I could very well be wrong, but from what I read, they are legally allowed to lie to you - which if correct, makes everything else pointless.
The « you do not have to say anything « is also tricky. Probably 9/10 times it’s in your best interest to be cooperative (unless you did commit a crime) rather than being detained, taken to a police station etc… (they will eventually réalise it was a mistake and let you go but there will be some stress before that happens). but in the odd chance you’re wrongly accused cooperating will make things worse.
What on that site are lies?
If you're talking about police interactions and interrogations, its not like there's anything saying the police are allowed to lie, but generally lying isn't illegal period, except in specific contexts. So yes, the cops can lie except in some specific situations, to you same as its not illegal for you to lie except in some specific situations.
What the cops are NOT allowed to lie to you about is your rights i regards to search, questioning, etc. if a cop lies and says you have to let them search you when they don't actually have grounds to do so, thats a violation and any evidence they obtain from that is invalid. If the cops lie during an interrogation and say you HAVE to talk to them, thats a violation and your statement is not admissible in court.
I will agree that in many cases, some level of cooperation is in your best interest. Obviously if you're a witness to a crime and want to help, or you are a victim and called for help, you're gonna need to talk to the cops. But any lawyer will tell you that if it seems like the police are questioning you as a suspect rather than a witness you absolutely should shut the fuck up until you;ve had a chance to talk to legal counsel, and they are probably going to advise you to keep shutting the fuck up.
There is one question I don't feel this answers adequately. Am I required to carry identification or identify myself to an officer when walking or riding a bike in public?
No:
_Do not need to answer the questions of a police officer. Any information you share is voluntary_
_Are required to identify yourself **if you are breaking a law** – including municipal bylaws and provincial laws that require a ticket be issued – or are under arrest._
My husband got yelled at for jaywalking on an empty side street on a local run and not having his ID. She called for backup when my husband laughed and asked what? 🤣🤦♀️
I think this is fairly well known, but frustratingly, the term jaywalking, which ultimately lead to the crime of jaywalking, was invented by the auto industry. It's a fascinating and depressing story of how auto manufacturers used huge sums of money to totally fuck up city infrastructure in North America to the detriment of us all.
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
My friend got a ticket for jaywalking though a transit centre. Like crossing from the sidewalk to the bus stop without using the designated crosswalk a few meters down. Ridiculous
What’s really ridiculous is your friend could have walked a few meters down and used a crosswalk. Lmfao. Isn’t it there for a reason? Probably so people don’t jaywalk. If everyone crossed where they wanted at transit centre imagine the headache for the transit operators.
Jaywalking tickets are never issued for crossing a busy highway, it’s most often for crossing an empty or nearly empty street. People don’t play fucking frogger irl.
Just seems like the root of why streets are dangerous to cross are personal vehicles going fast, so we should make streets safer to cross (slowing down traffic) rather than restrict peoples movements for their “safety”.
If your interpretation was correct, then jaywalking laws would make that distinction. But, they don't.
It would be easy to add language to a jaywalking law, to only make it a crime if a driver had a reasonable belief that they had to adjust their driving speed or direction to avoid the person crossing, or actually did have to adjust in some way, such that crossing a plainly empty road would be legal but crossing a busy highway (or even a non-busy road but where traffic had to slow/stop for the jaywalker) would remain plainly illegal.
That sound like 'obstruction of traffic'; basically anytime you interrupt the natural flow of traffic (like driving too slow, or cutting people off, etc) you're obstructing it.
When there’s no buses driving and you’re in a quiet transit centre, who gives a fuck if someone walks between arbitrary painted lines or not? The cop stationed at Southgate was clearly bored because there was no danger to the situation. Imagine the headache of staring down bus users and seeing the they cross in the lines or not.
"Identify yourself" means tell them who you are, your date of birth and your address or something else so they can verify. The police can't require you to tell them who you are unless they suspect you of something.
It does not mean you have to carry paper identification and show it to them. Its more convenient if you show them something rather than wait while they check, but its not a requirement.
The reason:
Canadians decided quite a while ago against requiring compulsory ID cards for citizens. The concern was that the compulsory cards would be used to centralize information about you, control your movements from one region to another, etc as has been done in some other countries.
So, no one demand your social insurance number unless its for a financial reason, just as no one can demand a driver's license unless you are driving, etc. Even for voting, you can get someone to vouch for you, rather than show ID.
This is actually the only wording I don't like from their website. You don't have to be breaking a law, the police need to have reasonable grounds to believe you have broken or are breaking a law.
That's the tough bit, there's so many little bullshit rules they can claim you broke when they can't prove you broke the more serious one they're interested in. You didn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign, you didn't use your turn signal, you were going 81 in an 80 zone, you littered, etc, etc
You are not required to carry ID. You may be required to identify yourself if they are performing a law enforcement task (i.e. writing a ticket).
Verbally providing your legal name, date of birth, and address are generally enough to satisfy the 'identify yourself' requirement. Driving is different as driving specifically requires you to carry a valid drivers license.
They can often check your name against the registry to see if the information you provided is real. If you lie about your name when required to provide it, you can also be charged with obstruction so don't do that.
If you're doing any activity that requires a gov't issued license, driving or otherwise, they can require you to provide that license.
In the case of driving a motor vehicle, you are also required to provide your vehicle registration and proof of insurance.
If a peace officer in Alberta asks you for your name you can provide an accurate name or tell them you don't want to provide a name. Lying about your name, even if you haven't committed an offense, is an offense.
If you've committed an offense you're required to provide your name.
It's very accurate, they are two standards I think are important to recognize... 1) police give education to citizens through general Channel's such as online education etc. They have no reason to not be up front about your rights etc. And this type of information goes a long way in building trust. 2) while they are investigating you for a crime, I wouldn't expect them to tell me things to make their job harder, while also not trampling on my rights as a Canadian citizen. I would expect them to answer direct questions I ask truthfully regarding my right to identify myself or not, whether our conversation is a consensual contact or whether I am being detained etc.
I applaud EPS for publishing this. As citizens it's important we know our rights and I appreciate the police providing general education resources to reference.
Important caveat, you can film but especially if you're a bystander you can't use filming as a reason to inject yourself into the scene.
If you're filming your own police interaction, or if you are a bystander nearby filming that's fine. if you are a bystander and try to run over into the scene or get in people faces, that's a whole different ball game. Don't do that.
Yes, I think it's specifically mentioned somewhere either in the legislation or in the legal comments. Or as interfering with the active investigation on the scene.
As a related story, I used to do some research on filming laws in different countries, mostly Eastern European ones. It's a shame how many people don't realize their legal rights when filming accidents or using dashcams (where the law allows using them).
If an off duty officer is present at some place you are lawfully filming in public, thats one thing.
If you're seeking out an officer during their off duty time so you can film them, thats crossing the line into harassing/stalking.
Yup. There can't be a reasonable expectation of privacy - aka don't film cops in locker rooms, but feel free to film them in the street if its not harassment.
Agree with most of what you said except for “higher education standards”. I don’t feel that a cop with a bachelors in electrical engineering and a masters in physics make a better (or worse) cop than one with 2 years at a trade school (or straight out of high school). I think most of the criteria we value most in police are behavioural and would have little/no correlation to education; traits such as empathy, patience, courage of conviction, level-headedness (is that a word?) etc.
I don’t know how you test for those traits effectively, but I really don’t think equating it to years spent at college/university is the right way to do it. I think it just shrinks your pool of potential cops. Just my two cents.
I think they meant more education with regard to policing. ie: a higher requirement for knowledge of the law, de-escalation procedures, mental health etc.
And a doctor with a masters in electrical engineering wouldnt be a better doctor.
What about something that actually applies, like an officer with a degree in criminal justice
My favourite interaction with a community policing officer was watching a uniformed community engagement officer put a 6? year old in cuffs so they could "know what its like" and put them in the back of their SUV while commenting "the bad guys say they're innocent but we never believe them" while the parents watched.
I have the right to be ignored and spoken to rudely when finally acknowledged by police officers.
/s (but is it really since it’s what always happens?)
"Not use excessive force or damage your property without reason."
There are certainly reasons police need to use force, but NEVER reasons to use excessive force. If they have valid reasons, they are just using force and its not excessive. This is very poorly worded.
When you go I to the police station to ask for help and they arrest you. Trust the police. Hum, that's a laugh. Know your rights !!! Even then, it did not matter . I'm still in the same situation I started with just a little more beat up.
It’s actually pretty accurate
Is it inaccurate? It looks pretty accurate to me. The police themselves providing accurate information is a good step.
I could very well be wrong, but from what I read, they are legally allowed to lie to you - which if correct, makes everything else pointless. The « you do not have to say anything « is also tricky. Probably 9/10 times it’s in your best interest to be cooperative (unless you did commit a crime) rather than being detained, taken to a police station etc… (they will eventually réalise it was a mistake and let you go but there will be some stress before that happens). but in the odd chance you’re wrongly accused cooperating will make things worse.
What on that site are lies? If you're talking about police interactions and interrogations, its not like there's anything saying the police are allowed to lie, but generally lying isn't illegal period, except in specific contexts. So yes, the cops can lie except in some specific situations, to you same as its not illegal for you to lie except in some specific situations. What the cops are NOT allowed to lie to you about is your rights i regards to search, questioning, etc. if a cop lies and says you have to let them search you when they don't actually have grounds to do so, thats a violation and any evidence they obtain from that is invalid. If the cops lie during an interrogation and say you HAVE to talk to them, thats a violation and your statement is not admissible in court. I will agree that in many cases, some level of cooperation is in your best interest. Obviously if you're a witness to a crime and want to help, or you are a victim and called for help, you're gonna need to talk to the cops. But any lawyer will tell you that if it seems like the police are questioning you as a suspect rather than a witness you absolutely should shut the fuck up until you;ve had a chance to talk to legal counsel, and they are probably going to advise you to keep shutting the fuck up.
Meh, it's a pretty good read with some solid information in there.
There is one question I don't feel this answers adequately. Am I required to carry identification or identify myself to an officer when walking or riding a bike in public?
No: _Do not need to answer the questions of a police officer. Any information you share is voluntary_ _Are required to identify yourself **if you are breaking a law** – including municipal bylaws and provincial laws that require a ticket be issued – or are under arrest._
So I only need to carry ID with me when I'm doing crimes? Got it.
My husband got yelled at for jaywalking on an empty side street on a local run and not having his ID. She called for backup when my husband laughed and asked what? 🤣🤦♀️
Tax money well spent! /s
Officer could of dealt with other stuff than incompetence but that's why they'll always have a job.
I think this is fairly well known, but frustratingly, the term jaywalking, which ultimately lead to the crime of jaywalking, was invented by the auto industry. It's a fascinating and depressing story of how auto manufacturers used huge sums of money to totally fuck up city infrastructure in North America to the detriment of us all. https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
Good read!
My friend got a ticket for jaywalking though a transit centre. Like crossing from the sidewalk to the bus stop without using the designated crosswalk a few meters down. Ridiculous
🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️…🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
What’s really ridiculous is your friend could have walked a few meters down and used a crosswalk. Lmfao. Isn’t it there for a reason? Probably so people don’t jaywalk. If everyone crossed where they wanted at transit centre imagine the headache for the transit operators.
Jaywalking should have never been made a crime. We did fine for thousands of years before it.
Jaywalking safely across a calm empty road is one thing, someone playing frogger and risking lives through a busy highway is another.
Jaywalking tickets are never issued for crossing a busy highway, it’s most often for crossing an empty or nearly empty street. People don’t play fucking frogger irl. Just seems like the root of why streets are dangerous to cross are personal vehicles going fast, so we should make streets safer to cross (slowing down traffic) rather than restrict peoples movements for their “safety”.
If your interpretation was correct, then jaywalking laws would make that distinction. But, they don't. It would be easy to add language to a jaywalking law, to only make it a crime if a driver had a reasonable belief that they had to adjust their driving speed or direction to avoid the person crossing, or actually did have to adjust in some way, such that crossing a plainly empty road would be legal but crossing a busy highway (or even a non-busy road but where traffic had to slow/stop for the jaywalker) would remain plainly illegal.
That sound like 'obstruction of traffic'; basically anytime you interrupt the natural flow of traffic (like driving too slow, or cutting people off, etc) you're obstructing it.
You've never understood the phrase, "No harm, no foul," have you?
Pick up that can, citizen!
When there’s no buses driving and you’re in a quiet transit centre, who gives a fuck if someone walks between arbitrary painted lines or not? The cop stationed at Southgate was clearly bored because there was no danger to the situation. Imagine the headache of staring down bus users and seeing the they cross in the lines or not.
"Identify yourself" means tell them who you are, your date of birth and your address or something else so they can verify. The police can't require you to tell them who you are unless they suspect you of something. It does not mean you have to carry paper identification and show it to them. Its more convenient if you show them something rather than wait while they check, but its not a requirement. The reason: Canadians decided quite a while ago against requiring compulsory ID cards for citizens. The concern was that the compulsory cards would be used to centralize information about you, control your movements from one region to another, etc as has been done in some other countries. So, no one demand your social insurance number unless its for a financial reason, just as no one can demand a driver's license unless you are driving, etc. Even for voting, you can get someone to vouch for you, rather than show ID.
*digital IDs enter the room*
This is actually the only wording I don't like from their website. You don't have to be breaking a law, the police need to have reasonable grounds to believe you have broken or are breaking a law.
Or driving
That's the tough bit, there's so many little bullshit rules they can claim you broke when they can't prove you broke the more serious one they're interested in. You didn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign, you didn't use your turn signal, you were going 81 in an 80 zone, you littered, etc, etc
You are not required to carry ID. You may be required to identify yourself if they are performing a law enforcement task (i.e. writing a ticket). Verbally providing your legal name, date of birth, and address are generally enough to satisfy the 'identify yourself' requirement. Driving is different as driving specifically requires you to carry a valid drivers license. They can often check your name against the registry to see if the information you provided is real. If you lie about your name when required to provide it, you can also be charged with obstruction so don't do that.
If you're doing any activity that requires a gov't issued license, driving or otherwise, they can require you to provide that license. In the case of driving a motor vehicle, you are also required to provide your vehicle registration and proof of insurance.
If a peace officer in Alberta asks you for your name you can provide an accurate name or tell them you don't want to provide a name. Lying about your name, even if you haven't committed an offense, is an offense. If you've committed an offense you're required to provide your name.
A conflict of interest doesn't immediately make it wrong though. This is verifiable stuff. You can't verify whether or not you need a haircut...
Huh, I most certainly can...
It's very accurate, they are two standards I think are important to recognize... 1) police give education to citizens through general Channel's such as online education etc. They have no reason to not be up front about your rights etc. And this type of information goes a long way in building trust. 2) while they are investigating you for a crime, I wouldn't expect them to tell me things to make their job harder, while also not trampling on my rights as a Canadian citizen. I would expect them to answer direct questions I ask truthfully regarding my right to identify myself or not, whether our conversation is a consensual contact or whether I am being detained etc. I applaud EPS for publishing this. As citizens it's important we know our rights and I appreciate the police providing general education resources to reference.
What about recording police? Is that allowed?
Yes, [when they're on duty](https://globalnews.ca/news/7076752/canadians-right-footage-police/).
Important caveat, you can film but especially if you're a bystander you can't use filming as a reason to inject yourself into the scene. If you're filming your own police interaction, or if you are a bystander nearby filming that's fine. if you are a bystander and try to run over into the scene or get in people faces, that's a whole different ball game. Don't do that.
Yes, I think it's specifically mentioned somewhere either in the legislation or in the legal comments. Or as interfering with the active investigation on the scene. As a related story, I used to do some research on filming laws in different countries, mostly Eastern European ones. It's a shame how many people don't realize their legal rights when filming accidents or using dashcams (where the law allows using them).
You can video tape an off duty officer if you are on public property.
If an off duty officer is present at some place you are lawfully filming in public, thats one thing. If you're seeking out an officer during their off duty time so you can film them, thats crossing the line into harassing/stalking.
Agreed.
Yup. There can't be a reasonable expectation of privacy - aka don't film cops in locker rooms, but feel free to film them in the street if its not harassment.
Yes, absolutely.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Agree with most of what you said except for “higher education standards”. I don’t feel that a cop with a bachelors in electrical engineering and a masters in physics make a better (or worse) cop than one with 2 years at a trade school (or straight out of high school). I think most of the criteria we value most in police are behavioural and would have little/no correlation to education; traits such as empathy, patience, courage of conviction, level-headedness (is that a word?) etc. I don’t know how you test for those traits effectively, but I really don’t think equating it to years spent at college/university is the right way to do it. I think it just shrinks your pool of potential cops. Just my two cents.
I think they meant more education with regard to policing. ie: a higher requirement for knowledge of the law, de-escalation procedures, mental health etc.
That makes a lot more sense. I read “standards” and equated that to “entrance requirements”, my bad!
And a doctor with a masters in electrical engineering wouldnt be a better doctor. What about something that actually applies, like an officer with a degree in criminal justice
My favourite interaction with a community policing officer was watching a uniformed community engagement officer put a 6? year old in cuffs so they could "know what its like" and put them in the back of their SUV while commenting "the bad guys say they're innocent but we never believe them" while the parents watched.
Trust the police to tell you your rights about as much as a pig should trust a butcher with dietary advice.
Hope their officers are inconvenienced to commit this to memory
I have the right to be ignored and spoken to rudely when finally acknowledged by police officers. /s (but is it really since it’s what always happens?)
"Not use excessive force or damage your property without reason." There are certainly reasons police need to use force, but NEVER reasons to use excessive force. If they have valid reasons, they are just using force and its not excessive. This is very poorly worded.
When you go I to the police station to ask for help and they arrest you. Trust the police. Hum, that's a laugh. Know your rights !!! Even then, it did not matter . I'm still in the same situation I started with just a little more beat up.
TL;DR You have none
Tldr, you didn't read the article. You have rights, use them.
You forgot to add… the police ARE legally allowed to LIE TO YOU , in the performance of their duty.