Charter/Caution for traffic accident

[Fishbone Jones]

So, if cautioned, I guess a person could invoke their right not to speak or otherwise incriminate themselves by exchanging information with the other driver or officer, and if not placed under arrest, to leave the scene. After all, if I don't have a cell phone, I'll have to go somewhere private and consult the Duty JAG, before I do anything.

Yup, that'll really help settle a little fender bender. :

 

[cupper]

I don't want to throw fuel on the fire, but it would seem to me that if you started cautioning for every traffic accident investigation you were involved with, that would put the persons involved on the defensive, and would be less inclined to be cooperative for fear of saying the wrong thing.

It would make the investigation much more difficult than it should. Until there is a reason to suspect criminal wrong doing, wouldn't you want to make an already stressful situation as easy for those involved as possible to come to a resolution?

 

[garb811]

There is no such CF MP Gp policy or direction and if you are being directed to do that, it is a local.  I have heard of a certain MPO giving that direction, which is most assuredly wrong, and he's been sorted out on that before.  Would you happen to be in Eastern Canada?

 

[Good2Golf]

I don't want to throw fuel on the fire, but it would seem to me that if you started cautioning for every traffic accident investigation you were involved with, that would put the persons involved on the defensive, and would be less inclined to be cooperative for fear of saying the wrong thing.

It would make the investigation much more difficult than it should. Until there is a reason to suspect criminal wrong doing, wouldn't you want to make an already stressful situation as easy for those involved as possible to come to a resolution?

Once an individual is cautioned, they need only confirm their identity, and then need say nothing more to the PO thereafter.  They can then ask the PO if: a) they are being detained, or b) they are being charged.  If the answer to either a) or b) is no, then they are free to leave, so long as they have provided their license, insurance and contact details to the other driver.  This information provided to me by an OPP Sgt neighbour, who is scratching his head why any PO would be directed to without exception caution all drivers involved in a MVA. The formal reference would be: "heard from a guy I don't know and have never met, who heard something from a guy he says he lives near who he says if a provincial peace officer, but which I cannot confirm, nor deny, nor confirm, nor deny..."  That should work well for the OP...

 

[Dissident]

FWIW I am in agreement with all four of you.

 

[Tibbson]

I don't want to throw fuel on the fire, but it would seem to me that if you started cautioning for every traffic accident investigation you were involved with, that would put the persons involved on the defensive, and would be less inclined to be cooperative for fear of saying the wrong thing.

It would make the investigation much more difficult than it should. Until there is a reason to suspect criminal wrong doing, wouldn't you want to make an already stressful situation as easy for those involved as possible to come to a resolution?

Not only that but the argument could be made (I know because I've made it to my subordinates in the trade) that if you automatically charter/caution then that indicates you have formed the opinion that a criminal offence may have taken place.  That kinda situates the estimate and slants the entire proceedings the MP is under taking.  I can see the exchange in court now...."Cpl Jones, why did you charter and caution my client.  What offence did you feel had taken place before you even started to conduct your investigation?  Ummm, I had no offence in mind Mr Defence Attorney.  I was just doing what I was told to do by my Sgt?

There are plenty of legal opinions out there, both military and civilian, that speak of persons being "over cautioned" when it is not required.  If a young patrolman isn't comfortable with the direction he has been given he is more then within his rights to question what he was told.  Not as an exercise in doubting his supervisors but as an exercise in professional development and ensuring professional competence.  (I remember an incident many years ago when an MP was ordered to go and arrest someone.  He did so, as he was ordered, and when the matter rightly blew up and he was called to testify in court the only reason he could give for the arrest was because he was ordered to by his Sgt.  Of course, the grounds for arrest didn't exist and those involved rightly wore the matter).  If he's not satisfied with the answer then he's got a moral and, I would argue, a legal responsibility to seek further clarification from the local AJAG or RMP. 

Personally, based upon my years of experience, I don't see a need for what he has been directed to do and I'd question it also. 

 

[rocksteady]

There is no such CF MP Gp policy or direction and if you are being directed to do that, it is a local.  I have heard of a certain MPO giving that direction, which is most assuredly wrong, and he's been sorted out on that before.  Would you happen to be in Eastern Canada?

No.