BEFORE I answer this week's question, let me first say thank you for your warm response to my last column asking for more questions.
It seems, (and I promise not to be hurt by this - not deeply, at any rate) that you don't want me to write an editorial just yet.
I'm glad for it. I know there are always questions to be asked of the police, and I would rather write about the things that are on your mind than about those that are on mine. I'm also happy to report that many of the questions you sent in, the editor tells me, have to do with issues other than traffic and driving. I'm glad for this, too - questions of this type tend to touch on more meaningful issues of crime and justice. To my delight, they are also usually more colourful.
So you want questions with bite? No problem.
QUESTION
When I was stopped by a couple of police officers because I looked like some one who had taken something from a store, the officer told me to stop and take my hands out of my pockets. Next, he told me to empty the contents of my pockets and give him my name and contact information.
I asked him why was I being stopped and he told me that I fit the description of the thief.
I assured him that I was not he, and that the longer we chatted the further the thief was getting away. My problem and question about this stop is that I knew that I did not have to give my name and contact information. But the officer and his buddy told me that I could be charged with obstruction if I didn't give them my information.
I have since found out that we do not live in a police state yet, and I could not be charged with obstruction.
What do you say, copper? Bruce Branch North Vancouver
Dear Mr. Branch:
Thank you for your question.
Case-specific questions such as yours can be difficult to answer. Officers make decisions and develop their reasons for doing things based on a constellation of factors, some fundamental and others very subtle and subjective. I can, however, speak to the concept of Obstructing a Peace Officer in general. Hopefully that will help to inform our understanding of your situation.
Section 129 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to wilfully obstruct a police officer who is in the lawful execution of his or her duties. The section speaks to any effort undertaken by a person to make it more difficult for an officer to do his or her job.
That said, the officer must be acting pursuant to a lawful purpose and the obstruction must take form in an intentional, overt act. For example, the Motor Vehicle Act requires a driver to provide identification when stopped by an officer. If this person gives the officer a fake name then he or she has likely committed the offence - the officer was acting under lawful authority and the provision of a fake name made performing his or her duties more difficult.
A case such as yours becomes a little more difficult to dissect. In general, police officers cannot simply walk up to a person and demand identification. In this sense you are correct when you say that a person does not need to provide his name to an officer who approaches on the street and asks for it. If a person is under no legal obligation to provide his name then there likely exists no lawful authority for an officer to demand it.
On the other side of the coin, however, a person may not realize what information or belief an officer possesses that might constitute such a lawful authority. A person's refusal to provide information may add to that belief; there are many cases where a criminal's elusive behaviour has added to an officer's grounds to believe he had identified the culprit. Most people would also have the same question running through the officer's head: "If this person is innocent, why is she so reluctant to give me her name?"
Ultimately, questions surrounding the legalities of specific cases can only be answered by a judge who has heard all of the details, the context and the circumstances of the situation. In any case, a person who feels he or she has been treated wrongly should make an inquiry or, if necessary, a complaint.
As a side note, I want to clear up a common misconception. It may be of some surprise to readers that you have used the term "copper" quite correctly. It, and "cop," its shortened, more common version, does not, as many believe, come from an abbreviation for "constable on patrol." Nor does it refer to the copper buttons on the uniforms worn by many officers of old. In fact, copper was an early 1800's term used for the bobbies of London, those iconic lawmen created by the forefather of modern policing, Sir Robert Peel, and was derived from the 1700's term "to cop", meaning to seize, capture or snatch. The moniker likely has its roots in either the French term "caper" or the Latin "capere," both of which mean to seize, or take. Although I prefer to think of myself as a giver, I do, here and there, snatch up a bad guy, and that makes me, quite truly, a copper.
Sgt. Peter DeVries Professional Standards Unit North Vancouver RCMP Follow Peter on Twitter at www.twitter.com/rcmpdevries
If you have a question for Ask a Cop, email it to editor@nsnews. com or mail it to the attention of the editor, North Shore News, Suite 100 - 126 East 15th St., North Vancouver, B.C., V7L 2P9.
