Drivers that fail to produce a driver’s license with their picture on it when stopped present a very real difficulty for the officer. Is the driver one that cannot be bothered, did they just forget it this trip, or are they prohibited, unlicensed or impersonating someone else to avoid being charged?
How do you identify a driver sufficiently to positively testify that the person in court a year later is the one that you dealt with that day? The Schryvers Testis simple, but not as reliable as taking a picture of the driver.
Kavel Multani was stopped by police for disobeying a yellow light at an intersection in North Vancouver. Mr. Multani did not produce his driver’s licence and was photographed by Cst. Fedirchuk as part of his note taking during the investigation.
Mr. Multani turned out to be a prohibited driver and was convicted after a trial.
The conviction for driving while prohibited was appealed because the trial judge did not exclude Cst. Fedirchuk’s identification of the accused based on the picture that was taken at the roadside. Counsel argued that taking the photo violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the Identification of Criminals Act did not permit it.
Mr. Justice Curtis found that:
When Constable Fedirchuk observed Mr. Multani at the scene it was his duty to identify him properly, and in the course of doing so to make and record accurate evidence of identity. In the course of doing so, he could make notes of his observations, and he could have made a sketch in his notes had he chosen to do so. Generally, a photograph will provide evidence that is more reliable than notes or sketches…In those circumstances, I find the reasoning of the B.C. Court of Appeal in the R v Dilling case is applicable. There has been no unreasonable search and seizure, and the photograph is properly admissible.
Story URL: https://www.drivesmartbc.ca/case-law/taking-picture-driver
-- Tim Schewe Road Safety Advocate DriveSmartBC.ca
