Police pulling over for suspected cell use while driving

[SchlongConery]

They can ask you to provide the password if they have probable cause and if you refuse can you be charged with obstruction of justice?

The cops can ask you anything they want including to provide the password to your phone.

However, you absolutely do NOT have to provide your password to anything to the police. And under current Canadian law, a warrant to compel you to do so is essentially unenforceable and carries no penalty, even if they coulf get a Judge to sign off on one.

Here is a good and recent article on this very issue. Police Chiefs are lobbying the government to make it an offence not to comply with such a demand.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...egal-battle-over-your-cellphone-password.html

Protection against self-incrimination and your right to privacy and security of the person are fundamental Charter rights.

A password is considered a "product of your mind" and compelling you to disclose what is in your mind for the purposes of incriminating yourself is therefore protected by the Charter.

Your fingerprint, or breath sample or DNA sample are not products of your mind and are therefore compelling production of such is not protected under the Charter the same way a password is.

 

[KBear]

However, you absolutely do NOT have to provide your password to anything to the police.

Except when crossing the border

Powers of border agents and police differ
http://www.cbc.ca/news/alain-philip...-of-border-agents-and-police-differ-1.2983841

On the show Border Security, one traveler had wiped his phone, which had the agents questioning why there was nothing on his phone.

 

[GPIDEAL]

From my previous post:




The HTA does not grant powers to search a vehicle nor your person.

And the cops do not need to verify or find a handheld device to lay the HTA charge. The police officer has to personally witness you touching your device. His witnessing the act is all the evidence required to lay the charge.

His sworn testimony of seeing you commit the act is enough evidence to convict you. Unless of course you can discredit his sworn testimony and/or your testimony of alternate facts is more compelling than his testimony.

Irrelevant
Then both you and cop go to court
Cop says he saw
You say no way
You guilty

Schlong was much more eloquent but you're damn right TeeJay lol.

 

[GPIDEAL]

The cops can ask you anything they want including to provide the password to your phone.

However, you absolutely do NOT have to provide your password to anything to the police. And under current Canadian law, a warrant to compel you to do so is essentially unenforceable and carries no penalty, even if they coulf get a Judge to sign off on one.

Here is a good and recent article on this very issue. Police Chiefs are lobbying the government to make it an offence not to comply with such a demand.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...egal-battle-over-your-cellphone-password.html

Protection against self-incrimination and your right to privacy and security of the person are fundamental Charter rights.

A password is considered a "product of your mind" and compelling you to disclose what is in your mind for the purposes of incriminating yourself is therefore protected by the Charter.

Your fingerprint, or breath sample or DNA sample are not products of your mind and are therefore compelling production of such is not protected under the Charter the same way a password is.

Excellent article.

Although it was U.S. courts that made the distinction between products of the mind or not, I believe Canadian courts can look to U.S. cases for precedents.

 

[GPIDEAL]

So open the car window a small amount, pass them your licence, and remain silent when they ask you if you have been drinking. Would be interesting to see how that goes.

Thought there was some rule where the cops at RIDE could not ask for your licence and insurance unless you are being charged.

Thank you for your post KBear, I missed that (that was the article folks, not me).

Well, if you're not drunk or haven't had anything to drink, say NO!

If you refuse to answer, they may then ask you to take a breathalyzer. If you refuse, you can be charged!

 

[wigglee]

What is more dangerous...... checking the time on my cell phone or adjusting the radio and/or the heater? I know texting while driving is bad but the law is an ass.

 

[fuji]

What is more dangerous...... checking the time on my cell phone or adjusting the radio and/or the heater? I know texting while driving is bad but the law is an ass.

I don't know about you but I can adjust my radio and heater without really looking for more than a split second. Once I get my fingers on it I can spin the dials without looking at it.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I don't know about you but I can adjust my radio and heater without really looking for more than a split second. Once I get my fingers on it I can spin the dials without looking at it

I'm pretty sure you're quite adept at driving your car and posting in Terb's political forum as well

 

[PhoenixHouse]

What about all the cars that have talk and text technology? My iPhone and car are synced. So I can speak my texts. If a cop searches my phone, it will show I was texting, even the phone can be in the trunk.

J.

 

[oldjones]

They can ask you to provide the password if they have probable cause and if you refuse can you be charged with obstruction of justice?

I can't see how it would be different than them 'asking' you if you did the crime they were investigating. The Charter protects your right not to incriminate yourself, even if it makes the job the police are trying to do a whole lot harder.

But if you have a real concern about what you must provide, and how far you can take your refusal, best ask your lawyer.

 

[oldjones]

What is more dangerous...... checking the time on my cell phone or adjusting the radio and/or the heater? I know texting while driving is bad but the law is an ass.

Of courese the law is an ass. It's not intended to deal with ordinarily well-behaved and intelligent people. It's for the assholes who can't manage such minimum standards.

 

[SchlongConery]

What is more dangerous...... checking the time on my cell phone or adjusting the radio and/or the heater? I know texting while driving is bad but the law is an ass.

Yeah...STOOOPID laws! Imagine the stooopid government not thinking about a driver being able to check what time it is without picking up and looking at his cell phone!

Now, I do understand that not as may people wear wristwatches but I haven't seen a car or car radio without a clock in decades.

I admit that I do myself text and drive (using voice dictation, but it is STILL a distraction) but there is no question that the phenomena of handheld device/texting is more dangerous than impaired driving. The data proves it. And for some reason, the law, and society, has still not grasped the gravity of this. Myself included.

 

[TeeJay]

What about all the cars that have talk and text technology? My iPhone and car are synced. So I can speak my texts. If a cop searches my phone, it will show I was texting, even the phone can be in the trunk.

J.

Using a phone is not a crime (that exception exists because of things like Bluetooth or your sync technology)
Touching (holding) the phone in your hand is a crime
Stupid yes, but that is the law

 

[SchlongConery]

What about all the cars that have talk and text technology? My iPhone and car are synced. So I can speak my texts. If a cop searches my phone, it will show I was texting, even the phone can be in the trunk.

J.

As has been noted in several of the posts, the police do not have the right to search your car or your person, nor your cellphone during a traffic stop.

And they do not need to see any texts nor records to lay the charge of distracted driving. They only need to see you TOUCH your hand-held device and their testimony alone is sufficient evidence to lay the charge and convict.

During a traffic stop, the police can only search you or your car or your phone with your consent or with a warrant. OR.... if you are placed under arrest for a criminal charge.

 

[huckfinn]

And they do not need to see any texts nor records to lay the charge of distracted driving. They only need to see you TOUCH your hand-held device and their testimony alone is sufficient evidence to lay the charge and convict.

During a traffic stop, the police can only search you or your car or your phone with your consent or with a warrant. OR.... if you are placed under arrest for a criminal charge.

That's kind of scary......if my buddy did have a phone in the car, they would have charged him - even if he wasn't using it.

Recall they stopped him because they saw him using his cell phone that didn't exist.

Also, I don't know if I mentioned this before, but he was actually pulled over 2 days in a row for using his cell phone, and one stop they gave him a ticket for doing 19k over the speed limit, when he was stuck in traffic. He asked to see the radar gun, cop complied but messed around with it and "Oops, I seem to have erased it."

Years ago another friend got stopped for speeding, same thing happened with the gun. He went to court and still lost.

 

[KBear]

Also, I don't know if I mentioned this before, but he was actually pulled over 2 days in a row for using his cell phone, and one stop they gave him a ticket for doing 19k over the speed limit, when he was stuck in traffic. He asked to see the radar gun, cop complied but messed around with it and "Oops, I seem to have erased it."

Cops are under no obligation to show the radar gun. Sometimes people tell stories, there could be more to this.

 

[The "Bone" Ranger]

Cops are under no obligation to show the radar gun. Sometimes people tell stories, there could be more to this.

they probably don't have to but if they refuse and you take the ticket to court it will be tossed out for sure

 

[KBear]

they probably don't have to but if they refuse and you take the ticket to court it will be tossed out for sure

Nope, The cop does not have to prove his case on the side of the road, that is what court is for. Is also a safety issue as the radar can be built into the car, and the cop would not want the person walking around on the highway.

btw, Like your signature gif

 

[huckfinn]

Nope, The cop does not have to prove his case on the side of the road, that is what court is for. Is also a safety issue as the radar can be built into the car, and the cop would not want the person walking around on the highway.

btw, Like your signature gif

And I believe the cop is liable for your safety once you are out of the car too.....

 

[GPIDEAL]

Nope, The cop does not have to prove his case on the side of the road, that is what court is for. Is also a safety issue as the radar can be built into the car, and the cop would not want the person walking around on the highway.

btw, Like your signature gif

The woman in his signature gif would never get a ticket, ha ha.

(BTW, I agree with your recent points too).