Canadian law question -- cops asking for identification.

[Coito ergo sum]

When can a police officer in Canada require a person to present their identification?

Do they require some sort of reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity?

[Tero]

I think they can do it if you look at Niagara Falls from the Canadian side. You look like you might blow it up. You can also get IDd if you make fun of mounties.

[Coito ergo sum]

But, are they legally allowed to ask you for no reason at all?

[Gawd]

But, are they legally allowed to ask you for no reason at all?

Cops can always make something up to hassle you for. They have powerful and corrupt unions to protect them from anything. With all the cops stealing cellphones from people who record their thug activities, what's detaining you for your ID?

[MrJonno]

Decided to look this up for the UK and its a little confusing

Police cannot stop and search you without reasonable suspicion unless

a) you are at an airport
b) a site has been designated as a potential terrorist target, not clear if there has to be some suspicion that an attack is likely or just possible like any train station etc. I got stopped at a train station and searched and asked for identification.

I don't actually think you are required to identify yourself but you can be searched even if you choose not to give your name. Of course not doing so and you risk the police finding some reason to arrest you

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

http://www.met.police.uk/stopandsearch/what_is.htm

[amok]

The driver of a motor vehicle has to produce identification on demand by a police officer, under provincial laws. Otherwise, there is no general right of the police to demand I.D. from someone who is just going about his or her business on the street.

http://www.bastionlaw.ca/-rights.asp

[Coito ergo sum]

But, are they legally allowed to ask you for no reason at all?

Cops can always make something up to hassle you for. They have powerful and corrupt unions to protect them from anything. With all the cops stealing cellphones from people who record their thug activities, what's detaining you for your ID?

But, are they legally allowed to ask you for no reason at all?

[Coito ergo sum]

The driver of a motor vehicle has to produce identification on demand by a police officer, under provincial laws. Otherwise, there is no general right of the police to demand I.D. from someone who is just going about his or her business on the street.

http://www.bastionlaw.ca/-rights.asp

Nice, there you go. As it should be. Thanks. The same is true in the US.

However, the driver of a motor vehicle only has to produce a drivers license if the police stop that person for a driving offense. Merely being the driver of a motor vehicle is not legally sufficient. (although, the system is rigged a bit so cops can generally make something up).

[MrJonno]

No requirement to even carry a driving license in the UK through I think they can ask you to show it to a police station within 7 days

[Coito ergo sum]

No requirement to carry one in the US either, unless you're driving a car at the time. The UK is unique in not requiring drivers to carry their license on them at the time.

[Seth]

But, are they legally allowed to ask you for no reason at all?

Cops can always make something up to hassle you for. They have powerful and corrupt unions to protect them from anything. With all the cops stealing cellphones from people who record their thug activities, what's detaining you for your ID?

But, are they legally allowed to ask you for no reason at all?

Yes, they may legally ASK any time they wish. I can legally ASK to see your identification, but you are free to refuse to oblige me, or the police.

The actual question is can a police officer in Canada DEMAND to see government identification and impose a penalty if you refuse without any particularized suspicion?

Here in the US, police can ASK you to do anything they want, and it's up to you to know your rights and that you may refuse to accede to their requests unless they state some legal authority compelling you to obey them.

It's called a "voluntary contact," and the Supreme Court approved language on the part of the officer that will ensure that whatever answer you give or information or evidence you provide will be admissible in court is "Excuse me, do you have a moment that I might speak with you?" Other, more ambiguous statements usually pass court scrutiny, but that language is guaranteed. If the cops says "Come here, I need to talk to you" he may have actually ARRESTED you if you reasonably believed that you were not free to leave and that his words were a command, not a request.

The vast majority of people don't seem to be able to understand the difference between a command and a request, so they accede to requests, and incriminate themselves all the time when they were legally entitled to ignore the officer, refuse to speak, and walk away.

In any episode of "Cops" you can see it happen ten times an episode.

Here's the thing... you NEVER EVER have to speak to the police, except to identify yourself, which can be done without speaking. Present your ID and keep your mouth shut.

[MrJonno]

No requirement to carry one in the US either, unless you're driving a car at the time. The UK is unique in not requiring drivers to carry their license on them at the time.

Even if you are driving you don't have to carry one why I'm not sure. If the police could force you to identify yourself it wouldnt matter too much as they could confirm you could drive but they arent allowed to do that either

[amok]

I believe I've told this story before, during a discussion about that law some American states were enacting (proposing?) about it being legal for police to demand citizenship papers from suspected illegal aliens. I got emotional about it, because it's such a personal issue.

My father told this story:

A few years after he arrived in Canada, he had an encounter with police. He was driving, and got pulled over. When the policeman arrived at the side of his car, my nervous dad had all his "papers" ready to hand over - driver's licence, passport, immigration documents, citizenship documents. My dad described a cold feeling in the pit of his stomach, remembering steely eyed, low-level officials who had the power to make life a complete misery.

The cop told him his signal (or tail) light was burned out and he needed to get it fixed. He handed back the stack of "papers," and sort of hesitated. He told my father that it was probably not a good idea to carry that stuff around with him, and that it would be best if he kept them either in a safe place at home or got a safety deposit box.

That was a defining, liberating, joyful moment for my father. He'd spent the previous 15 years or so living first under the Nazi regime, then under a Communist regime, and then being a "displaced person," a person without citizenship, without a state. He was so used to having to produce "papers," that it had become second nature.

When I hear people sort of shrugging such things off, it breaks my heart a little. I realize that in most cases they're just not thinking things through, because they're just so used to freedom that they can't comprehend what it would be like to lose it, but it's worrying and distressing to me when relatively intelligent people don't see the slippery slope they're standing on.

[Coito ergo sum]

I would add that certain people are not thinking things through when they suggest that certain laws enacted/proposed in American states were akin to Nazi and Communist arbitrary "show me your papers" laws. The laws in the US in terms of whether law enforcement may verify if a person is lawfully in the United States are currently far more lax than in any industrialized nation. In every western country I've researched, the police may verify people's identity and citizenship when a person is arrested or searched on suspicion. In the United States, that is not allowed at present. The laws that were proposed were expressly written to allow police officers to verify the lawful presence of a person who (a) has been reasonably stopped for some purpose other than immigration-related (like in a criminal investigation, DUI stop, or the like), and (b) there has to be some other indicia and reasonable suspicion that the person may not be lawfully present.

The law in Canada is substantially the same as the "racist" law in Arizona that some have characterized as "Nazi."

If you are investigated by police for some
other reason, they can check to see if there
is an immigration warrant for your arrest or
if there are grounds to arrest and detain you
under immigration law. For example, if you
are pulled over while driving, the police
could check your immigration status and
arrest and detain you for CBSA.

http://www.cleo.on.ca/english/pub/onpub ... rdetim.pdf

Wow. The Nazis are everywhere, I guess.

So...let's review. In the US, right now, the police can't do what they do in Canada. States that have desired to modify their laws to be allowed to do what they do in Canada have been accused of being "racist" and "Nazis" and doing things that smack of Communist eastern bloc "show me your papers tactics."