text:
Impaired driving in Canada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Impaired driving is the term used in Canada to describe the criminal offence of operating or having care or control of a motor vehicle while the person's ability to operate the motor vehicle is impaired by alcohol or a drug. Impaired driving is punishable under multiple offences in the Criminal Code, with greater penalties depending on the harm caused by the impaired driving. It can also result in various types of driver's licence suspensions.
There is a related, parallel offence of driving with a blood alcohol level which exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood (.08). The penalties are identical for impaired driving and driving with a BAC greater than .08.
The Criminal Code gives the police a number of powers to assist in the enforcement of the offences, and there are a number of presumptions that assist in the prosecution of the offences.
Contents
[hide]
1 History
2 Testing for alcohol and drugs
2.1 Approved instrument demands
2.1.1 Blood samples
2.2 Approved screening device demands
2.3 Field sobriety tests
2.4 Drug evaluations
2.5 Refusing to comply
3 Proving blood alcohol concentration
3.1 Presumption of accuracy
3.2 Presumption of identity
4 Sentencing
4.1 Driving Prohibitions vs. Suspensions
5 Administrative driver's licence suspensions
5.1 High blood alcohol concentration
5.2 Committing an offence
5.3 Found guilty of an offence
6 See also
7 References
History[edit]
One of the first reported criminal cases regarding drinking and driving in Canada was an Alberta decision in 1920 called R. v. Nickle. In that case, the appeal court found that the act of driving while intoxicated was an unlawful act that could support a manslaughter conviction.[1]
In 1921, the Parliament of Canada first created a summary conviction offence for drinking and driving, called "driving while intoxicated". At the time, the courts interpreted intoxication to mean substantial inebriation, and more than just being under the influence of alcohol. The minimum penalty for the first offence was seven days in jail. The minimum penalty for the second offence was one month in jail. The minimum penalty for a third offence was three months in jail.[2]
In 1925, Parliament amended the Criminal Code to include a new offence of driving while intoxicated by a narcotic. The offences were also amended to include "care or control" of a motor vehicle, not just driving. (See below.)[3]
In 1930, Parliament changed the offence to a hybrid offence, giving the Crown the option to proceed with the more serious indictable offence procedure.[4]
Difficulties arose regarding how to prove someone was in care or control of a motor vehicle, and what the test should be. In 1947, Parliament amended the Criminal Code again, adding a presumption of care or control when a person was found sitting in the driver's seat of a motor vehicle.[3] This did not answer all of the problems regarding the test (i.e. when a person is not found in the driver's seat of a motor vehicle). Many of the court's answers to those questions remain in conflict today.[4]
In 1951, Parliament re-worded the law, making it an offence to operate or have care or control of a motor vehicle while the driver's ability to operate the motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol or other drugs.[4]
The breathalyzer was made into a practical police tool by Robert Frank Borkenstein in 1952, which allowed for the police to measure a person's blood alcohol concentration. The first Canadian test of the breathalyzer was in Ontario in 1954. By 1962, police were using the breathalyzer for "mass testing". However, the test was voluntary, and could only be used as confirmatory evidence.[4]
In 1969 (fifteen years after the introduction of the breathalyzer into Canada), Parliament created an offence of driving while "over 80" (over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood). In 1976, Parliament made the penalty the same as driving while impaired, created the offence of refusing to provide a breath sample (with the same penalties), and created laws allowing the police to use roadside screening devices.[4] Both offences are now set out in the same section of the Criminal Code, section 253.[5]
After 1976, there were additional changes to the minimum penalties, and the introduction of new offences (impaired driving causing bodily harm and impaired driving causing death).
By 2008, drinking and driving cases made up 12 per cent of all criminal charges, making it the largest single offence group. In 2008, it was estimated that 53,000 drinking and driving cases are heard every year in Canada. The conviction rate was 73 per cent, which exceeded the rate for all criminal convictions by 13 per cent. Notwithstanding the higher rate of conviction, drinking and driving cases are more likely to go to trial than any other criminal offence, and are often fought on both technical issues and alleged police violations of section 8, section 9, and section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[6]
2008 also saw the most recent amendments by Parliament to the law on drinking and driving. The Tackling Violent Crime Act came into force on July 2, 2008. The changes included adding new evidentiary restrictions on defendants trying to raise "evidence to the contrary" regarding the presumption of a person's blood alcohol concentration, created mandatory standard field sobriety tests that can be requested by a police officer, created additional means to allow police officers to test for the possible presence of drugs in a driver's body, increased the minimum sentences to their current level ($1000 fine for the first offence, 30 days in jail for the second offence, and 120 days in jail for the third offence), and created new offences for "over 80" causing death or bodily harm and refusing to provide a sample where operation caused death or bodily harm.[7]
Testing for alcohol and drugs[edit]
Approved instrument demands[edit]
If a police officer has reasonable grounds that a person has committed an offence under section 253 within the past three hours due to alcohol, they can demand that a person provide suitable breath samples into an approved instrument.[8] The results of those samples may be introduced as evidence at a later trial. If it is later determined that the officer did not have reasonable grounds, then the taking of the breath samples violated the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the person can apply to have them excluded as evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.
Police officers can obtain reasonable grounds from observations they make and information they receive, including the results of the other demands listed below.
These breath samples are typically taken at a police station by a qualified technician, after a person has been arrested.
Blood samples[edit]
If a person is unable to give breath samples (usually due to injuries suffered from a traffic collision), a police officer can make a demand for blood samples, under the direction of a medical doctor, and performed by the same doctor or a nurse.[8]
Approved screening device demands[edit]
If a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person has alcohol in his or her body, and that he or she has been operating or has had care or control of a vehicle within the past three hours, the police officer can demand that person provide a suitable sample into an approved screening device.[8] These devices are usually calibrated to display fail if a person has a BAC above 0.1 percent, warn or caution if a person has a BAC between 0.05 and 0.1 percent, and a numerical value if the person has a BAC below 0.05 percent.
These breath samples are typically taken at the roadside by an investigating police officer. Typical observations supporting a reasonable suspicion is if a driver has an odour of an alcoholic beverage on their breath, or if they admit they had a drink.
Field sobriety tests[edit]
If a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person has alcohol or drugs in their body, and that they have been operating or have had care or control of a vehicle within the past three hours, they can demand that that person perform physical coordination tests, in order to allow the officer to determine whether to make an approved instrument demand, a blood demand, or a drug evaluation demand.[8]
Drug evaluations[edit]
If a police officer has reasonable grounds that a person has committed an offence under section 253 within the past three hours due to drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol, they can demand that the person submit to an evaluation by an evaluating officer to determine if the person is impaired by drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol.[8] If the evaluating officer has reasonable grounds that the person is impaired by alcohol, they can make an approved instrument demand.[8] If the evaluating officer has reasonable grounds that the person is impaired by drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol, they can make a demand for blood or urine samples.[8] Fatigue toxins and effects due to illness have been held to be drugs for the purposes of the statute.[citation needed]
Refusing to comply[edit]
If any of the above demands are lawfully made, it is a criminal offence to fail or refuse to comply with them, unless the person can show they had a reasonable excuse.[8] The penalties are identical with the penalties for other drinking and driving offences.
Proving blood alcohol concentration[edit]
When a person gives a breath sample into an approved instrument by a qualified technician, a determination still needs to be made of what the person's BAC was at the time of the offence. That requires evidence of two things:
The person's BAC at the time of giving the breath samples, and
Based on the person's BAC at the time of giving the breath samples, the person's BAC at the time of the offence.
Presumption of accuracy[edit]
To work out the person's BAC at the time of giving the breath samples, the prosecutor can rely on a Certificate of a Qualified Technician, which states what the results were of the analysis of the breath samples, and is evidence of its contents.[9] This is commonly referred to as the presumption of accuracy. It is still open for the defence to call evidence showing why the results are not accurate, leaving it for the court to weigh the evidence.
If there is no Certificate, or the Certificate is flawed, the prosecutor can always call the qualified technician to give evidence about the accuracy of the results. The prosecutor may still call the qualified technician if there is a Certificate in order to counter the defence's evidence.
Typically, the Certificate will round the BAC results down to a hundredth of a percentage (e.g. 0.116 percent is truncated to 0.11 percent).
Presumption of identity[edit]
To work out the person's BAC at the time of the offence, the prosecutor generally needs to show the following:
The breath samples were taken as soon as practicable,
The first breath sample was taken within two hours of the offence, and
A second breath sample was taken 15 minutes or more after the first sample.
If the three criteria are met, then the lower of the two results is presumed to be the person's BAC at the time of the offence.[9] This is commonly referred to as the presumption of identity.
The presumption can be rebutted two ways, depending on whether the defence is challenging the accuracy of the results. If defence is challenging the accuracy of the results, they need call evidence that shows:
the approved instrument was malfunctioning or not being operated properly,
the malfunction or improper operation resulted in a reading of a BAC in excess of 0.08 percent, and
the person's BAC would not have been in excess of 0.08 at the time of the offence.
The last criteria is typically met by calling reliable evidence of how much the person had to drink prior to the offence, and expert evidence of what their BAC would have been at the time of the offence as a result of the drinking evidence.
If defence is not challenging the accuracy of the results, they only need to call evidence on the last criteria, and have the expert give evidence why it would not be inconsistent with the breath sample readings.[9] (This is typically called the bolus drinking scenario.)
If the prosecutor is unable to rely on the presumption of identity (usually because the first reading was taken outside of the two hours), they can still "read-back" the readings by calling their own expert evidence.
Sentencing[edit]
See also: Criminal sentencing in Canada
A person convicted for any drinking and driving offence (which includes a refuse to comply offence) faces an automatic Canada-wide driving prohibition, and either a fine or jail sentence and the possibility of probation.
The minimum sentences are:[10][11]
For a first offence, a $1000 fine and a 12-month driving prohibition,
For a second offence, 30 days of jail and a 24-month driving prohibition, and
For a third or subsequent offence, 120 days of jail and a 36-month driving prohibition.
Drinking and driving offences are prior offences for refuse to comply offences, and vice versa.[10]
If no one is hurt or killed, and the prosecutor is proceeding by summary conviction, the maximum sentence is 18 months of jail. If no one is hurt or killed, and the prosecutor is proceeding by indictment, the maximum sentence is 5 years of jail.[10]
If another person suffers bodily harm because of the offence, the maximum sentence is 10 years in jail.[10]
If another person is killed because of the offence, the maximum sentence is a life sentence.[10]
If a person is convicted of both impaired operation/care or control and operation/care or control with a BAC in excess of 0.08 percent, the defendant can only be sentenced for one of the offences (the prosecutor chooses which one).[12] The same does not apply if a person is also convicted of a refuse to comply offence.
A province is allowed to set up special ignition interlock device programs specifically to limit criminal driving prohibitions. Not all provinces have such specific programs, but if they do, and a person is enrolled in one, then they can drive during their prohibition period with an interlock device, beginning as follows:
For a first offence, 3 months after the day of sentence,
For a second offence, 6 months after the day of sentence, and
For a third offence or subsequent offence, 12 months after the day of sentence.
Driving otherwise while on a driving prohibition is a criminal offence.
Driving Prohibitions vs. Suspensions[edit]
Canada is a federal state, and responsibility for road safety with respect to drunk driving falls on both Parliament and the provincial legislatures. Typically after an impaired driving offence is committed, the accused will be subject to both a prohibition imposed under federal law (criminal law) and a driver's licence suspension under provincial law. It is important to note that while Parliament may prohibit an accused from driving, in the absence of provincial legislation, this does not affect the validity of the driver's licence of the accused. Nonetheless the accused may be charged with driving while prohibited under criminal law despite possessing a valid driver's licence.
Often the provincial suspensions are more severe than the criminal prohibition. For instance many jurisdictions require the accused to complete a remedial program and participate in the ignition interlock program, failing which will result in an indefinite suspension until the conditions are met. Also an accused may be suspended from driving for medical reasons if a physician reports that the accused has a serious alcohol problem likely to result in an unacceptable risk to the public should the accused operate a motor vehicle.
The Criminal Code provides that an accused may be prosecuted for either driving while prohibited or driving while disqualified. The former refers to driving in contravention of a criminal court order of prohibition while the latter refers to driving while suspended under provincial legislation relating to a suspension for an impaired driving offence.
Administrative driver's licence suspensions[edit]
Administrative licence suspensions are separate from the driving prohibitions that are ordered as part of a criminal sentence. While drinking and driving are criminal offences, which is the jurisdiction of the Canadian Parliament, the provinces have jurisdiction to regulate their roads and highways (see Canadian federalism). Therefore, the provinces have the ability to administratively suspend a person's driver's licence separately from any criminal proceedings.
Licence suspensions can occur in three ways: 1) having a high BAC, but not enough to commit a criminal offence, 2) a police officer having reasonable grounds that a drinking and driving offence has occurred, and 3) being found guilty of a drinking and driving offence. Driving with a suspended licence can result in being charged with either criminal or provincial offences.
High blood alcohol concentration[edit]
When a person blows into an approved screening device, they might not register a BAC high enough for a fail, but they will still register a significantly high BAC. The provinces deal with that situation in different ways. There may also be different type of suspensions for novice drivers who are not allowed any BAC above zero.
Alberta - Length: 24 hours; Reason: a police officer reasonably suspects the person's ability to operate a vehicle is impaired by alcohol or drug, but does not charge them with a criminal offence. While the 24 hour suspension remains on the books, drivers may also receive a 3-day non-criminal suspension and other penalties should their blood alcohol concentration test 0.05 or over (warning), but not above the criminal 0.08 (failure). New drivers will receive a 30-day non-criminal suspension for a blood alcohol concentration of greater than zero. [13] [14]
British Columbia - Length: 12 hours; Reason: BAC over zero when a licence restriction is in place.[15] Length: 3–30 days depending on prior offences; Reason: BAC over 0.05 percent.[16]
Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia - Length: 24 hours; Reason: BAC over 0.05 percent.[17][18][19]
Newfoundland and Labrador - Length: 24 hours for the first and second suspension, 2 months for the third suspension, 4 months for the fourth suspension, 6 months for the fifth or subsequent suspension; Reason: BAC over 0.05 percent.[20]
Ontario - Length: 3 days for the first suspension, 7 days for the second suspension, 30 days for the third or subsequent suspension; Reason: BAC over 0.05 percent.[21]
Prince Edward Island - Length: 24 hours for the first suspension, 30 days for a second suspension within 2 years, 90 days for the third suspension within 2 years; Reason: BAC over 0.05 percent.[22]
Quebec does not suspend a person's licence if their BAC is below 0.08 percent (except for novice drivers).
Saskatchewan - Length: 24 hours for the first suspension, 24 hours & 15 days for the second suspension, 24 hours & 90 days for the third or subsequent suspension; Reason: BAC over 0.04 percent.[23]
Northwest Territories and Nunavut - Length: 24 hours for the first suspension, 30 days for a subsequent suspension; Reason: BAC over 0.05 percent.[24]
Yukon - Length: 24 hours; Reason: a police officer has reasonable grounds the driver is impaired.[25]
Committing an offence[edit]
If an officer has reasonable grounds to believe a person has committed a drinking and driving offence, besides being allowed to arrest the person, the provinces will suspend the person's driver's licence for a period of time. The same suspensions apply if the person refuses to comply with a breath demand.
Alberta - 90 days generally; 6 months if bodily harm or death is caused.[26]
British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Yukon - 90 days.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]
Found guilty of an offence[edit]
Provinces will suspend a person's driver's licence for a lengthy period of time if they have been found guilty of a drinking and driving offence, and will usually require various types of programs to be completed before or after a licence is reinstated. When programs are required to be completed, the driver is also required to pay the cost.
Alberta - 1 year for the first offence, 3 years for a second offence, 5 years for the third or subsequent offence.[38] A rehabilitative course may be required.[39]
British Columbia - 1 year for the first offence, 3 years for the second offence, indefinitely for the third or subsequent offence. A rehabilitative program, which may include an interlock device program, must be completed.[40]
Manitoba - 1 year for the first offence (2 years for refusing to comply and no other offences), 5 years for the second offence (7 years for refusing to comply and no other offences), 10 years for the third offence, life for the fourth or subsequent offence; If the offence was committed while there was a passenger in the car 16 years old or younger, or caused death or bodily harm, 5 years for the first offence, 10 years for the second offence, life for the third or subsequent offence. If it is a subsequent offence, or if it had a passenger in the car 16 years old or younger, or death or bodily harm was caused, an interlock device will be required.[41]
New Brunswick - 1 year. A drinking driving course is required.[42]
Newfoundland and Labrador - 1 year for the first offence, 3 years for the second offence, 5 years for the third offence, life for the fourth or subsequent offence; 10 years if bodily harm or death was caused. Rehabilitative programs, interlock programs, and alcohol/drug screenings may be required.[43]
Nova Scotia - 1 year for the first offence, 3 years for the second offence, indefinitely for the third or subsequent offence. For the second and subsequent offences, a driver must have an interview with Drug Dependency Services.[44]
Ontario - 1 year for the first offence, 3 years for the second offence, and indefinitely for the third or subsequent offence. They may have to complete a remedial program before have their licence re-issued. The driver will need to have an interlock device for a prescribed period of time.[45]
Prince Edward Island - 1 year for the first offence, 3 years for the second offence, 5 years for the third or subsequent offence. A rehabilitation program may be required.[46]
Quebec - 1 year for the first offence, 3 years for the second offence, 5 years for the third or subsequent offence. If the licence suspension is longer than the driving prohibition, a driver may be able to drive after the prohibition is completed with an interlock device. A rehabilitative course is required.[47]
Saskatchewan - 1 for the first offence, 3 years for the second offence, 5 years for the third or subsequent offence.[48]
Northwest Territories and Nunavut - 1 year for the first offence, 3 years for the second offence, 5 years for the third offence, indefinite for the fourth or subsequent offence. If death is caused, the period is indefinite. A number of rehabilitative programs may be required.[49]
Yukon - 1 year for the first offence, 3 years for the second offence, indefinitely for the third or subsequent offence.[50]
See also[edit]
Driving under the influence
MADD Canada
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Rex v. Nickle (1920), 34 C.C.C 15 (S.C. Alta. App. Div.)
Jump up ^ Kenkel, Joseph F. (2008). Impaired Driving in Canada, 2009 Edition. Markham, Ontario: LexisNexis Canada. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-433-46048-0.
^ Jump up to: a b Impaired Driving in Canada, p 1.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Impaired Driving in Canada, p 2.
Jump up ^ Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 253(1)(a) and (b).
Jump up ^ Impaired Driving in Canada, pp. 2–3
Jump up ^ Impaired Driving in Canada, pp. 35–36
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 254.
^ Jump up to: a b c Criminal Code, RSC 1985, s. 258.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 255.
Jump up ^ Criminal Code, RSC 1989, c C-46, s. 259.
Jump up ^ R. v. Prince (1986), 30 C.C.C. (3d) 35 (S.C.C.)
Jump up ^ Alberta Transportation
Jump up ^ Traffic Safety Act (Alta.), s. 89
Jump up ^ Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), s. 90.3
Jump up ^ Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), s. 215.41
Jump up ^ The Highway Traffic Act (Man.), s. 265
Jump up ^ Motor Vehicle Act (N.B.), s. 310.01
Jump up ^ Motor Vehicle Act (N.S.), s. 279C
Jump up ^ Highway Traffic Act (N.L.), ss. 60.1(9)(a), 60.2
Jump up ^ Highway Traffic Act (Ont.), s. 48
Jump up ^ Highway Traffic Act (P.E.I.), s. 277.1
Jump up ^ Traffic Safety Act (Sask.), ss. 146-147
Jump up ^ Motor Vehicles Act (N.W.T.), s. 116.4
Jump up ^ Motor Vehicles Act (Yuk.), s. 256
Jump up ^ Traffic Safety Act (Alta.), s 88
Jump up ^ Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), ss. 94.1 & 94.2
Jump up ^ The Highway Traffic Act (Man.), s. 263.1
Jump up ^ Motor Vehicle Act (N.B.), s. 310.04
Jump up ^ Highway Traffic Act (N.L.), s. 60.1(9)(b)
Jump up ^ Motor Vehicle Act (N.S.), s. 279A
Jump up ^ Highway Traffic Act (Ont.), s. 48.3
Jump up ^ Highway Traffic Act (P.E.I.), ss. 277.2-277.3
Jump up ^ Highway Safety Code, RSQ, c C-24.2, ss. 202.4-202.5
Jump up ^ Traffic Safety Act (Sask.), s. 148
Jump up ^ Motor Vehicles Act (N.W.T.), s. 116.6
Jump up ^ Motor Vehicles Act (Yuk.), s. 257
Jump up ^ Traffic Safety Act (Alta.), s. 83
Jump up ^ Traffic Safety Act (Alta.), s. 97(2)
Jump up ^ Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), ss. 232-233
Jump up ^ The Highway Traffic Act (Man.), ss. 264(1)-(1.2), 279.1
Jump up ^ Motor Vehicle Act (N.B.), ss. 300 & 301(2)
Jump up ^ Highway Traffic Act (N.L.), ss. 65 & 195
Jump up ^ Motor Vehicle Act (N.S.), ss. 67(5)(ba) & (15)
Jump up ^ Highway Traffic Act (Ont.), ss. 41-41.2
Jump up ^ Highway Traffic Act (P.E.I.), s. 312(y)
Jump up ^ Highway Safety Code, RSQ, s 76.
Jump up ^ Traffic Safety Act (Sask.), s. 141
Jump up ^ Motor Vehicles Act (N.W.T.), ss. 77.1, 116.14
Jump up ^ Motor Vehicles Act (Yuk.), s. 255
[hide]
v
t
e
Traffic law and safety
Rules of the road
All-way stop
Assured Clear Distance Ahead
Australian Road Rules
Boulevard rule
Green Cross Code
Move over law
New Zealand Road Code
Overtaking
Right- and left-hand traffic
Right-of-way
School bus traffic stop laws
Traffic code
Turn on red
Vienna Convention on Road Traffic
Road user guides
Driver's manual
The Highway Code
The Highway Code (Malta)
Road Users' Code
Rules of the Road (Ireland)
Enforcement
Breathalyzer
Camera
Enforcement
Red light
Highway patrol/State police
Parking enforcement
Road traffic control
Textalyzer
Traffic court
Traffic guard
Traffic stop
Traffic ticket
Warning
Speed limit
Advisory speed limit
Assured Clear Distance Ahead
National Maximum Speed Law
School zone
Speed limit enforcement
Speed limits by country
Category: Speed limits by country
Moving violations
Driving under the influence
Canada
United States
Distracted driving
Mobile phones and driving
Texting while driving
Reckless driving
Street racing
Tailgating
Vehicular homicide
Wrong-way driving
Driver licensing
Commercial driver's license
European driving licence
Graduated driver licensing
Inter-American Driving Permit
International Driving Permit
Learner's permit
Point system
Driving licences by country
List of countries by minimum driving age
Traffic violations reciprocity
Commercial Driver's License Information System
Driver License Agreement
Driver License Compact
Non-Resident Violator Compact
Parking
Alternate-side parking
Decriminalised parking enforcement
Disabled parking permit
Double parking
Parking chair
Parking violation
Wheel clamp
Car safety
Seat belt laws
Click It or Ticket
Clunk Click Every Trip
Road safety
Tachograph
Digital tachograph
Drivers' working hours (Europe)
Epilepsy and driving
Hours of service (US)
"How's my driving?" sign
Old age and driving
Sleep deprived driving
Slow moving vehicle
Vision Zero
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Impaired_driving_in_Canada&oldid=817222188"
Categories:
Driving under the influence
Canadian criminal law
Hidden categories:
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from March 2015
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Add links
This page was last edited on 27 December 2017, at 00:25.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

values: button 0 togglelink

values:
/wiki/Summary_conviction
mw-redirect
Summary conviction

values:
/wiki/Blood_alcohol_concentration
mw-redirect
Blood alcohol concentration

values: Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

values: Section Nine of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

values: Section Ten of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

values: Edit section: Testing for alcohol and drugs

values: Edit section: Approved instrument demands

values: Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

values: Edit section: Approved screening device demands

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (March 2015)

values:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

values:
/wiki/Drunk_driving_(Canada)#Sentencing
mw-redirect
Drunk driving (Canada)

values: Edit section: Proving blood alcohol concentration

values:
/wiki/Expert_evidence
mw-redirect
Expert evidence

values:
/wiki/Summary_conviction_offence
mw-redirect
Summary conviction offence

values: Edit section: Driving Prohibitions vs. Suspensions

values:
/wiki/Ignition_interlock
mw-redirect
Ignition interlock

values: Edit section: Administrative driver's licence suspensions

values:
/wiki/Canadian_Parliament
mw-redirect
Canadian Parliament

values: Edit section: High blood alcohol concentration

values: Edit section: Found guilty of an offence

values:
nofollow
http://laws.gnb.ca/en/ShowTdm/cs/M-17//
external text

values:
/wiki/Assured_Clear_Distance_Ahead
mw-redirect
Assured Clear Distance Ahead

values:
/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic
mw-redirect
Right- and left-hand traffic

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in the United States

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from March 2015

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Impaired_driving_in_Canada
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Impaired_driving_in_Canada rootpage-Impaired_driving_in_Canada skin-vector action-view


text:
John Doe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see John Doe (disambiguation).
"Jane Doe" redirects here. For other uses, see Jane Doe (disambiguation).
Headstones marking the final resting place of four unknown people indicated by the names John Doe and Jane Doe, Pima County Cemetery, Tucson, Arizona.
"John Doe" , "John Roe" or "Richard Roe" (for men), "Jane Doe" or "Jane Roe" (for women), and "Baby Doe", "Janie Doe" or "Johnny Doe" (for children), or just "Doe" or "Roe" are multiple-use names that have two distinct usages. Firstly, and especially in the United States, Canada and Ireland, they may refer to an unidentified person, or a party in a legal action whose identity is being withheld officially.[1][2] In the context of law enforcement in the United States, such names are often used to refer to a corpse whose identity is unknown or unconfirmed. Secondly, such names are also often used to refer to a hypothetical "everyman" in other contexts, in a manner similar to "John Q. Public" or "Joe Public".
In other English-speaking countries, unique placeholder names, numbers and/or codenames have become more often used in the context of police investigations. This has included the United Kingdom, where usage of "John Doe" originated during the Middle Ages. However, the legal term John Doe injunction (or John Doe Order),[3] has survived in English law and other legal systems influenced by it. Other names used informally such as "Joe Bloggs" or "John Smith" have sometimes been informally used as placeholders for an everyman in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, such names are seldom used in legal or police circles in the same sense as John Doe.
Well-known legal cases named after placeholders include:
the landmark 1973 US Supreme Court decision regarding abortion: Roe v. Wade (1973) and;
the civil cases Doe dem. John Hurrell Luscombe v Yates, Hawker, and Mudge (1822) 5 B. & Ald. 544 (England; 1822),[4] McKeogh v. John Doe (Ireland; 2012)[2] and Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Doe I (California; 2015).[5]
Use of "John Doe" in the sense of an everyman, includes:
the 1941 film Meet John Doe and;
the 2002 US television series John Doe.
Use of "Jane Doe" in the sense of an unidentified corpse, includes:
the 2016 film The Autopsy of Jane Doe.
Contents
[hide]
1 History
2 Other variants
3 Famous court cases
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
History[edit]
Under the legal terminology of Ancient Rome, the names "Numerius Negidius" and "Aulus Agerius" were used in relation to hypothetical defendants and plaintiffs.[citation needed]
The name "John Doe" (or "John Doo"), "Richard Roe," along with "John Roe", were regularly invoked in English legal instruments to satisfy technical requirements governing standing and jurisdiction, beginning perhaps as early as the reign of England's King Edward III (1327–1377).[6] Other fictitious names for a person involved in litigation in medieval English law were "John Noakes" (or "Nokes") and "John-a-Stiles" (or "John Stiles").[7]
The Oxford English Dictionary states that John Doe is "the name given to the fictitious lessee of the plaintiff, in the (now obsolete in the UK) mixed action of ejectment, the fictitious defendant being called Richard Roe".[citation needed]
This usage is mocked in the 1834 English song "John Doe and Richard Roe":
Two giants live in Britain's land,
John Doe and Richard Roe,
Who always travel hand in hand,
John Doe and Richard Roe.
Their fee-faw-fum's an ancient plan
To smell the purse of an Englishman,
And, 'ecod, they'll suck it all they can,
John Doe and Richard Roe ...[8]
This particular use became obsolete in the UK in 1852:
As is well known, the device of involving real people as notional lessees and ejectors was used to enable freeholders to sue the real ejectors. These were then replaced by the fictional characters John Doe and Richard Roe. Eventually the medieval remedies were (mostly) abolished by the Real Property Limitation Act of 1833; the fictional characters of John Doe and Richard Roe by the Common Law Procedure Act 1852; and the forms of action themselves by the Judicature Acts 1873–75."
Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Respondent) v Meier and another(FC) (Appellant) and others and another (FC)(Appellant) and another (2009).[9]
In the UK, usage of "John Doe" survives mainly in the form of John Doe Injunction or John Doe Order (see above).
8.02 If an unknown person has possession of the confidential personal information and is threatening to disclose it, a 'John Doe' injunction may be sought against that person. The first time this form of injunction was used since 1852 in the United Kingdom was in 2005 when lawyers acting for JK Rowling and her publishers obtained an interim order against an unidentified person who had offered to sell chapters of a stolen copy of an unpublished Harry Potter novel to the media.[10]
Unlike the United States, the name "John Doe" does not actually appear in the formal name of the case, for example: X & Y v Persons Unknown [2007] HRLR 4.[11]
Well-known cases of unidentified corpses include "Cali Doe" (1979) and "Princess Doe" (1982). The baby victim in a 2001 murder case in Kansas City, Missouri, was referred to as Precious Doe.[12]
In 2009, the New York Times reported the difficulties and unwanted attention experienced by a man actually named John Doe, who had often been suspected of using a pseudonym. He had been questioned repeatedly by airport security staff and suspected of being an incognito celebrity.[13]
Other variants[edit]
In cases where a large number of unidentified individuals are mentioned, numbers may be appended, such as "Doe #2" or "Doe II". Operation Delego (2009), which targeted an international child sexual abuse ring, cited 21 numbered "John Does", as well as other people known by the surnames "Doe", "Roe", and "Poe".
"John Stiles", "Richard Miles" have been used for the third and fourth participants in an action. "Mary Major" has been used in some federal cases in the US.[14] "James Doe" and "Judy Doe" are among other common variants.
Less often, other surnames ending in -oe have been used when more than two unknown or unidentified persons are named in U.S. court proceedings, e.g., Poe v. Snyder, 834 F.Supp.2d 721 (W. D. Mich. 2011),[15] whose full style is
Jane Poe, John Doe, Richard Roe, Robert Roe, Mark Moe, Larry Loe, Degage Ministries, and Mel Trotter Ministries, Plaintiffs, v. Rick Snyder, Governor of the State of Michigan, Bill Schuette, Attorney General of the State of Michigan, Kriste Etue, Director of the Michigan State Police, William Forsyth, Kent County Prosecutor, in their official capacities, Defendants and;
Friedman v. Ferguson, No. 87-3758, unpublished disposition, 850 F.2d 689 (4th Cir., 29 June 1988),[16] whose full style is
Wilbur H. Friedman, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas B. FERGUSON, Director, Department of Animal Control, a State Actor, In His Official and Individual Capacities; Brett Boe; Carla Coe; Donna Doe; Frank Foe; Grace Goe; Harry Hoe; State Actors, Advisors To Defendant Ferguson, In Their Official and Individual Capacities (identities currently unknown); Marta Moe; Norma Noe; Paula Poe; Ralph Roe; Sammy Soe; Tommy Toe; Private Individuals Who Conspired With the Foregoing State Actors (identities currently unknown); Roger W. Galvin, Chairman, Animal Matters Hearing Board; Vince Voe; William Woe; Xerxes Xoe; Members of the Animal Matters Hearing Board, State Actors, In Their Official and Individual Capacities (identities currently unknown), Defendants-Appellees.[17]
In Massachusetts, "Mary Moe" is used to refer to pregnant women under the age of 18 petitioning the Superior Court for a judicial bypass exception to the parental consent requirement for abortion.[18] "Mary Moe" is also used to refer to such cases generally, i.e. "Mary Moe cases." Sometimes "Mary Doe" may be used for the individuals.
Parallels in other countries include:
"Ashok Kumar" has been used in court cases in India;[19]
the abbreviation N.N., which is commonly used in European legal systems, as an abbreviation for Latin terms such as
nomen nescio ("I do not know the name") in Belgium, Germany, Italy and Serbia and;
nomen nominandum ("the name must be mentioned") in the Netherlands.
Since 1903 a hypothetical "ordinary and reasonable person" has often been known, in the legal parlance of the UK and other Commonwealth countries as "the man on the Clapham omnibus".[20][21]
Famous court cases[edit]
The landmark 1973 abortion cases Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton get their names from anonymous plaintiffs later revealed to be, respectively, Norma McCorvey and Sandra Cano.
A Toronto woman, publicly known only as Jane Doe, waged an 11-year court battle against the Toronto Police Service after being raped in 1986, alleging that the police had used her as bait to catch the Balcony Rapist. She won the case in 1998, and was named Chatelaine's Woman of the Year that year.[22] She published a book about her experience, The Story of Jane Doe: A Book about Rape, in 2003.
A Doe subpoena is an investigatory tool that a plaintiff may use to seek the identity of an unknown defendant. Doe subpoenas are often served on online service providers and ISPs to obtain the identity of the author of an anonymous post.[23]
Serial killer Richard Laurence Marquette confessed to the murder of an unknown woman identified only as Jane Doe.
File sharing websites were blocked in India on 21 July 2011 on some ISPs including Bharti Airtel, BSNL, and Reliance Communications, because Reliance BIG Pictures got a "John Doe" order from Delhi High Court allowing them to serve cease and desist notices on people illegally redistributing the film Singham.[24] This allegedly brought down copyright infringement of the film by 30%.
On 29 August 2011 Reliance Entertainment procured a 'John Doe' order from the Delhi High Court to prevent the illegal broadcast or streaming of its upcoming film Bodyguard. This order gives protection to the intellectual property owner, Reliance Entertainment, from copyright violation by prospective anonymous offenders.[25]
The use and selection of pseudonyms is not standardized in U.S. courts and the practice itself is opposed on legal grounds by some and was rare prior to 1969.
"Currently there are no court rules about pseudonym use. The rules of civil procedure,...are silent on the matter..." "Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) reads, '...In the complaint, the title of the action shall include the names of all the parties . . . .' The rule contains no guidance as to what parties should do to keep their names confidential."[26]
"Prior to... 1969, only one Supreme Court case, three court of appeals' decisions, and one district court decision in the previous quarter-century featured an anonymous individual as the sole or lead plaintiff. Between 1969 and January 22, 1973, the date when the Supreme Court decided Roe and Doe, there were twenty-one district court and two court of appeals decisions featuring anonymous plaintiffs."[27]
On March 10, 2015, HTG Capital Partners LLC filed a federal lawsuit against unnamed “spoofers,” which the suit referred to as John Doe(s), in the hopes of getting a judge to force the Chicago Mercantile Exchange to reveal the names of the firms. HTG said it had found evidence of thousands of such manipulations over 2013 and 2014."[28]
In November 2016, a woman only identified as "Jane Doe" abandoned plans to go public about allegedly being raped by Donald Trump.[29]
In October 2017, an unidentified minor Jane Doe detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement sued to enjoin the government from obstructing her access to abortion in Garza v. Hargan.
See also[edit]
Israel Israeli
Average Joe
Rudolf Lingens
Joe Shmoe
Tom, Dick and Harry
Mr. X
Blackacre
Multiple-use name
Nomen nescio
Foo
List of placeholder names by language
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "Twitched Indictment" (PDF). Justice.gov. Retrieved 2 October 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b McKeogh v. John Doe
Jump up ^ "Obtaining a John Doe order". PressGazette. Archived from the original on 11 September 2012. Retrieved 2 October 2012.
Jump up ^ Doe dem. John Hurrell Luscombe v Yates, Hawker, and Mudge (1822) 5 B. & Ald. 544
Jump up ^ "Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Doe I". Justia Dockets & Filings.
Jump up ^ What's In A Name. Merriam-Webster. 1996. ISBN 978-0-87779-613-8. [page needed]
Jump up ^ "World Wide Words – John DoeZ". Worldwidewords.org. Retrieved 2 October 2012.
Jump up ^ The Universal Songster: Or, Museum of Mirth: Forming the Most Complete, Extensive, and Valuable Collection of Ancient and Modern Songs in the English Language, with a Copious and Classified Index, Volume 1. London: Jones and Company. 1827. p. 378. Retrieved 18 September 2015.
Jump up ^ "Supreme Court Decided Cases (pdf)" (PDF). Supremecourt.gov.uk. Retrieved 2 October 2012.
Jump up ^ "THE LAW OF PROFESSIONAL-CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY: Regulating the Disclosure of Confidential Personal Information, Update". Uea.ac.uk. Archived from the original on 7 July 2003.
Jump up ^ "Uncorrected Evidence 75". Publications.parliament.uk. 18 February 2009. Retrieved 2 October 2012.
Jump up ^ Goldblatt, Jeff (8 August 2002). "Slain Mystery Girl Brings Community Together". FOX News Network. Retrieved 30 June 2006.
Jump up ^ Alison Leigh Cowan (29 July 2009). "Meet John Doe. No, really!". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 August 2009.
Jump up ^ Quinion M (15 March 2003). "John Doe". World Wide Words. Retrieved 26 November 2008.
Jump up ^ "Poe v. Snyder". www.leagle.com.
Jump up ^ "Friedman v. Ferguson". Law.justia.com.
Jump up ^ Note that the plaintiff-appellant Friedman represented himself, so his use of fictitious names may not reflect legal custom.
Jump up ^ "Superior Court Standing Order 5-81: Uniform Procedures Regarding Petitions for Abortion Authorization under G.L. c. 112, § 12". Massachusetts Superior Court. 1 Oct 1988. Retrieved 18 Dec 2017.
Jump up ^ R Balaji (29 March 2012). "'Kolaveri' against piracy". The Hindu Business Line.
Jump up ^ McQuire v Western Morning News [1903] 2 K.B. 100 at 109 per Collins MR.
Jump up ^ Room, Richard, ed. (1996), Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (15th ed.), Cassell, p. 761, ISBN 0062701339
Jump up ^ "Who is JANE DOE?". Walnet.org. Retrieved 2 October 2012.
Jump up ^ See, for example, Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe, "775 A.2d 756". (N.J. App. Div. 2001); Krinsky v. Doe 6, "159 Cal. App. 4th 1154 (pdf)" (PDF). [permanent dead link] (2008).
Jump up ^ Nikhil Pahwa. "Update: Files Sharing Sites Blocked In India Because Reliance BIG Pictures Got A Court Order". MediaNama. Retrieved 2 October 2012.
Jump up ^ "'John Doe Order' for BODYGUARD to curb its piracy". Bollywoodtrade.com. 29 August 2011.
Jump up ^ Donald P. Balla. "John Doe Is Alive and Well: Designing Pseudonym Use in American Courts" (PDF). Arkansas Law Review. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 July 2012. Retrieved 4 January 2014.
Jump up ^ Milani, Adam A. "DOE V. ROE: AN ARGUMENT FOR DEFENDANT ANONYMITY WHEN A PSEUDONYMOUS PLAINTIFF ALLEGES A STIGMATIZING INTENTIONAL TORT". Lexisnexis.com. Retrieved 18 February 2012.
Jump up ^ Bradely Hope. "Was 'John Doe' Manipulating Treasury Futures? New Lawsuit Says Yes".
Jump up ^ Carroll, Rory (3 November 2016). "Woman accusing Trump of raping her at 13 cancels her plan to go public". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 October 2017.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to FBI Victims Identification Project.
PDF Operation Delego indictment featuring twenty John Does. Accessed 8 January 2014.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Doe&oldid=833452184"
Categories:
Placeholder names
Hidden categories:
Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from January 2014
All articles with dead external links
Articles with dead external links from April 2017
Articles with permanently dead external links
Use dmy dates from March 2011
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from November 2017
Pages using div col without cols and colwidth parameters
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Languages
العربية
বাংলা
Brezhoneg
Deutsch
Français
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
Magyar
Nederlands
Norsk
Polski
Română
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Svenska
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
14 more
Edit links
This page was last edited on 31 March 2018, at 17:00.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: href class title

values:
/wiki/John_Doe_(disambiguation)
mw-disambig
John Doe (disambiguation)

attrs: role class

values:
note
hatnote navigation-not-searchable

values:
/wiki/Jane_Doe_(disambiguation)
mw-disambig
Jane Doe (disambiguation)

value: img

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: href class

attrs: class style

value: b

values:
/wiki/English-speaking_countries
mw-redirect
English-speaking countries

values: John Doe injunction (page does not exist)

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (November 2017)

values:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

values:
/wiki/Precious_Doe
mw-redirect
Precious Doe

values:
/wiki/Judicial_bypass
mw-redirect
Judicial bypass

values:
/wiki/Landmark_decision
mw-redirect
Landmark decision

values:
/wiki/Reliance_BIG_Pictures
mw-redirect
Reliance BIG Pictures

values: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

values:
/wiki/Mister_X_(disambiguation)
mw-redirect mw-disambig
Mister X (disambiguation)

values: div-col columns column-count column-count-2

values: -moz-column-count: 2; -webkit-column-count: 2; column-count: 2;

values: This citation requires a reference to the specific page or range of pages in which the material appears. (January 2014)

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.uea.ac.uk/law

values:
nofollow
external text
http://pub.bna.com/eclr/277400t3.htm

values:
nofollow
external text
http://on.wsj.com/1HKj7CK

values: commons:Category:FBI Victims Identification Project

values: Category:Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from January 2014

values: Category:All articles with dead external links

values: Category:Articles with dead external links from April 2017

values: Category:Articles with permanently dead external links

values: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from November 2017

values: Category:Pages using div col without cols and colwidth parameters

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/John_Doe
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values:
/w/index.php?title=John_Doe&action=edit
Edit this page [ctrl-alt-e]
e

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

values: جون دو – Arabic

values:
https://br.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe
John Doe – Breton
br
br
interlanguage-link-target

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-br
display: none;

values:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe
John Doe – German
de
de
interlanguage-link-target

values:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe
John Doe – French
fr
fr
interlanguage-link-target

values:
https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe
John Doe – Croatian
hr
hr
interlanguage-link-target

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-hr
display: none;

values:
https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe
John Doe – Indonesian
id
id
interlanguage-link-target

values:
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe
John Doe – Italian
it
it
interlanguage-link-target

values:
https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe
John Doe – Hungarian
hu
hu
interlanguage-link-target

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-hu
display: none;

values:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe
John Doe – Dutch
nl
nl
interlanguage-link-target

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-nl
display: none;

values:
https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe
John Doe – Norwegian
no
no
interlanguage-link-target

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-no
display: none;

values:
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe
John Doe – Polish
pl
pl
interlanguage-link-target

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-pl
display: none;

values:
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe
John Doe – Romanian
ro
ro
interlanguage-link-target

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ro
display: none;

values: Джон Доу – Russian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-simple
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sk
display: none;

values: Џон Доу – Serbian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sr
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sh
display: none;

values:
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe
John Doe – Swedish
sv
sv
interlanguage-link-target

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sv
display: none;

values: จอห์น โด – Thai

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-th
display: none;

values:
https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe
John Doe – Turkish
tr
tr
interlanguage-link-target

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-uk
display: none;

values: All languages (initial selection from common choices by you and others)

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-John_Doe rootpage-John_Doe skin-vector action-view