garb811 said:
We give our folks latitude with regard to issues like Impaired driving as long as they have been acting in good faith. So, if someone was on a direct route between the base and an armoury to do a security check at 2am and came across an impaired driver, they form RPG, initiate the stop, immediately have the police of jurisdiction notified and have them attend, and then clear the scene as soon as practicable once they are no longer needed, all is good. Problems arise when it becomes obvious that someone is going out of their way to try to find incidents outside the base.
There is case law supporting MP stops off jurisdiction as well provided the civilian police take it over. Unfortunately though, R v Nolan dictates that our Peace Officer status over civilians is confined to Defence Establishments or criminal acts which occurred on a Defence Establishment. So, although we won't give them grief, they really are out on a limb as they are acting under Section 494 and they need to fully understand that which, from my experience, most don't initially...
I'm personally not tracking R v Seguin but will look it up for sure.
Very interesting, thanks. I'm surprised that the expectation would be to wipe their hands of it and clear scene, given that they will be the only ones with the driving evidence, may well be the ones to administer a roadside ASD, and will likely be the ones forming RPG to arrest... Given how quickly an impaired investigation can go (usually under ten minutes from initial stop, through an ASD fail if applicable, to arrest and breath demand), could your guys not easily find themselves with one in custody in the back of the car and the clock ticking to get those samples 'forthwith'?
I completely understand your guys aren't to be out 'hunting' for traffic stuff, that's fair. RCMP in Ottawa only recently have eased up on this too, though there's now a much greater acceptance of doing traffic work. It helps that there are federal parkways in Ottawa under the NCC, and that Ottawa based members will be traveling all over the city to check on embassies, residences, and other federal sites. There is a very strong argument to be made that a modest contribution to municipal policing along those lines (which in this context Ottawa Police are fine with) also helps officers to keep up their basic road skills and officer safety skill, lest they atrophy over years of embassy watching. I have to imagine that in some locations MPs may face similar challenges in getting much experience dealing with different things...
I'll add to the chorus here- this has been a fun, informative, and useful conversation.
Seguin is an interesting case. The impaired investigation itself did not fare well, but the verdict about common law authority to execute vehicle stops for the purposes of public safety was critical, particularly since the ON HTA does not give RCMP any statutory authority to use lights and sirens and pull someone over. I can't say for sure how it will apply to you guys, but I would be surprised were it not informative.
EDIT TO ADD: I just re-read Seguin, and also read Nolan - I had not read that previously. Interesting, Seguin specifically engages Nolan as a comparable case. Seguin
My take? An MP proceeding directly from one military establishment to another for duty related purposes should clearly still be within the scope of their duties, similarly to how Nolan examined that issue for purposes of determining of Criminal Code peace officer status applied. I think the law would here find the border of an MP's peace officer' status under the criminal code. An MP on duty, engaged in the scope of routine MP duties and accepted military practice, should retain that peace officer status. In the event they were to
truly incidentally encounter a threat to public safety, such as a clearly dangerous driver, a violent act in progress, etc, I believe the common law authority discussed in Seguin would apply.
It could go either way in court, ultimately, depending on the strengths of the positions the opposing lawyers presented and the mindset of the judge. But I certainly feel that an MP, moving through civilian turf off base on the way to their next lawful duties, who finds themself behind a clearly dangerous driver who may be impaired, would be justified and acting in good faith if they did a vehicle stop and entered into an impaired driving investigation. I believe the legal razor's edge on this one would also lean in favour of an MP who, in such good faith, acted to protect the public from potential harm at the hands of an impaired driver. I would hope that a member choosing to make the traffic stop in these circumstances would enjoy the support from their chain of command they they may not get from their own conscience should they choose to allow the driver to continue.
I could see some other factors coming into play- road conditions, traffic volume, things like that that speak to the danger to the public from the driver. I don't think these would at all interface with the member's common law authority for the stop, *but* given circumstances like the presence of other traffic, they could lend weight to the expectation that a person driving a car marked 'police' will act to stop a drunk driver.
Further to 'Hmmm..." MP in the circumstances I describe attempts a stop, and the driver takes off. Would the flight from police charge stick? If they fled (and let's assume here no pursuit - MP immediately pulls over and turns off their lights) and a few minutes later causes an accident, could liability fall ont he MP for attempting the stop? Or, MP finds themself behind a drunk driver (let's say in Ottawa, on the way from responding to a call at Uplands to the detachment at NDHQ via the Airport Parkway and Bronson to the 417), finds themselves behind the drunk driver on the parkway, sees numerous dangerous driving behaviours indicating impairment, follows, advises dispatch, who in turn advise OPS, who due to typical call volume take a few minutes to get a car rolling that way... As the car continues onto Bronson and traffic gets heavier, they blow a red light at Sunnyside and smoke a couple pedestrians crossing Bronson with the MP car directly behind watching the whole thing. What liability upon the CAF for the MP not initiating the traffic stop? What do you as the detachment sergeant tell them as their conscience rips them apart?
I completely understand why this subject would cause some MPs to shudder, but it's worth thinking and talking about.
