# Wrongfully accused of a hit-and-run



## RatsOnMacAttack (Mar 5, 2005)

Need a little advice here. I got a call from the city police last night, apparently someone is accusing me of a hit-and-run. They are saying I knocked them over while driving, they were on a bicycle. The incident happened almost a month ago. The story is, I had stopped at a local convenience store after work to pick up a few things, when I came out, a sketchy looking man on a bicycle asked me for a cigarette. I told him no, in no uncertain terms. I wasnt polite about it, but neither was he. Now he makes up this story that I hit him with my van. I have no witnesses, neither did he. Im not sure if he told the police there were any witnesses (ive had people make up witness stories against me before, for driving accidents) There are no security cameras on the area in question and I dont know if he had any injuries when he called the police. But what I do know is, when I drove off, he was still on his bike, middle finger raised high. I dont have the best driving record, (I actually have a hit and run already on my record, for bumping into a car in a safeway parking lot and not noticing it) but I certainly did not hit him. I have an appointment this Saturday afternoon to speak to the investigating officer. Im pretty nervous about this, I dont want to be blamed for something I did not do. Any advice?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Get a lawyer.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Get a lawyer to tell you how to answer the questions. Sounds like bicycle bum is looking for a cash settlement. Is the time delay because the bike bum reported it late, or because it took this long to find you?


----------



## RatsOnMacAttack (Mar 5, 2005)

The guy reported it that day, within 20 minutes of our encounter. The police didnt know how to find me, the store has no cameras so the police pulled the debit receipts from that time and tracked me through my bank. I cant really afford a lawyer. This sucks.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

RatsOnMacAttack said:


> I cant really afford a lawyer. This sucks.


"Afford a lawyer" is relative. Can you afford the grief this could cause? In Ontario the Law Society offers a referral service for a free 1/2 hour consultation. I don't know where you are but you would be well advised to check out all options especially with your record.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I don't think getting a lawyer at this point is a good idea.
Certainly not if the intent is to show up on Saturday with the lawyer in tow - that would just make the investigating officer wonder what Rats has to hide to justify hiring a lawyer.
After all, Rats is not being charged with anything at this point.
I would just go in, answer the officers questions including what you posted above as a possible reason why the other person would accuse you of the hit-and-run. 
Already having a hit-and-run conviction against you doesn't help, but regardless.
I think the bottom line will be - who is most credible if there are no impartial witnesses and no other means to determine what actually happened.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

rgray said:


> "Afford a lawyer" is relative. Can you afford the grief this could cause? In Ontario the Law Society offers a referral service for a free 1/2 hour consultation. I don't know where you are but you would be well advised to check out all options especially with your record.


The free consultation is a great idea.


----------



## Flipstar (Nov 7, 2004)

The sad thing is, even if you agree to answer questions, and even though your answers may not seem incriminating in any way. You still run the risk of what you said in the interview room burning you in court.

Remember, You have the right to remain silent. That in itself can't be used against you. 

I'm not a lawyer, and nobody else (likely) on here is a lawyer either. If you need legal help, call Legal Aid Ontario, or look through the yellowpages in your province. ehMac.ca is probably not the best place to look for legal advice. :lmao:


----------



## RatsOnMacAttack (Mar 5, 2005)

I was thinking the same thing, if I show up with a lawyer already, it makes me look more guilty. We do IT work for quite a few lawyers in town, so this morning Ive been calling in a few favors, emailing them looking for advice.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I think if you check, you will find that if the police do not want the lawyer present, they can deny him access to the interview. Too many people think Canadian law is like that of the US where you can say nothing and demand a lawyer. You simply don't have the "right to remain silent" in Canada.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

It's not about showing up with a lawyer "in tow" - I agree that that is not necessarily the best approach to the first interview. It is about knowing your legal position beforehand. At the first interview *appearance* of credibility is everything.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

SINC said:


> You simply don't have the "right to remain silent" in Canada.


This is exactly correct. In this the Canadian system is more like the British where suspects are specifically cautioned that if one fails to mention something that one later tries to use in one's defence one's case will be weakened.


----------



## Flipstar (Nov 7, 2004)

Well that's what happened recently in the Supreme Court right? You don't have a right to have a lawyer present, but you are still able to talk to a lawyer before and during the interrogation if they change charges or something like that?

You do have a right to remain silent.. That's a right. 

Let's get this straight here. The guy isn't even charged with a crime yet. I'm sure he doesn't have to speak if he decides not to? Correct?




SINC said:


> I think if you check, you will find that if the police do not want the lawyer present, they can deny him access to the interview. Too many people think Canadian law is like that of the US where you can say nothing and demand a lawyer. You simply don't have the "right to remain silent" in Canada.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Flipstar said:


> You do have a right to remain silent.. That's a right.


Again I say, no such right exists in Canada.



> The right to silence in Canada is not an absolute rule that requires police to stop interrogating people who have no wish to speak with investigators, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.
> 
> In a 5-4 decision yesterday, the court refused to treat the right to silence, as guaranteed by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in the same manner as the "Miranda" rule so deeply ingrained in the United States, where police must cease questioning anyone who asserts a desire to say nothing.


http://www.thestar.com/News/article/272929


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

That article (and the ruling), says that invoking your right to does not mean police have to stop questioning you.

As for the initial interview - I would personally bring a lawyer with me to any police interview, if only to have an impartial witness to any impropriety.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I would suggest you speak to a lawyer on this matter even if it is *only* duty counsel. Best to know your rights rather than guess.

In my understanding of police procedure, the police take a reverse onus in interviews, that is you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. 

The law of the land is of course you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.



> Again I say, no such right exists in Canada.
> 
> Quote:
> The right to silence in Canada is not an absolute rule that requires police to stop interrogating people who have no wish to speak with investigators, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.
> ...


Seems to be a difference of opinion, on the topic of having to speak, when being interviewed by police, in the matter of an investigation.



Wikipedia said:


> In Canada, equivalent rights exist pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under the Charter, an arrested person has the right:
> to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
> to retain and instruct counsel without delay and be informed of that right;
> to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
> ...


Go to Canadian Warning section 4.2 of this Wiki for the Canadian Police Warning

I can see why some people become upset over "activist judges" and thinking election is better than selection of judges.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The ruling seems to state that even if you refuse to answer questions the police can keep asking them. Not sure it is even relevant here. 

A few years ago an elderly driver clipped the rear wheel of my bike and continued on his way. I am absolutely sure he clipped it as I went down and the wheel was bent. I am equally sure he was completely unaware of it. He was making a right turn, did not stop completely for the red and was so intent on checking traffic from his left he did not notice the crosswalk was occupied. It is entirely possible that his view of me was blocked by a pillar if he did look to the right. He did indeed get the finger!

Point is; it is possible to clip a cyclist and be completely unaware of it. It is also possible that the cyclist deliberately placed his bike in your path and if your attention was elsewhere you might not have noticed.

Whatever else you do, answer questions as briefly and honestly as possible. If questions are ambiguous, you of course have every right to ask the interviewer to clarify the question and should do so!

Good luck!


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

BigDL said:


> Seems to be a difference of opinion, on the topic of having to speak, when being interviewed by police, in the matter of an investigation.


Rats... is not being arrested, so the Wiki quote doesn't even apply.
In any case, I'd go with the Supreme Court of Canada decision rather than what the Wiki says if they are in conflict.
I have seen too many errors in the Wiki to consider what's posted the absolute truth

As to the Canadian legal system, maybe Rats can tells us where he is located. The legal system in Quebec for instance is very different from that in Ontario.

As to remaining silent - even if that were allowed (maybe it is. maybe it isn't) - in any case, what would be the purpose - it's usually, "I refuse to answer that because it will incriminate me" Nothing to incriminate Rats if the facts are as posted originally.
I assume the invetigating officer will probably first want to hear Rats' side of the story. 
First question that comes to my mind - how does Rats even know it has anything to do with the cigarette episode? Maybe it's something totally different.
I find it hard to believe that it took the police almost a month to track him down. Even via debit receipt and via the bank it shouldn't take anywhere near that long.
If the bicycle or rider were in fact hit, why didn't that person just take down the license plate number - it's not that he wasn't there.

best advice in this thread (IMHO) is to talk to a lawyer and lay all the facts on the table with him/her.


----------



## RatsOnMacAttack (Mar 5, 2005)

Just got of the phone with a lawyer, he said not to worry about it, just go in and tell my story. Theres no chance I hit the guy, he was in front of me as I backed out of my spot and beside me when I drove off, and as I was leaving he was still on his bike. 

Im not arrested (yet), im just going in on Saturday to tell my side of things. The investigating officer is on holidays this week, otherwise Id be there right now straightening this out. Id assume that if it was really important, theyd get someone else to handle it. Im not sure. 

Im located in Regina, SK.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> Again I say, no such right exists in Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/News/article/272929


a quote from your article :

"What the common law recognizes is the individual's right to remain silent," said Justice Louise Charron, who wrote the majority decision. "This does not mean, however, that a person has the right not to be spoken to by state authorities."

so you do have a right to remain silent, but the police can still ask questions.

the supreme court has also recently ruled that the police can deny you a lawyer being present during interrogation, but you still have the right to remain silent. the idiocy of our supreme court is they haven't set a time limit for interrogations so police can continue to ask questions for god knows how long.

Not to say that the original poster has to worry about this incident, but i'm surprised a lawyer told him to say anything. from every legal expert i've ever heard from their golden rule has always been don't say anything.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Keep in mind that a hit on his bike would leave damage - paint damage if nothing else - on both the vehicle and likely the bike, and if no such damage exists on either car or bike, I don't see how his story against you is holding much credibility, never mind his apparent lack of witnesses. (And injury to himself.)


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

My only advice (besides consulting your lawyer) is don't over think this. Unless you have clear evidence to prove you DIDN'T do anything, don't try to do the officers job. Don't try and assert that there's no evidence of this person on your car, they could have left fingerprints or planted "evidence" while you were in the store.

Just stay calm, remember clearly as many details about this situation as you can and don't make things up to fill in the blanks. Just be honest, answer questions generously and remind yourself you are not at fault.

Hope it works out for you.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

not that i want to freak out the original poster, but this is worth a watch for anyone who thinks it's a good idea to talk to police:

"Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane

granted, this deals with US law, but the basic principle still applies (perhaps even more so in Canada where an individual has LESS protection under the law).


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

You don't need a lawyer for this. My neighbour is a crown prosecutor. I just asked him for you. He says:

There needs to be demonstrable evidence of the hit (visual/audio evidence), witnesses, damage to your car that can be correlated to his bike (a scratch on your car does not really establish this). It needs to be clear that your car hit him or his bike, usually with paint remnants.

If this can't be reasonably established, then there is no case. 


Best of luck.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

cap10subtext said:


> my only advice (besides consulting your lawyer) is don't over think this. Unless you have clear evidence to prove you didn't do anything, don't try to do the officers job. Don't try and assert that there's no evidence of this person on your car, they could have left fingerprints or planted "evidence" while you were in the store.
> 
> Just stay calm, remember clearly as many details about this situation as you can and don't make things up to fill in the blanks. Just be honest, answer questions generously and remind yourself you are not at fault.
> 
> Hope it works out for you.


+1


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

krs said:


> Rats... is not being arrested, so the Wiki quote doesn't even apply.
> In any case, I'd go with the Supreme Court of Canada decision rather than what the Wiki says if they are in conflict.
> I have seen too many errors in the Wiki to consider what's posted the absolute truth
> 
> ...


My counsel to ROMA also was to speak to a lawyer.

My other point that, people on the internet may not be able to provide up to date advise on legal matters. The best information would come from a lawyer. If cost is a concern then take advantage of any free advise at any point in the process.

I do understand that ROMA is being asked in for an interview with police on Saturday. 

Presently ROMA is a long way from being even "detained" or in a position to ask for help from duty counsel after an arrest. 

There is a continuum in the process. I understand the difference between being detained vs. being arrested or being charged with an offence. One condition doesn't automatically lead to next link on the process.

I have two brothers and a cousin, that are retired RCM Police officers. I also have friends that are retired municipal police officers and from as early as 1967, I was advised by these folks that people in Canada do have a right to remain silent. As far as I know that is still true today.

However as my family and friends info is now dated as they are all retired.

I stand to be corrected. I also wanted to point out to other posters, that have issues with "Activist Judges," that sometimes what we think to be true may not be what we think.

Also I wanted to point out to ROMA that posters can have a difference of opinions on the internet and its not the place to acquire your legal advise on important matters.

I have also stated in the past, to folks who inquire on this board, to seek counsel from a lawyer, that many lawyers will provide a half hour of advise, at no charge to a new prospective client.

I am certainly glad to hear, ROMA did speak to a lawyer, to acquire legal advise.

I also would like to pass along my best wishes to ROMA for a favourable outcome with this matter.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

I was accused of hit and run. Even though there was no damage on the side of my truck that a-hole cop was determined to get me. The truck was white. The car had a black bumper so there should have been a black streak on the truck but there wasn't. This lazy prick didn't want to do a proper investigation so he thought he could intimidate me. He kept telling me bs about so called witnesses, that changed at least 3 times. Finally he says he won't charge me but wants me to sign a paper. When I refuse the a-hole actually gets mad at me and says now he's going to charge me. I said go ahead. Two weeks later he calls to say I don't fit the description the witness gave. A lazy cop doesn't want to do his job and hopes he can intimidate someone to take the blame for something they didn't do. I say have someone with you.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Yes, not a bad idea to have someone with you but make sure it's someone you can trust not to start mouthing off if (in the very unlikely situation: with all due respect to arminia) things get bad.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

i-rui said:


> not that i want to freak out the original poster, but this is worth a watch for anyone who thinks it's a good idea to talk to police:
> 
> "Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane
> 
> granted, this deals with US law, but the basic principle still applies (perhaps even more so in Canada where an individual has LESS protection under the law).


Prof. Duane's speech is something everyone should watch before ever talking to the Police. No doubt, they things he says apply doubly so in Canada due to us not having as many protections as they do. The Police have plenty of reasons to want to get you to talk, but it's seldom for your own good.


----------



## RatsOnMacAttack (Mar 5, 2005)

UPDATE:

I went in on Saturday to give my statement. First off, when the officer came out of her office to call me in, I noticed she had been a customer of mine a few weeks back, I was able to save all her pictures and important data from her failing hard drive. So I was already in her good books. She told me the other partys statement, and that she thought it was full of holes (he said he was behind me in line at the store, but security footage shows I was the only one there at the time.)

So all is well, Im not being charged or anything like that, and the other guy is facing charges for obstruction of justice. It was a good day.:clap:

Thanks to everyone for their advice. I know a Mac forum isnt the best place to get legal advice, but I appreciate the suggestions anyway, it was quite a stressful week for me.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Glad to hear all ended well, thanks for the update.


----------

