if you have problems with it, write to your MP. If you were caught over the legal limit, that's your bloody fault. If you were harassed road-side and feel it was unjustified, file a complaint.

Contrary to what some of you obviously believe, the police generally HELP you, not harm you. It's not their intention to make your life worse, it's their intention to keep the PUBLIC safe.

During my 10 years or so as an adult, not once have I had trouble with the police. Why? Because I'm respectful and polite, and I don't lie to them. They appreciate this, and usually return the attitude.

Unfortunately, a lot of self-styled activist types who want to assert their every right at every opportunity, seem to have the poorest idea of what the actual letter of the law is... especially in Canada, where many of them get their information from US-based TV shows, videos, and other sources that simply don't apply here.

:pokerface:

It is up to the officer's discretion to serve a VT for fail to produce. You are OBLIGATED to carry your DL whenever you drive a vehicle. Same goes with the Vehicle's registration/insurance. Yes the Police can always verify you have a licence, and the vehicle is registered to whoever, and it has active insurance, but it if YOUR DUTY to have your DL and insurance to present to the officer when requested. Police can't always count on computer checks as there is such things as network outages. There's a difference between being charged for fail to produce dl and no dl.

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you say it in your own words rather than copy and pasting everything you find on Canlii.

Okay. I'll try to make this as concise as I can.

I believe that a Peace Officer exercising section 73 of the BC MVA with the intent of creating probable cause to use an ASD subverts a person's right to silence.

I believe this because of the difference in language between BC MVA section 33 and 73. The difference in language is that section 33 uses the word demand where section 73 uses the word request.

I also believe this because in R. v. Chandra (1975), 29 C.C.C. (2d) 570 (B.C.C.A.) and R v. Nicholson, (1984), 12 C.C.C. (3d) 228, the simple presentation of a piece of ID without the presence of evidence that the person who presented the ID intends to deceive the Peace Officer is sufficient to positivley identify a person.

It is reasonable for a Peace Officer to demand identification of a person operating a motor vehicle to establish the right of that person to do so.

It is not reasonable for a Peace Officer to request a person speak so the Peace Officer can gather evidence so a charge may be laid against the same person.

Here's the problem: in order to verify that the license actually belongs to the person who has presented it (ie: to demand identification), they may want to verify it if the picture does not exactly match the person who has handed it to them. Maybe it's bad lighting, maybe you've got a beard and you didn't, maybe they're just being extra cautious.

You're now saying that a bouncer who asks your birthday after he took your ID is more in the right than the cop running a road check? :fulloffuck:

As a condition to enter a private place? Yes.
Posted via RS Mobile

section 33 is with respect to BCDL, which basically states you MUST produce a BCDL and or insurance if "demanded" by Police.

Section 73 is with respect to the driver identifying himself and the RO of the vehicle. Both are two different sections, but both CAN be used by Police officers to confirm identity. Further, whether Police use section 73 to create suspicion for an ASD demand, is up to the officer. The driver can keep his/her mouth shut, and risk a charge under that section for failure to state name etc.

These laws are put in place for various reasons, and some reasons I can think of, off the top of my head is stolen vehicles, take vehicle without consent, and of course, prohibited/suspended drivers. Cops don't pull people over just looking for Impaired drivers.

Are you asking, or are you just stating? You cannot compare the bouncer scenario with Police, because you choose to enter a bar. You can tell the bouncer to pound sand, that is fine. You will just be on your way, and not gained access to the bar. It is the bar's "policy" which isn't regulated by the city, Province, or Country. They do however, have to abide by liquor laws, and will do what they have to, to abide by those laws.

As for Police, read what I replied just above. But yes, unless there is reason, like you posted about bad lighting and difference in appearance (beard vs no beard, bald vs long hair), if the Police is satisfied with who you are, there won't be any issues.

Again, if you aren't trying to hide anything either, there will never be issues. The problem is people trying to exercise what they believe is their "right" without being fully educated. Yes you have rights, but you also have obligations. You have the right to NOT state your name.. but that right comes with a MVA fine :ilied:

This is the part people so often seem to forget: all rights have inherent obligations and/or responsibilities attached. You don't get to claim the rights granted by society, without also accepting the obligations expected by that same society.

More to the point, if you CHOOSE to claim the right to be out in public, then you must accept the obligation to identify yourself, for the good of that same public.

What happens if I told the police I drank but I actually didn't?:troll:
Is lying to the police an offense?

I think that's the question the OP was wondering.

The would use an ASD, wonder why you blew a pass
Then they would use another ASD and wonder why you still passed
Then they would drive you to the station to use the more accurate large machine or would obtain an order and drive you to the hospital to draw blood
Then perhaps you could be charged with obstruction because you interfered with their duties looking for other impaired drivers.

Lying to police in most cases is permissible by law because you are not under oath, however, do not lie about your name or address if charged with a crime.

However, lying to police is a poor choice because police usually have good discretionary powers. Lying and saying you had one drink (but actually having none) and your demeanour being completely normal will often have the peace officer let you go. It matches physical evidence presented to them.

Lying in contradiction to physical evidence presented to them, such as saying you powered through a fifth of vodka by yourself and are now driving an hour later, raises red flags and will lead to further investigation and perhaps a charge (mistaken or not) where remaining silent or answering truthfully may not.

probably would not happen. It takes more than just someone saying they drank alcohol for a Police officer to have reasonable grounds to believe you are impaired.

PROBABLY not... but do you really wanna be fucking around like that when there's the chance it could?

I mean, then you'd have to come on RS to bitch and whine about how the cop was abusing his powers and wasting your time despite how polite and respectful you were being, only to have everyone tell you what a fucking douche you were being in the first place, and your only consolation would be the fact that nobody can FAIL you in Police Forum, thereby saving you from the greatest failstorm since Brandon Chow.

Attachment 19315


I hope you lose your license, I have nothing further to say.

I came from a wedding one night and I had one drink at the dinner. Didnt leave the wedding until 1am. There was a roadblock and officer asked me if I drank tonight. I said yes, I had one drink at a wedding. He told me to blow at his face and I blew maybe 3-4 breaths. He then waved me to go ahead.

Simple. No need to lie.