Police in Canada can now demand breath samples in bars, at home

[JM_]

53 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Slowly freedom slips away and the far left will say no big deal.

The purpose of this is to catch weasels that hit someone, then flee the scene, go home and get even more smashed so that the breath samples can't be used against them. Or simply don't answer the door for police and try to extend the number of hours between an incident and testing.

 

There's just no excuse for drinking and driving, it kills so many innocent people it should not be tolerated, at all. I'd personally prefer to see a zero-tolerance limit for driving and avoid laws like this that can get confusing and freak people out. 

 

Note that the situation the defence lawyers are freaking you out on is actually dealt with in the law - the "innocent intervening consumption" part. They are just trying to set up a new area of business for themselves. 

 

 

Change to “over 80” offence

Clause 15 (new paragraph 320.14(1)(b)) rewords the current “over 80” offence to prohibit having a BAC at or over 80 mg/100ml within two hours of driving. This would be subject to an exception for “innocent intervening consumption,” meaning consumption that occurred after driving, where the individual had no reason to expect a breath or blood demand, and where the quantity consumed was consistent with a BAC that was below 80 at the time of driving. This would criminalize consumption of alcohol prior to driving in quantities sufficient to result in a BAC at or over 80 (“bolus drinking”), even where the BAC at time of driving may have not yet risen above the limit. It also criminalizes consumption after driving, in situations where an individual had a reasonable expectation that he or she may be required to provide a sample (for example, after an accident), and that may serve to obstruct investigation of the offence.

The following considerations support the consistency of this section with the Charter.
By criminalizing bolus drinking and drinking that may obstruct an investigation, the offence captures two categories of reckless, morally culpable conduct, the prohibition of which serves the Government’s objective of combating impaired driving. The definition of the offence in terms of BAC within two hours of driving and the “innocent intervening consumption” exception combine to ensure that dangerous conduct is covered while innocent consumption after driving is not captured.

 

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c46.html

 

[Ryan Strome]

31 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Where were you when the former government gave the RCMP the power to oversee our weapons again?

 

 

You mean when Harper demanded the police give people their guns back during the floods?

 

You are supporting a dictatorship move ffs.

[JM_]

here's a little more info on the kind of behaviour the new law is trying to get rid of:

 

Bolus or intervening drinking defences:

It is currently a defence for a person to raise a reasonable doubt that their BAC was over 80 at the time of driving by adducing evidence of consumption that is compatible with both the BAC at the time of testing and with a BAC of 80 or less at the time of driving. The defence has been used in the "bolus drinking" scenario where the accused claims to have guzzled several drinks just before getting into their car so the alcohol was still being absorbed and, consequently, their BAC was under 80 at the time of driving. It has also been used where the driver has consumed alcohol after being stopped by the police or after a collision, supposedly to calm his nerves. It is then argued that this "intervening drink" raised the BAC post-driving and that the driver was actually under 80 at the time of driving.

 

The bolus drinking defence rewards drinking and dashing, with drivers gambling that they will be able to make it home before their BAC exceeds 80. That is extremely dangerous as any delay could lead to the person being over 80 while still driving. Similarly, the intervening drink, in circumstances where the person should have expected to be required to provide a breath sample, may be an attempt to obstruct justice as the court may not be able to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether BAC at the time of driving was over 80.

 

Other jurisdictions have eliminated these defences in legislation by making the BAC at time of testing the offence if that testing occurs within two hours. The ATC suggested, when it appeared before the Standing Committee, that the offence be BAC of 80 at time of testing for this very reason. However, there could be circumstances where the intervening drink defence would be legitimate, for example, where the driver arrived home and takes a drink having no reason to believe that the police will arrive (as a result of a citizen report of erratic driving for example) and demand a breath sample.

 

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/mtpcc-mdccmt/5.html

[Warhippy]

50 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Opening laws to possible abuse is never a good idea. I don't care how 'unlikely' it is. Or how little I personally need to worry about it.

 

It's getting damned scary IMO watching individual rights erode away with nary a care from the general public. First all the attacks on free speech, the nonsense in provincial human rights codes, now this...

 

It's a slippery slope.

The sheer amount of blown cases and constitutional challenges will make this law moot at best.  People will be using this law as some sort of fear tactic, justification to say the government is coming to get you when the most likely result is cops will be called on people way out of hand, will (and they actually HAD this right before hand) make an assumption as to whether the person was over intoxicated and act on that.  This gives them legal course to then ask for a breathalyzer and if refused act accordingly.

 

I don't like it, let's get that straight.  I don't.

 

But I firmly believe this is one of those instances where this will be nixed almost immediately because the court challenges that will stem from this by any good lawyer will be simply overwhelming.

44 minutes ago, Sbriggs said:

I'm sure that will be challenged in court and really means nothing

BIngo.

[Riviera82]

From my point of view, this has very little to do with public safety and much more to do with money. The government has now given the cops a much wider rake to pile up those tax dollars that we call traffic violation fines. The fines attached to these types of offences are big; whether they're justified or not.

[Warhippy]

15 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

You mean when Harper demanded the police give people their guns back during the floods?

 

You are supporting a dictatorship move ffs.

You do like to Reach when you get worked up.  It would be adorable if it wasn't;t so predictable.

 

See below.

 

And also, note that NOWHERE did I say I support this.  So stop putting words in my mouth.  It's sad, pathetic and an oft used move on your part every time you get worked up about something.  

 

See below where Jimmy clearly indicates what this law is, why it has been created and then try very VERY hard to understand the likelihood of this being a common place move for the gestapo to come to your house in the night is about as likely as you voting for the NDP with a smile

28 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

The purpose of this is to catch weasels that hit someone, then flee the scene, go home and get even more smashed so that the breath samples can't be used against them. Or simply don't answer the door for police and try to extend the number of hours between an incident and testing.

 

There's just no excuse for drinking and driving, it kills so many innocent people it should not be tolerated, at all. I'd personally prefer to see a zero-tolerance limit for driving and avoid laws like this that can get confusing and freak people out. 

 

Note that the situation the defence lawyers are freaking you out on is actually dealt with in the law - the "innocent intervening consumption" part. They are just trying to set up a new area of business for themselves. 

 

 

Change to “over 80” offence

Clause 15 (new paragraph 320.14(1)(b)) rewords the current “over 80” offence to prohibit having a BAC at or over 80 mg/100ml within two hours of driving. This would be subject to an exception for “innocent intervening consumption,” meaning consumption that occurred after driving, where the individual had no reason to expect a breath or blood demand, and where the quantity consumed was consistent with a BAC that was below 80 at the time of driving. This would criminalize consumption of alcohol prior to driving in quantities sufficient to result in a BAC at or over 80 (“bolus drinking”), even where the BAC at time of driving may have not yet risen above the limit. It also criminalizes consumption after driving, in situations where an individual had a reasonable expectation that he or she may be required to provide a sample (for example, after an accident), and that may serve to obstruct investigation of the offence.

The following considerations support the consistency of this section with the Charter.
By criminalizing bolus drinking and drinking that may obstruct an investigation, the offence captures two categories of reckless, morally culpable conduct, the prohibition of which serves the Government’s objective of combating impaired driving. The definition of the offence in terms of BAC within two hours of driving and the “innocent intervening consumption” exception combine to ensure that dangerous conduct is covered while innocent consumption after driving is not captured.

 

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c46.html

 

 

14 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

here's a little more info on the kind of behaviour the new law is trying to get rid of:

 

Bolus or intervening drinking defences:

It is currently a defence for a person to raise a reasonable doubt that their BAC was over 80 at the time of driving by adducing evidence of consumption that is compatible with both the BAC at the time of testing and with a BAC of 80 or less at the time of driving. The defence has been used in the "bolus drinking" scenario where the accused claims to have guzzled several drinks just before getting into their car so the alcohol was still being absorbed and, consequently, their BAC was under 80 at the time of driving. It has also been used where the driver has consumed alcohol after being stopped by the police or after a collision, supposedly to calm his nerves. It is then argued that this "intervening drink" raised the BAC post-driving and that the driver was actually under 80 at the time of driving.

 

The bolus drinking defence rewards drinking and dashing, with drivers gambling that they will be able to make it home before their BAC exceeds 80. That is extremely dangerous as any delay could lead to the person being over 80 while still driving. Similarly, the intervening drink, in circumstances where the person should have expected to be required to provide a breath sample, may be an attempt to obstruct justice as the court may not be able to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether BAC at the time of driving was over 80.

 

Other jurisdictions have eliminated these defences in legislation by making the BAC at time of testing the offence if that testing occurs within two hours. The ATC suggested, when it appeared before the Standing Committee, that the offence be BAC of 80 at time of testing for this very reason. However, there could be circumstances where the intervening drink defence would be legitimate, for example, where the driver arrived home and takes a drink having no reason to believe that the police will arrive (as a result of a citizen report of erratic driving for example) and demand a breath sample.

 

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/mtpcc-mdccmt/5.html

This law will be challenged in court.  Lawyers with clients charged under this will have a field day.  The likelihood of this law staying in it's current form is very very small.  But people will forget that the Conservative dominated senate approved this bill without amendments so for those who are anti everything on the left it can't be all that bad right?

[PhillipBlunt]

If the government really wants to combat drinking and driving, there are far less intrusive ideas that would serve the public much better than giving the police far greater power to enter a person's home.

1. Include a steering wheel breathalyzer on every new vehicle going forward, as a standard feature. For used vehicles, the government could subsidize the purchase of one to be retrofitted.
2. People who are pulled over and have a blood alcohol level greater than legally acceptable automatically lose their driver's license for 5 years. No questions or exceptions.
3. People found driving without a license (suspended, or outright taken away, due to previous DUIs/dangerous driving infractions) automatically given a one to two year prison sentence. If that person lost their license due to a DUI infraction, five years in prison.
4. Anyone who kills another person while DUI, is given an automatic life sentence, no parole. With life meaning life, not the Canadian version of a life sentence.

[Ronaldoescobar]

Garbage.... Will definitely be overturned as soon as we see the first suspicious case but like the lawyer in the article said it will be years through the system. 

[aGENT]

13 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

But I firmly believe this is one of those instances where this will be nixed almost immediately because the court challenges that will stem from this by any good lawyer will be simply overwhelming.

Sure. And as it should be. 

 

I'm more concerned with the trend we're seeing with the constant attack of our individual rights. Provincial human rights codes are already VASTLY overstepping their bounds, there's this thread's nonsense, there's credit card companies getting involved in free speech etc, etc.

 

We need to tsop having our politicians, corporation etc kowtow to this nonsense from a noisy, ideologically driven minority of wing nuts that are all to happy to hand our individual rights over. 

[JM_]

10 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

 

But I firmly believe this is one of those instances where this will be nixed almost immediately because the court challenges that will stem from this by any good lawyer will be simply overwhelming.

BIngo.

I don't think so, due to the 'innocent intervening' part of the law. 

 

Its a tough problem, how do you eliminate the sob's that hurt or kill someone, then go home and have a few more drinks in order to get off? its sickening what some people have got away with in Canada. Get drunk, kill someone, then get even more drunk to avoid responsibility. That should be what we're all mad about, imo. 

[jimmyking8888]

Who ever come up withe this law is stupid .  Police would have too much power going to people 's houses. If BC government want to combat drink and driving they should promote ride sharing companies like Uber and Lyft.

 

1.  How would police prove if the drink is from 2 hours ago or the just opened a bottle at home? 

2.  People have nothing to do with drinking ,people might not even a have a bottle of wine at home have to open the door to police now. 

 

[Warhippy]

7 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Sure. And as it should be. 

 

I'm more concerned with the trend we're seeing with the constant attack of our individual rights. Provincial human rights codes are already VASTLY overstepping their bounds, there's this thread's nonsense, there's credit card companies getting involved in free speech etc, etc.

 

We need to tsop having our politicians, corporation etc kowtow to this nonsense from a noisy, ideologically driven minority of wing nuts that are all to happy to hand our individual rights over. 

I still find it amusing that people think we here in the west are "free" at all.

 

We gave up those rights/our rights years ago to corps, politicians and endless fees, fines and penalties.  This is just another drop in the bucket.  Remember the security bill of 2009? (or was it 2010?)

 

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I don't think so, due to the 'innocent intervening' part of the law. 

 

Its a tough problem, how do you eliminate the sob's that hurt or kill someone, then go home and have a few more drinks in order to get off? its sickening what some people have got away with in Canada. Get drunk, kill someone, then get even more drunk to avoid responsibility. That should be what we're all mad about, imo. 

Well that is common sense but also very unlikely to happen in the rare cases it does.  

 

I agree that we SHOULD be more upset about the reasons why, but it won't change anything.  We cannot police or legislate a terrible human beings terrible habits.  While I feel this is a big fat nothing the root reason behind it won't ever change.

[Gurn]

slippery slope and we are already sliding down it.

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/mandel-cop-pulls-over-senior-for-returning-too-many-empty-beer-bottles

"

It was just after noon last Saturday and the retired letter carrier had just been at the Streetsville Beer Store to return a month’s worth of empties when a police car flashed him to stop.

“I haven’t been pulled over for 40 or 50 years,” explains Art Lightowler. “I was shaking.”

A stickler for rules, the 70-year-old knew he hadn’t been speeding. He wasn’t on a cellphone because he doesn’t have one. And he certainly hadn’t been drinking.

So why did the imposing 6-foot-5, 250-pound officer ask him to get out of his car?

“He thought I had dropped off an excessive amount of bottles at The Beer Store,” Lightowler explains.

"

Over the festive season, he’d accumulated three cases of empty beer bottles and eight wine bottles. “To him that was too much.”

Asked if he’d been drinking, the senior said he’d had a beer at midnight while watching Taken 2. “You need a drink for that movie, ” he quips.

The Peel Regional Police officer insisted he give a breath sample. And if he refused? “I could be fined $2,000 and lose my licence for a year. So I agreed.”

Lightowler passed and was sent on his way. But it took him a while to calm down. “I have semi-high blood pressure as it is and it was kinda scary.”

It was also completely legal. Welcome to the new law that came into effect Dec. 18."

[RUPERTKBD]

18 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

If the government really wants to combat drinking and driving, there are far less intrusive ideas that would serve the public much better than giving the police far greater power to enter a person's home.

1. Include a steering wheel breathalyzer on every new vehicle going forward, as a standard feature. For used vehicles, the government could subsidize the purchase of one to be retrofitted.
2. People who are pulled over and have a blood alcohol level greater than legally acceptable automatically lose their driver's license for 5 years. No questions or exceptions.
3. People found driving without a license regardless of reason are automatically given a one to two year prison sentence. If that person lost their license due to a DUI infraction, five years in prison.
4. Anyone who kills another person while DUI, is given an automatic life sentence, no parole. With life meaning life, not the Canadian version of a life sentence.

Really? You would advocate a prison sentence for someone who forgot their wallet at home and drove to work?

[Ryan Strome]

23 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

You do like to Reach when you get worked up.  It would be adorable if it wasn't;t so predictable.

 

See below.

 

And also, note that NOWHERE did I say I support this.  So stop putting words in my mouth.  It's sad, pathetic and an oft used move on your part every time you get worked up about something.  

 

See below where Jimmy clearly indicates what this law is, why it has been created and then try very VERY hard to understand the likelihood of this being a common place move for the gestapo to come to your house in the night is about as likely as you voting for the NDP with a smile

 

This law will be challenged in court.  Lawyers with clients charged under this will have a field day.  The likelihood of this law staying in it's current form is very very small.  But people will forget that the Conservative dominated senate approved this bill without amendments so for those who are anti everything on the left it can't be all that bad right?

I like to reach? Because I told you exactly what Harper said. Reaching is what you do, the conservative dominated senate lol what reach. So you assume the liberal senators appointed by JT are actually independent?

 

Sure the likelihood may be low but nevertheless the police now have the right to enter your home and demand a breathalyzer. Sounds like China or North Korea.

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I still find it amusing that people think we here in the west are "free" at all.

 

We gave up those rights/our rights years ago to corps, politicians and endless fees, fines and penalties.  This is just another drop in the bucket.  Remember the security bill of 2009? (or was it 2010?)

 

Well that is common sense but also very unlikely to happen in the rare cases it does.  

 

I agree that we SHOULD be more upset about the reasons why, but it won't change anything.  We cannot police or legislate a terrible human beings terrible habits.  While I feel this is a big fat nothing the root reason behind it won't ever change.

No, but we can at least prosecute them now.

 

Like I said above I prefer a zero-tolerance law instead. Nice bright line there, no confusion. And totally justified. There's no reason that you need to drink or get high and drive, even in moderation. 

 

[JM_]

8 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Really? You would advocate a prison sentence for someone who forgot their wallet at home and drove to work?

if they are driving drunk or high, and don't have a valid licence (not forgetting it at home, actually not having one), yes I would like to see that. 

[RUPERTKBD]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

if they are driving drunk or high, and don't have a valid licence (not forgetting it at home, actually not having one), yes I would like to see that. 

Sure. But that isn't what I said, nor was it what Phil said.

[JM_]

1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Sure. But that isn't what I said, nor was it what Phil said.

there's me assuming again, I thought Phils comment was in the context of drunk driving. 

[DIBdaQUIB]

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

I don't care, I really don't drink.  I think the likelihood of this actually being enforced in the manner that so many people are whinging about is laughably nil as well.

 

But, scared people gonna be scared

"they didn't come for me, so I said nothing"!  

 

Despots love people who think like you do.