Rights and Obligations when stopped by a Traffic Officer

Introduction

This article constitutes an outline in respect of roadblocks and so-called “roadside checks”, as they are catered for in law and implemented in practical application. Although it contains quite a bit of information, it is not a comprehensive guide and does not encompass everything there is to know about such operations.

Definitions and legalities

Roadblock

A “roadblock”, as its name suggests, is recognisable by the blockage of the road by law enforcement officials. These may be police or traffic officers, or a combination thereof. The road is physically blocked in one or both directions. Roadblocks actively impede the flow of traffic.

Roadblocks are regulated by Section 13(8) of the South African Police Service Act, No. 68 of 1955.

Section 13(8)(a) provides:

“The National or Provincial Commissioner may, where it is reasonable in the circumstances in order to exercise a power or perform a function referred to in section 215 of the Constitution, in writing authorise a member under his or her command, to set up a roadblock or roadblocks on any public road in a particular area or to set up a checkpoint or checkpoints at any public place in a particular area.”

However, it is important to note that it appears that the powers of the National or Provincial Commissioner in terms of subsection (a) have been delegated to Station Commanders.

I am not going to regurgitate the entire provisions of Section 13(8) of the SAPS Act. Instead, its important points are briefly paraphrased below:

• The written authorisation must specify the date, approximate duration, place and object of the proposed action.
• Proper signage, traffic cones, barriers, etc. must be placed near and at the roadblock.
• Failure to stop for a roadblock is a criminal offence.
• Search and seizure without a warrant is authorised. You must cooperate and submit to such search and seizure. Evidence may be summarily seized.
• Anyone whose constitutional rights and/or rights in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, No. 51 of 1977 are affected by a roadblock may demand to see the written authorisation for it. Any law enforcement official must immediately produce and present that authorisation. In practice, such people comprise anyone caught up in a roadblock.

Exceptions to the rules above

Notwithstanding the above, a roadblock may, however, be set up and search and seize property or persons without obtaining prior authorisation, if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that:

• a person who has committed an offence in terms of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedure Act who has been involved in the commission thereof is, or is about to be, travelling in a motor vehicle in a particular area;
• a person who is a witness to such an offence is absconding and is, or is about to be, travelling in a motor vehicle in a particular area and that a warrant for his or her arrest has been issued 1977, or that such a warrant will be issued if the information at the disposal of the law enforcement official is brought to the attention of the magistrate, regional magistrate or judge referred to in that section, but that the delay in obtaining such warrant will defeat the object of the roadblock;
• a person who is reasonably suspected of intending to commit an offence and who may be prevented from committing such an offence by the setting up of a roadblock is, or is about to be, travelling in a motor vehicle in a particular area;
• a person who is a fugitive, after having escaped from lawful custody is, or is about to be, travelling in a motor vehicle in a particular area;
• any object which –
  • is concerned in;
  • may afford evidence of; or
  • is intended to be used in the commission of an offence and which is, or is about to be, transported in a motor vehicle in a particular area and that a search warrant will be issued by a Court and that any delay in obtaining one will lead to the loss of the opportunity to take action.

What if no written authorisation is produced?

If the written authorisation cannot be or is not produced, do not try to take it up at the roadside. Rather report the matter to the Station Commander at the SAPS station with jurisdiction later, and if you don’t gain satisfaction, to SAPS provincial or National Headquarters. You may also be entitled to take civil action, so consult with an attorney.

“Roadside checks”

So-called “roadside checks” differ considerably from roadblocks in that at such operations the road is not blocked. Instead, traffic officers park at the side of the road and pull random vehicles off to check vehicle and driver fitness. They do not actively impede the flow of traffic.

Amongst other things, Section 3(I) of the National Road Traffic Act, No. 93 of 1996 provides:

“a traffic officer may, subject to the provisions of this Act or any other law – … (b) when in uniform, require the driver of any vehicle to stop such vehicle…”

It is important to note that, together with traffic officers employed by local and provincial authorities, SAPS members and Metro Police are, by legal definition, “traffic officers”.

Section 3I (that’s the number “3” and the letter “I”) of the National Road Traffic Act does not authorise search and seizure without a warrant, however, this does not mean that search and seizure is strictly forbidden:

• traffic officers are authorised to demand that you produce any document in terms of road traffic and transport legislation and such document/s may be seized if they are defective or fraudulent;
• such documents include:
  • a learner’s and/or driving licence;
  • a professional driving permit;
  • a vehicle licence disc;
  • an operator card (where required); and
  • an operating permit in terms of road transport legislation (where required).
• your person or property may be searched if any of the reasonable grounds detailed in the “exceptions to the rules” in respect of roadblocks exist; or
• if you consent to a search.

Note in respect of “roadside checks”

Despite the term being widely used and operations being mounted ad nauseum by law enforcement officials, no legal definition for a “roadside check” exists. Regrettably, this has led to widespread abuse by Metro Police and traffic authorities that establish what are effectively roadblocks, without authorisation in terms of the SAPS Act, and call them “roadside checks” to circumvent the law and the Constitution.

The legal and constitutional validity of so-called “roadside checks” has been called into question by numerous individuals and organisations, however, at this juncture, I am not aware of any legal challenges that have been mounted.

I share their concerns, but such concerns did not fall within the scope of my personal constitutional litigation before the Pretoria High Court in respect of, amongst other things, the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (“AARTO”) Act and the National Road Traffic Regulations.

What may and may not be done at roadblocks and “roadside checks”

• Law enforcement officials may:
  • search your person and/or property without a warrant at a properly authorised roadblock;
  • search your person and/or property at a “roadside check” without a warrant if you consent to a search or they have reasonable grounds to do so;
  • seize any “contraband” or evidence without a warrant at a roadblock or a “roadside check”
  • issue an infringement notice (“fine” in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act or the AARTO Act, as applicable) in respect of vehicle or driver fitness, together with passengers’ compliance with provisions of law;
  • issue a notice to discontinue use of a motor vehicle if it is suspected of being unroadworthy, or impound it if it is clearly unroadworthy;
  • arrest any person who has been, or they reasonably suspect has been involved in, or is about to commit an offence contemplated in Schedule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, without obtaining a warrant of arrest;
  • arrest any person in respect of whom a warrant of arrest has been issued by a Court;
  • arrest any person who commits any offence in his or her presence;
  • drive or ride any class of vehicle if they consider it necessary to do so, even if he or she only possesses a code B driving licence; and
  • inform you of your outstanding traffic fines.
• Law enforcement officials may not:
  • physically or verbally abuse you or damage your property;
  • search your person or property without a warrant except at a roadblock or where reasonable grounds to do so exist, or you consent to a search;
  • merely threaten to arrest you;
  • solicit a bribe;
  • force you to pay traffic fines at the roadside, even if a facility such as a bus is there for you to do so;
  • withhold the prompt return of your driving licence in order to coerce you into paying outstanding traffic fines where no warrant of arrest exists or your driving licence card is not fraudulent; or
  • discontinue or impound your vehicle without reasonable grounds.
• You may:
  • demand to have sight of his or her certificate of appointment (a card authorising him or her to act as a peace officer);
  • demand that any law enforcement official shows you written authorisation as is contemplated in Section 13(8) of the SAPS Act at a roadblock;
  • demand to see proof of a warrant of arrest if one is claimed to exist;
  • refuse to submit to arbitrary searches of your person or property at a “roadside check”, unless reasonable grounds therefor exist.
• You may not:
  • physically or verbally abuse them or damage their property;
  • refuse to provide a breath alcohol or blood sample;
  • resist arrest; or
  • offer or pay a bribe.

What the Constitution holds

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (“the Constitution”) is comprehensive and is one of the best in the world. It is the Supreme Law of the Land and affords rights to all persons (citizens or not) in South Africa. These rights are contained in the “Bill of Rights” in terms of Chapter 2 of the Constitution. Any law or action that is inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid and illegal.

Many of your rights are not absolute and may be restricted if there is a reasonable reason therefor. This is contained in Section 36 of the Constitution.

You are strongly advised to obtain a copy of the Constitution and specifically, to read and fully comprehend Chapter 2 of it, so you may be properly informed of your constitutional rights. You may obtain a free copy from the Constitutional Court, by downloading it here, or downloading a slimline version of the Bill of Rights here.

Rights and Obligations when stopped by a Traffic Officer at Roadblocks and Roadside Checks

Practical advice

Without derogating from any of the provisions of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights therein, or any other laws, there is what is provided for in the Constitution and other laws, and what happens in practice.

The very worst thing one can say to a law enforcement official is “I know my rights!”, or to try and tell them how to do their job. Although it should not be so, doing so can, and often does trigger abusive behaviour.

If your rights in terms of the Constitution or any other law are or are about to be infringed on, do not try and have it out at the roadside, at police cells, etc. Law enforcement officials are not judicial officers and the roadside is not a Court.

Rather do the following:

• be specific in terms of what right/s you feel are being, or are about to be infringed – e.g. “I do not consent to a search without a warrant and would like to know what Schedule 1 offence you have reasonable grounds to suspect I have committed or am about to commit”;
• note as many details as you can – e.g. vehicle registration numbers, officers’ names, date, time, location, etc.;
  • you are not prohibited by law from taking photographs or videos in public places, including at roadblocks or “roadside checks”;
  • however, you should be sensible and refrain from shoving cell phones at law enforcement officials because they tend to become irate;
  • if you don’t take photographs or videos, write things down as soon as possible since human memory tends to diminish and/or become clouded over time.
• ask for a printout of your outstanding traffic fines, if that is the purpose of the operation, and politely say “I will take the appropriate action in respect of them in due course”;
• promptly take the appropriate action in respect of any traffic fines you may have, especially if you are aware of them before you are caught up in a roadblock or “roadside check”;
• report abuses to the appropriate authorities; and
• report any attempts at the solicitation of bribes or other forms of extortion to the SAPS 24/7/365 anti-corruption hotline on (082) 820 6467; or
• call the SAPS emergency call centre on 10111 if necessary.

Remember that where your constitutional rights are infringed, you may well have recourse through civil litigation. Consult with your attorney if you feel that any of your constitutional rights have been infringed.

End of the year checkup: Everything has turned to shit

Also: wrongful convictions; Casper; ChatGPT will become an advertising machine; fun with robotics

by Tim BousquetDecember 31, 2025

---

I sometimes amuse myself by thinking back fondly about how in 2020 everyone was saying “I can’t wait for this year to end,” so much so that the song above, “This Year” by The Mountain Goats, already then a decade old, became a brief hit again.

(I prefer the late 2019 video with Stephen Colbert over the original 2011 artsy vid, as a pudgy John Darnielle and an overly enthusiastic Colbert were exactly the medicine we needed in 2020.)

We all sang along: “I am gonna make it through this year if it kills me; I am gonna make it through this year if it kills me.”

Alas, the expectation that “There will be feasting and dancing in Jerusalem next year” was premature.

We of course did not know in 2020 that everything would get even more shittier, then shittier and shittier, and shittier still. We did not know that fascists would take control of the United States; that once-tamed diseases would again run rampant because of disinformation and lies; that even the window dressing of concern about climate change would be ripped down in the name of private profit; that a handful of the very richest men on Earth would abscond with still more of the shared wealth, creating an oligarchy such as would make even the robber barons of old blush; that Elon Musk would dismantle the international aid system, killing millions; that shameless hucksters would foist a garbage tech upon us that steals our creations, devalues our humanity, exploits workers, trashes the environment, and kills our children; that everyone and everything would become just so damn stupid.

We did not know in 2020 that innocence, empathy, and love would be demonized.

But here we are.

So we shift the baseline once again, fit ourselves into the world we have and not the world we would prefer, but find the energy to power on to work for the world we want. Somehow we find hope, because what else are we going to do?

Forgive my dour mood. The end of the year makes me more reflective, and to be reflective in December 2025 is to be dour.

There’s nothing much in real news this time of year, and the turn of the calendar is as good a time as any to clear out the cobwebs, so today’s Morning File is just a couple of knickknacks echoing through my mind.

(To send or post this item, copy the website address at the top of this page.)

---

1. Wrongful convictions

I hadn’t anticipated that so much of my career would be focused on wrongful convictions. That started in 2014 when I stumbled upon the case of Glen Assoun, and since then I’ve looked at so many others I can’t count them all, but the most notable include the cases of Randy Riley and Daniel Sampson.

A common denominator in many of the cases is police and prosecutorial malfeasance.

All of us humans make mistakes, and so all human institutions will fail. We can forgive and correct for normal human shortcomings. But what makes police and prosecutorial actions in these cases so damnable is that they either were aware of their mistakes and covered them up, or worse, knew right from the start what they were doing was wrong and did it anyway.

Cops framed Daniel Sampson and he was executed. That was no “mistake”; it was murder.

Cops manufactured evidence against Glen Assoun, and prosecutors presided over a kangaroo trial to get a guilty verdict, then other cops destroyed evidence that would have cleared Assoun of the crime. That was no institutional failure; it was a crime.

Prosecutors in the Randy Riley case knew they relied on a witness who — well, I’m precluded by court order to tell you about it — but when I reported on that thing that the court subsequently ordered me not to report on, the prosecutors threatened to throw me in jail. I don’t know what that was, but it wasn’t justice.

There are hundreds of wrongful convictions, including in Canada. A recent one is the case of Tim Rees, who just before Christmas was finally exonerated for the murder of 10-year-old Darla Thurrott. Explains Innocence Canada:

Tim spent a horrifying 23 years in prison before finally being released on parole in October 2016. He never stopped proclaiming his innocence and looking for help to clear his name. Innocence Canada adopted Tim’s case that same year and, in 2018, filed an application for ministerial review with the Justice Minister’s office. The primary basis for his application was the nondisclosure of important and crucial evidence: a tape recording of a highly incriminating conversation was withheld from Tim’s defence. As part of Innocence Canada’s review of Tim’s case, a request was sent in 2016 to the Toronto Police for access to the original investigative files. The Toronto Homicide Cold Case Squad discovered a box regarding Tim’s case, which included the tape recording and turned it over to Innocence Canada.   

The recorded conversation was between the police and Darlene Thurrott’s and Bill Wilson’s landlord, James Raymer, who lived in the same house and slept in the room immediately across from Darla’s bedroom. This recording clearly incriminated Raymer (now deceased) as a viable alternative suspect. Had the missing tape recording been disclosed in 1989, it is highly doubtful that Tim would have been tried or convicted of Darla’s murder.   

On Thursday, November 27, 2025, thirty-six years after Tim’s conviction, the Ontario Court of Appeal quashed his conviction for the murder of 10-year-old Darla Thurott and ordered a new trial.  

Raymer was “the son of an Ontario Provincial Police officer,” reports the Toronto Star:

In the recorded conversation, Raymer, who was described in court documents as having physical and intellectual disabilities, admits that he made sexual advances toward Thurrott and would “have fun” with her late into the night. 

And on the night she was killed, he said he went into her room to “kiss her goodnight.” 

Innocence Canada characterizes the withholding of the tape as “professional misconduct.”

Since we’re talking about police and prosecutorial misconduct, let’s back up and consider that once-vaunted policing organization, the FBI, which was celebrated for its investigatory prowess in a seemingly unlimited number of TV series. Much of that investigatory work, however, was just junk science.

In 2015, Spencer S. Hsu reported for the Washington Post:

The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.

Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.

The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.

…

The admissions mark a watershed in one of the country’s largest forensic scandals, highlighting the failure of the nation’s courts for decades to keep bogus scientific information from juries, legal analysts said.

Along with police and prosecutorial misconduct and eyewitness misidentification, junk science is one of the major causes of wrongful convictions. A prosecutor puts an “expert witness” on the stand who talks about blood splatter patterns or bite marks or some such science-y sounding bullshit, and a credulous jury doesn’t question it.

Hello!

We hope you’re enjoying our work. If you’d like to support us with a recurring subscription, please click this button. We really appreciate it.

One particular junk science I’ve been reviewing is shaken baby syndrome. Many, perhaps most, cases of “shaken baby” deaths have a better, non-criminal explanation. I’ll have much more to report on this later, but convicting people of killing children by way of shaking the children in their care was a regular occurrence, including in Nova Scotia, until it wasn’t.

The issue was even raised in the provincial legislature, and it’s pretty clear, to me at least, that the convicted in that case was completely innocent. (If she wants to speak, please reach out.) It was then learned that the long-time provincial medical examiner proclaiming people were guilty of shaking their babies to death was utterly unqualified for the job, and he was pushed into retirement.

Since then, there have been very few people accused of shaken baby murders in Nova Scotia; one rare case I’m aware of involves a man who may in fact be guilty of child neglect and/or abuse, but it’s telling that he was a poor person of colour and an immigrant, and so in no position to mount a defence against the charge.

I’ll leave that there for the moment.

I was heartened in October when federal Minister of Justice Sean Fraser granted an appeal in the case of Russell Woodhouse, who died in 2011, overturning Woodhouse’s conviction of manslaughter and ordering a new trial, which in effect exonerates Woodhouse. It shows Fraser is open to posthumous appeals, as is the case with Daniel Sampson.

But there’s also a glitch in the system, reports the Globe and Mail:

One year after the federal government announced the creation of a dedicated Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission to assess and resolve potential wrongful conviction cases, no staff have been hired and no office space has been secured.

The delays are frustrating to advocates and lawyers, who say clients fighting to have their convictions overturned have been left in a state of limbo.

…

The Canadian legislation was based on similar models in the United Kingdom and New Zealand – all of which saw significant increases in identified and remedied wrongful convictions once their commissions were established, the Canadian government has said.

But progress here has stalled.

“The Commission is not yet operational nor accepting applications for wrongful conviction reviews,” Kwame Bonsu, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, said in an e-mail on Dec. 17.

Mr.Bonsu said the next steps will be appointing commissioners, developing procedural policies and securing a physical workspace for the commission.

“I find it quite extraordinary,” said James Lockyer, founding director of Innocence Canada, who represented Mr. Milgaard in his bid to overturn his wrongful conviction. “We’ve now passed the one-year anniversary of the legislation, which was announced with fanfare. And they’ve done nothing.”

I don’t know if or how that delay will affect the appeal of Daniel Sampson.

I’ll be speaking publicly with Sampson’s great-great-grandson, Lance Sampson, aka the musician Aquakultre, at an event at the law school in early February. I hope to have some more exciting news on the story at that time.

(Send this item: right click and copy this link)

---

2. Casper

As I was researching the province’s bilateral agreements with universities for an article on the Huron Consulting Group, I stumbled upon a weird story about a software program called Casper, short for the Computer-Based Assessment for Sampling Personal Characteristics.

Casper is used by medical schools to process student applications. “The company behind the test, Acuity Insights, claims the Casper helps schools predict which students will have career success by assessing “soft skills” — from empathy and ethics to judgment and communication,” reported the CBC in April.

But the test is yet another example of junk science. Applicants aren’t told what their grade is, and “there is no evidence that Casper predicts future performance,” Jennifer Cleland, an internationally renowned researcher in the area of selection to medical school, and professor of medical education research at Singapore’s Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, told the CBC.

Cleland looked at the underlying research Acuity Insights says it used to create the test and found it worthless and self-serving.

At the time the CBC article was published in April, Casper was sold to 12 medical schools across Canada, including Dalhousie University’s. As well, the test was being used by “nursing, dentistry and physical therapy to undergraduate programs such as the University of Alberta’s bachelor of education program and the University of Western Ontario’s engineering school.” It was being used by Dalhousie’s nursing school.

My understanding is that Dal began using Casper after Taylor Samson was murdered by William Sandeson, a student in the medical school.

Applicants saw problems with Casper early on. In 2022, an applicant to the University of Alberta’s medical school called it out in a post on Reddit:

I am convinced the test’s primary purpose is to make money for the Acuity Insights corporation. I cannot imagine why any program would make it a requirement if bribes aren’t involved.

First, the test is opaque upon opaque. You are not told how the test will be scored, there is no rubric, there is no review, there is no exact marks, and there are no examples of what success or failure look like…

The fact you need to verify your ID and keep your webcam on during the test really makes me feel open to discrimination. If the test wants to give lower marks to one race or gender it could just do that, and we wouldn’t be able to tell because again there is no review of the evaluation process. I don’t think there are any safeguards for something like the CASPer test handing out lower scores to Asians except the company’s word. All of this secrecy is ripe for abuse.

It also creates unnecessary barriers for people trying to apply to the program. It is 60ish or so dollars to a private company, and that is enough money to be meaningful to a lot of people struggling financially. Not to mention it requires you to have access to a webcam, computer, and microphone (and an area where you can be alone to do it, so no using something like a library computer for this). These are all barriers the university is putting up for applicants all so we can give some private company 60 dollars.

I would honestly be surprised if a human even evaluates these tests and it doesn’t just pop out a score randomly. I also assume Acuity sold my data for some extra money.

That unnamed applicant presaged the results of an academic study conducted two years later, in 2024, by three Boston-area researchers, who found that:

Our results suggest that CASPer scores favor White applicants over Black and Hispanic ones and applicants attending US medical schools over those attending international medical schools.

This shouldn’t shock anyone. How does one test for empathy? The very notion is absurd, but it necessarily involves creating test questions and anticipated results and rubrics that are crafted by people, most often white people whose biases imbue the test. We see this time and again with various computer algorithms that are sold as impartial and objective — the biases are built right into them.

But this year there was an additional rub added to Casper: Acuity Insights began using AI to score the tests.

Of course they did.

Consider this: a test for human soft skills is being graded by a computer.

To the province’s credit, this year’s bilateral agreement with Dalhousie included recommendation #58:

Consider removing CASPer as an entrance requirement for B.Sc.N program. We are interested in ensuring consistency and low barrier entry to health programs to ensure maximum enrolment and graduation of health professionals, and in particular nurses. Other schools in the province have taken steps to remove CASPer from the admission process for the B.Sc.N. and we would like more information from Dalhousie on this potential action. We would like to understand the potential benefits (such as whether this would increase the pool of potential nursing students) and any drawbacks (including whether this could decrease barriers to entry, particularly for students from underrepresented groups).

That was specific to the nursing program, and I’m told that that program has in fact stopped using Casper. Given the holidays, I haven’t yet checked whether other programs at Dalhousie have dropped the test.