The Demand for Identification is a Search or Seizure

Police officers have no power to demand your identification- “The common law does not require a citizen to identify oneself or carry identification of any sort. Therefore, while it may be a mark of a good citizen to identify oneself when asked to do so, a police officer must not use force to compel someone to identify oneself if he or she refuses; otherwise, the officer will be guilty of criminal assault and liable to civil damages: Koechlin v. Waugh, (1957), 118 C.C.C. 24. C.C.A.”

R. v. S.H.  [2005] O.J. No. 1735 2005 ONCJ 131

A request for information or identification documentation is a search or seizure within the meaning of the Charter. For the reasons given, I find that the defendant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that this search and seizure is unreasonable.

R. v. Duncan  [2012] O.J. No. 6405 2013 ONCJ 160

28     If no lawful basis for the stop has been articulated, there was no lawful basis for the demand for identification. If there was no lawful demand for identification, the arrest for the alleged “failure to identify”7 was unlawful. If the arrest was unlawful, assuming that Mr. Duncan resisted as described, he was entitled to do so.

“The evidence before me failed to demonstrate that the purported arrest of Mr. Duncan was lawful. A citizen is entitled to resist an arrest that is unlawful. Thus, even assuming that I were to accept the police evidence of Mr. Duncan’s actions as making out the assault beyond a reasonable doubt, an issue that is not entirely free of controversy, a nonsuit and thus an acquittal is the only outcome that is lawfully open to me on the evidence before me.”

R. v. Chronopoulos, 2009 CanLII 18288 (ON SC)- Applies Harris

PC Hayford spoke to both passengers. He asked them for identification and whether they had been in trouble with the law.  Both men were polite and cooperative. Mr. Chronopoulos verbally identified himself and the passenger in the rear seat provided photo identification. This request, in the circumstances, constituted a violation of the Applicant’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure for the reasons that were articulated by Doherty J.A. in Harris para. 43-44:

In the present case, when [the officer] asked for identification, he intended to use that identification to conduct a CPIC search, one of the purposes of which was to determine whether the appellant was under any court orders and in breach of any court orders. I think the officer’s intention to use Harris’s identification to make the various inquiries available through CPIC is akin to an intention to conduct a further more intrusive search after receiving the answer to the request for identification. Grant offers support for my conclusion that the request for identification in the circumstances of this case amounted to a search or seizure for the purposes of s. 8.

44     I conclude that Harris was subject to a seizure when he gave [the officer] his identification. The seizure was warrantless and without reasonable cause. There is no evidence that Harris was aware of, much less waived, any rights under s. 8 of the Charter.