Random roadside stop

[Brian P]

You are not listening,the RCMP stated that the officer had to have reason and state that reason for detaining me Immediately.

I have a suspicion about what's going on here.

Somewhere, there is a line between a minor "reasonable" detention (a short delay at a traffic stop) - which is not considered to be "detained" in the legal sense - and actually being "detained", i.e. arrested.

They are allowed to do traffic stops and the short delay associated with such a traffic stop is not considered to be a violation of rights. The constitutional situation starts to apply when someone is "arrested", i.e. actually detained and not free to go, without being charged with something. Even then, there is an allowance for "reasonable" time periods between being arrested and being charged. What's considered "reasonable" likely depends on the severity of the situation, e.g. the allowable time periods for what's reasonable for a break-and-enter may be different from what's reasonable for a first-degree murder.

I haven't had occasion to make use of it myself, but my understanding is that the phrase "Am I free to go" can put an end to being unreasonably questioned (without being charged) by the police for whatever reason.

[OpenGambit]

I have a suspicion about what's going on here.

Somewhere, there is a line between a minor "reasonable" detention (a short delay at a traffic stop) - which is not considered to be "detained" in the legal sense - and actually being "detained", i.e. arrested.

They are allowed to do traffic stops and the short delay associated with such a traffic stop is not considered to be a violation of rights. The constitutional situation starts to apply when someone is "arrested", i.e. actually detained and not free to go, without being charged with something. Even then, there is an allowance for "reasonable" time periods between being arrested and being charged. What's considered "reasonable" likely depends on the severity of the situation, e.g. the allowable time periods for what's reasonable for a break-and-enter may be different from what's reasonable for a first-degree murder.

I haven't had occasion to make use of it myself, but my understanding is that the phrase "Am I free to go" can put an end to being unreasonably questioned (without being charged) by the police for whatever reason.

Maybe I can clarify this. ( this is going to be a very very short summary )

Back in the day, the only way that a cop can detain you is arrest. (Probable that you committed a crime) Charter rights kick in at "detention". so previously. all you had to ask was "Am i under arrest". if the answer was no. you can just walk away.
If the answer was yes... then you should be seeing some charter rights kicking in, notably the reason for being detained (10A) and right to counsel (10b)

Currently, it has been found that there are other legitimate stops that are short of arrest. One is traffic stops, another is investigative detetions ( requires reasonable suspecion, contract with arrest above) .

Now in these cases, the stop is still a detention and you need your 10A. But courts have generally found that you don't need 10B at this point. If at some point during these lower level detentions the cop has enough to arrest you, he has to give you your 10B. It is improper to continue to question you without giving you the right to counsel once probable cause exists. Does that make sense?

So now, you are correct. Am I free to go is the right question. If the cop says no. You should be expecting to be told your rights.

Bottom Line tho, you should ALWAYS get 10a, if you are getting 10b that means the cop has enough arrest you... generally

[skapan]

Sorry if I didn't read every single post, but I have to comment that only an idiot would leave photocopies of documents in ANY vehicle. You're telling thieves all about yourself and where you live. Carry documents with you on your person at all times, as it is required by law, but don't leave them in the vehicle.
You need keys so keep everything with the keys and when you head out just grab what you need.

[Barnhartp]

I had been stopped just this weekend , out for a spin and two officers stopped me on a bend , asked me if my horn worked and one checked my sticker. random stop , beeped my horn and have a good day is all it was. No harm in making sure I wasnt smuggling 40 kilo's of coke accross the mountain brow!Whew! one day earlier and ........

[whetaus-tr]

I had been stopped just this weekend , out for a spin and two officers stopped me on a bend , asked me if my horn worked and one checked my sticker. random stop , beeped my horn and have a good day is all it was. No harm in making sure I wasnt smuggling 40 kilo's of coke accross the mountain brow!Whew! one day earlier and ........

They didn't ask for driver's lic and insurance stuff ?

[MarcosSantiago]

Sorry if I didn't read every single post, but I have to comment that only an idiot would leave photocopies of documents in ANY vehicle. You're telling thieves all about yourself and where you live. Carry documents with you on your person at all times, as it is required by law, but don't leave them in the vehicle.
You need keys so keep everything with the keys and when you head out just grab what you need.

It is not required by law to carry documents on your person at all times.
Where did you get that idea?

[Rob MacLennan]

It is not required by law to carry documents on your person at all times.
Where did you get that idea?

The clear implication, of his statement, is "when operating a vehicle." Context is key

[MarcosSantiago]

The clear implication, of his statement, is "when operating a vehicle." Context is key

On your person at all times ... While operating a vehicle?

Sorry, it is not any clearer. Even when driving, there is no such legal requirement!

[OpenGambit]

On your person at all times ... While operating a vehicle?

Sorry, it is not any clearer. Even when driving, there is no such legal requirement!

I am pretty sure no one had trouble understanding what he meant. but maybe you are proving me wrong...

[MarcosSantiago]

You are oficially proven wrong then.

And that's not the only part of his post that I didn't understand. But let's chalk it to English-as-a-second-language (i'm talking about me, not him), and move on.

[Rob MacLennan]

You are oficially proven wrong then.

And that's not the only part of his post that I didn't understand. But let's chalk it to English-as-a-second-language (i'm talking about me, not him), and move on.

"You need keys so keep everything with the keys and when you head out just grab what you need."

[turbodish]

On your person at all times ... While operating a vehicle?

Sorry, it is not any clearer. Even when driving, there is no such legal requirement!

There is a legal requirement to carry a driver's license when operating a motor vehicle on public roads. There is also a legal obligation to carry proof of vehicle registration and proof of insurance. They need not be "carried" directly on "your person", but they must be immediately available if a police officer makes a demand to see it.

Failure to do so opens you up to HTA charges. Surely that by definition describes a legal requirement to carry the required documentation when operating a motor vehicle on public roads as well as possible legal repercussions if you do not, which IS the context in question.

[OpenGambit]

You are oficially proven wrong then.

And that's not the only part of his post that I didn't understand. But let's chalk it to English-as-a-second-language (i'm talking about me, not him), and move on.

I guess so. haha!

[Barnhartp]

No, I thought that was a bit strange as well.

[Two50noob]

There is a legal requirement to carry a driver's license when operating a motor vehicle on public roads. There is also a legal obligation to carry proof of vehicle registration and proof of insurance. They need not be "carried" directly on "your person", but they must be immediately available if a police officer makes a demand to see it.

Failure to do so opens you up to HTA charges. Surely that by definition describes a legal requirement to carry the required documentation when operating a motor vehicle on public roads as well as possible legal repercussions if you do not, which IS the context in question.

I knew this since i was 16 and first got my licence why does this keep coming up. If you are going to drive you should be probably asking this before you start driving not having to ask on internet forums years later.

[matt123]

I had been stopped just this weekend , out for a spin and two officers stopped me on a bend , asked me if my horn worked and one checked my sticker. random stop , beeped my horn and have a good day is all it was. No harm in making sure I wasnt smuggling 40 kilo's of coke accross the mountain brow!Whew! one day earlier and ........

And I thought they could only check you papers????????

[Two50noob]

No they can check papers, and the safety of the vehicle they can also check inside the vehicle as in what's in plain sight. They can also ask you if they can search the vehicle...you should always say no!