Beyond police members chime in, is this legal?

[adidas]

[codetrap]

Originally posted by adidas
LAS VEGAS video in the United States, not Canada

Any officer would be an idiot to say that you can simply refuse to answer questions and you'll be sent on your merry way. That opens the door to a ton of liability.

Why don't you call a Lawyer and ask them?

[Weapon_R]

You don't have to talk to police here either

[Type_S1]

Great strategy.

[adidas]

I think it has more to do with knowing the Law than anything else. The reason why i asked for beyond police members to chime in is because they should know it like the back of their hand.

By all means, they can refuse to respond but it would be nice to at least be pointed in the right direction.

[revelations]

hmmm.... thats a good question OP

In Canada, my impression is that we have somewhat different rights than the Americans do in their motor vehicles.... that is .... less

[AE92_TreunoSC]

Every lawyer I've ever talked to always agrees to that tactic.

Shut the hell up. Give them nothing.

I have no reason to do it for a checkstop though, they have good intentions. It's not a traffic camera cash grab, its a safety program that saves lives.

[bart]

how is a checkstop any different than cops checking every person getting off the ctrain for concealed weapons?

i think checkstops are illegal in europe for this reason

[J-D]

Originally posted by bart
how is a checkstop any different than cops checking every person getting off the ctrain for concealed weapons?

i think checkstops are illegal in europe for this reason

It's a probability thing. I think there is a higher chance that a driver will a) be intoxicated, and b) potentially cause harm to another random individual or individuals.

Supposedly the CPS charge around 6 people with DUI every time they set up checkstops. I've only ever been through but it took about 3 seconds and I was on my way. I'm all for personal freedoms but checkstops aren't a big deal.

[FraserB]

I was in and out in about 1 minute since I had a few equipment violations he told me to fix.

At 1 minute out of my day, you can pull me over on the way to work and the way home for all I care, so long as it get drunks off the road.

It is nothing like checking each person getting off the train for weapons. It is closer to asking someone if they have a weapon and then sending them on their way 30 seconds later if they answer in the negative.

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by bart
how is a checkstop any different than cops checking every person getting off the ctrain for concealed weapons?

i think checkstops are illegal in europe for this reason

The Charter provides protection against unreasonable search and seizure, but the courts have held that checkstops are reasonable intrusions on this right pursuant to s.1 of our Charter.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by adidas
I think it has more to do with knowing the Law than anything else. The reason why i asked for beyond police members to chime in is because they should know it like the back of their hand.

By all means, they can refuse to respond but it would be nice to at least be pointed in the right direction.

I'm sure if they smelt any alcohol, or had any indication of it, that scene would have gone down a lot differently.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by J-D
I'm all for personal freedoms but checkstops aren't a big deal.

I don't think this statement is completely accurate, since the definition of being 'all for' personal freedoms doesn't allow for guys with striped pants carrying guns to stop random cars and ask the driver questions about their diet.

[Kloubek]

The guy is being difficult just for the sake of being difficult. Like cops' jobs aren't frustrating enough as it is.

By refusing to answer, he took up nearly two minutes of the time of everyone behind him. The only thing he proved to me is that he is a dick.

[swak]

I thought for a vehicle offense you had to oblige, but for anything else.. Like a cop pulls you over for questioning on the sidewalk or at your apt. you dont have to give them shit.

[Disoblige]

Originally posted by Kloubek
The only thing he proved to me is that he is a dick.

what a dick.

[lastlatvian]

I actually think this is fine, kinda boarder line douche but fine in legal terms. You can invoke your Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 11 of the Charter provides that one cannot be compelled to be a witness in a proceeding against oneself.

Pretty much the right to remain silent? The argument that the government can use S1 is interesting because wouldn't that get a lot of kick back?

It infringes on a lot of our rights. As mentioned
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Also other torts like unlawful confinement? Even habeas corpus might work? Say if you have any questions you can speak to my legal counsel ?

That's a lot of power S1 pushes in this case, o well, I'd just be polite to the fuzz as I normally am.

[ryder_23]

Originally posted by bart
how is a checkstop any different than cops checking every person getting off the ctrain for concealed weapons?

i think checkstops are illegal in europe for this reason

I have a photo infront of a checkstop in Europe. Mind you this was about 3 years ago.

[ryder_23]

Heres photo...You can see officers in backround, car behind was about to get towed, there wearing high vis vests.

My buddy lived out there for a year during school, and world hockey championships were going on. Checkstop right out front of his place.

Literally stood there and watched them pull over about 20 cars in 15 minutes. Tiny town too.

[cde1966]

I think their intention is to get him to talk or exhale in their direction. no smell of alcohol, no signs of impaired behaviour, the car appears legal, no sign of any criminal activity and you're on your way. The police got what they wanted by making sure he didn't give any signs of being impaired, thus no need to continue with him. He thinks he got what he wanted by not answering their questions. The driver is only a fool because he thinks he beat the system when in fact the police got the information they were looking for. Had he answered no to the question he would have been on his way faster, so I guess in reality the driver only caused himself to be delayed. Props to the cops for being out there and being professional. I think in Alberta he may have been delayed longer due to the distracted driving law by operating and having the camera in his lap.