Page 1 of 1

OPP is infamous for unlawful arrests and detentions

PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 4:27 pm
by Thomas
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (also known as The Charter of Rights and Freedoms or simply the Charter, French: La Charte canadienne des droits et libertés) is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982 (along with the rest of the Act).

The Ontario Provincial Police is infamous for unlawful arrests and detention of citizens. Officers also believe they can stop any motor vehicle on a highway and demand to see the driver's license, ownership and insurance. There is ample case law that stipulates an officer still has to have a reason for stopping a vehicle. Just to check to see if a motorist is carrying their license, ownership and insurance with them is not sufficient grounds to conduct a vehicle stop. However, officers are famous for stating, "Just doing a routine stop mam/sir. Can I see your license, ownership and insurance please?" Another common occurrence is that many officers make up their grounds for arrest after taking a person into custody. If you feel that there was no lawful reason for your arrest then your subsequent detention by the officer constitutes a breach of your Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore, any search of your person and/or clothing would constitute an unlawful search. The continued detention of your person by transportation to the police detachment/station constitutes a 'continued detention' which is also another violation under the Charter. Furthermore, remember that a police officer is duty bound by law to advise you of your Rights to Counsel upon arrest. The officer is also bound by law to ask you two legislated questions and document your responses: “Do you understand?” and “Do you wish to call a lawyer now?”

Re: OPP is infamous for unlawful arrests and detentions

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:30 pm
by theanon12345
Very important information.

I figured that a police officer shouldn't just demand ones license and registration.

Re: OPP is infamous for unlawful arrests and detentions

PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:35 pm
by takelongwayhome
Just to check to see if a motorist is carrying their license, ownership and insurance with them is not sufficient grounds to conduct a vehicle stop.

Can you show me where you get this information? Please cite references. I believe you to be incorrect and don't want others to be misguided.

Re: OPP is infamous for unlawful arrests and detentions

PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:44 pm
by takelongwayhome
Do the Police need a reason to pull me over?

The answer to this question is more complicated than it seems. The Supreme Court of Canada has long recognized that the police can stop the operator of a motor vehicle to check on insurance, licensing, mechanical fitness of the vehicle, and the sobriety of the driver. If the police have one of these things in mind, then they can pull the operator of a motor vehicle over at anytime.

If you are under the belief that the police need to see you do something wrong to pull you over, you are mistaken. Think of a Checkstop operation; when you go through a Checkstop, you have done nothing wrong, but the police still have the lawful authority to pull you over to assess your sobriety. This is because while the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects against arbitrary detention, driving is considered to be a privilege and not a right, and it is considered to be a reasonable limit on our protected rights to allow police to detain motorists to check on things such as insurance and sobriety.

This does not give the police an unfettered right to detain. The Supreme Court of Canada has recently again recognized that police stops have to be connected to a valid purpose, R. v . Nolet, 2010. In 1992, the Supreme Court recognized in R. v. Mellenthin that authorized random roadside stops must not be turned into an unfounded general inquisition to investigate potential crime or unreasonably search a motor vehicle.

The practical reality is that an officer simply has to state that he pulled a motor vehicle over to assess sobriety, or inquire about licensing, insurance, or to inspect the mechanical fitness of the vehicle. Experience has dictated that Courts are reluctant to invalidate a random stop, even in situations where officer evidence as to the reason for the stop is suspect.

It is always open for any individual to enforce their own rights. Police are supposed to inform as to the reason for the stop, but if they do not do so, it is open for the person to enquire why they were stopped. An individual is only obligated to provide evidence of licensing and insurance to an officer, not to answer questions, or step from the vehicle, absent a lawful demand. The right to silence enshrined in the Charter also protects the right not to participate in any process, absent a lawful demand. Police are entitled to ask a person from the vehicle, or question about alcohol consumption, but the individual has the right to refuse participation, unless the police are asking them to do these things as connected to roadside sobriety tests as authorized under legislation.

Re: OPP is infamous for unlawful arrests and detentions

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:53 pm
by Gkuke
I was charged for impaired driving while I was on private property. The arresting officer was from the Peterborough OPP.

He arrested me as many people from my community and family watched
These officers also put me into a cell overnight.
This officer used the authority of the Highway traffic act ( that does not apply to private property ) to impound my utility vehicle and give me a 90 day drivers license suspension.
He laughed at me when he was filling out his notes and told me "you will not get your vehicle back until the end of court proceedings because I impounded it under section 217 (4) of the highway traffic act"
As a result of the 90 day suspension I lost my job and I had to pay 1400 dollars to get my vehicle out of impound (the impound could have been around 20,000 dollars if I was unsuccessful at getting an early release)

I represented myself at trial because the cost of paying a lawyer was no different than the punishment of being found guilty in this so called just system.
The judge found the officer's testimony to be CURIOUS and acquitted me of impaired driving and also ruled that my arrest was unlawful and that my charter rights section 7, 8 and 9 were violated
SECTION 7 is the right to life liberty and security of the person. SECTION 8 is the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure SECTION 9 is the right not to be arbitrarily detained.

This is only one of the many acts that the Peterborough OPP have put my family through.
People have to fight these corrupt police and let people know about these unlawful acts

Re: OPP is infamous for unlawful arrests and detentions

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:16 pm
by Gkuke
I was speaking to an officer from the Peterborough OPP one day last summer. This officer told me that he NEVER LIES, however what that officer doesn't know is that I am aware of a time when he pulled over my father-in-law John. John had throat cancer some years earlier and now has a little trouble saying some words and because of radiation treatment he has more saliva in his mouth than usual. John pulled out of his driveway directly into this officer ride check as he was heading to my house to feed my dog while I was away. The officer asked John if he had anything to drink, John said no and the officer told him he could smell alcohol on his breath and made John do a breathalyzer test. John blew a zero because John did not have anything to drink. Strange how the officer could smell alcohol on John's breath.

I imagine what the TRUTH was in this incident is that he heard and saw the results of John's cancer and cancer treatment and automatically thought John was drinking and then LIED and said he could smell alcohol.
When an officer smells alcohol on a persons breath it gives that officer grounds to make a road side breath test and the officer can now detain that person.
That detention is Charter acceptable when on the road or highway because the person is doing a government controlled licensed activity.
When the officer is LYING about the smell of alcohol on a persons breath and makes a roadside breath demand, that officer is now violating the persons Charter Rights and ARBITRARILY DETAINING that person.
John's section 9 Charter Rights were violated if he LIED about the smell of alcohol and made John go to his cruiser to do a breath test, so not only is the officer likely a Liar he also has no respect for peoples Charter Rights just like Most of the Peterborough OPP officers that he works with.

Re: OPP is infamous for unlawful arrests and detentions

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:15 pm
by Gkuke

Supreme Court of Canada has stated clearly in the case of Ladouceur that the police had the authority under provisions such as s. 216 of the Highway Traffic Act to stop any vehicle at any time to check for driver sobriety, licence and insurance and mechanical fitness. Provided they were acting lawfully in the exercise of their duties, i.e. the police were stopping the car for one of these driving-related purposes, they could do so without articulable cause.

This passage has been quoted by many courts in regards to the question of the constitutional rights of drivers on the roads...

The question of [whether a traffic stop without articulable cause] constitutes an arbitrary detention and is therefore impermissible was addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada more than a decade ago…the Court declared in no uncertain terms that notwithstanding that it was an arbitrary detention and so in violation of section 9 of the Charter, a stop of the most random kind was exempted from constitutional censure by virtue of section 1 of the Charter, so long as the stopping was motivated by safety concerns or for the purpose of insuring [sic] compliance with highway safety legislation.

The recorder should be hidden so they do not know they are being recorded, if they know they are being recorded they will be careful not to incriminate themselves

If the cop says that he pulled you over because "someone gave him the finger" or because he "knows who you are" or "I don't need a reason to pull you over" or some other answer that has nothing to do with highway safety you have a charter violation (arbitrary detention).

The big problem is the cops will lie in their notes and on the stand about the reason they pulled you over so YOU ALWAYS NEED TO RECORD !!!!!