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

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think people are forgetting that there has to be reasonable proof that a driving offence has been committed. The law provides that they can't just come randomly test you. 

 

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,

'Reasonable proof' like this:

 

1 hour ago, gurn said:

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."

 

[JM_]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

'Reasonable proof' like this:

 

 

meh, so some guy got pulled over and legally checked. Hardly a chicken little moment. 

[-DLC-]

4 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

I don't drink much at all either....never when I'm driving.  However, it's not laughable to not want too much power in the hands of police.  We see how that turns out at times and it's a reminder that an abuse of power is always possible.  Do you really want police knocking on your door when you've done nothing wrong?  Personally, I find it a bit of an intrusion...what happened to innocent until proven guilty?  This seems to act on guilty now prove yourself innocent!

 

3 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Slowly freedom slips away.

 

3 hours 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.

Agree.

 

 

[aGENT]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

meh, so some guy got pulled over and legally checked. Hardly a chicken little moment. 

Jesus Jimmy  Again, like the idiot in the Safeway, no, he wasn't locked up or hauled off to the gulags.

 

It's entirely besides the point.

 

You ask for an example as to why it's bad, I give you one and you respond with 'well that instance is not that bad'. When does it become 'bad enough' that we declare bad laws as having gone too far? I'd prefer not waiting until it's too late, thanks and just avoid having bad laws altogether.

[-DLC-]

15 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think people are forgetting that there has to be reasonable proof that a driving offence has been committed. The law provides that they can't just come randomly test you. 

 

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,

That's not how I understand it.

 

Quote

The new laws will give police officers the authority to demand breathalyzer tests from any driver they pull over. Previously, officers could only test drivers if they had a reasonable suspicion the person was impaired. Any driver who refuses to take the test can be charged.

I was pulled over and ticketed for the first time ever in my driving career for speeding.

 

The cop was an absolute ass.   As a matter of fact, partway through, I think he realized it and softened when his suggestion I was lying about previous tickets proved to be untrue!    He seemed rather shocked and was taken aback.  Tried to "joke" after the fact...I was not amused by that time.

 

I have a neighbour who's a cop (not saying which jurisdiction).  He's an ass and I've watched him drive out of our complex, coffee in hand, with no seatbelt.  Above the law stuff.  I have no confidence that he's a fair or reasonable individual and have seen it in action.  "Do what I say, not what I do".  These are individuals and there are bad ones as well as good ones.  So to leave it to fate on which one demands a test?  That concerns me.

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Jesus Jimmy  Again, like the idiot in the Safeway, no, he wasn't locked up or hauled off to the gulags.

 

It's entirely besides the point.

 

You ask for an example as to why it's bad, I give you one and you respond with 'well that instance is not that bad'. When does it become 'bad enough' that we declare bad laws as having gone too far? I'd prefer not waiting until it's too late, thanks and just avoid having bad laws altogether.

an article designed to be reactionary isn't proof of anything other than our triggered society. Police pull people over thousands of times per day. Maybe he was driving too slowly. Maybe the cop was a jerk. We don't have all the facts on it, at all. But from what they did provide it all turned out fine. 

[Maketherightmove]

4 hours ago, peaches5 said:

This has to do with what I alluded to a while ago in another thread. Where if you hit someone while drunk, leave the scene, drive home then immediately start drinking and then claim you started drinking when you got home instead of staying at the scene you get off basically scot-free as they can't prove you were driving under the influence.

 

 

If "basically scot-free" means hit and run charges along with likely a handful of other charges based on the severity of the person's injuries. 

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

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

 

Despots love people who think like you do.  

 

50 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

First...you know nothing about me so drop the arrogant crap. 

 

Secondly, Is the law what has been reported or not?  If it is, this isn't about click bait now is it.   This liberal government has a track record of passing laws that make non-law breakers criminals.

Lol.  The ironing.

 

Secondly, what laws are those?

[DIBdaQUIB]

14 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'm not actually suggesting anything, just asking the question. I've only ever owned a .22 for target shooting so its not really my issue. The committee idea does seem reasonable tho. 

 

Jimmy,  Depending on what magazine you use, you could actually be a criminal and not know it.  The gun laws in Canada exempted rimfire rifles ( .22s) from magazine capacity limits. Considering their use as a small game and target rifles, this was a reasonable position to take.  The RCMP in recent years chose to outlaw a particular 25 shot magazine as it could also be used in a semi-auto pistol made by the same manufacturer.  I won't get into all the legal wording of the legislation or the RCMP

s but basically, this violated the government's legislation and instantly made thousands of Canadians criminals for simply being in possession of said magazines.  What is so bizarre in all this is that other magazines designed for the same rifle but built by different manufacturers are still legal, including a 20 round drum magazine designed for this rifle while owners with the banned  25 round mag are deemed to be criminals by the RCMP. 

Sorry to be long-winded on this but I have little to no faith in the RCMP to be unbiased or fair in any application of the laws as they have already show extreme bias in dealing with legal matters in which they have their own agenda. 

[-DLC-]

How about scenarios like mouthwash.  Off to an interview, have JUST brushed my teeth and used mouthwash.  That can provide a false reading.  This is a huge can of worms deal that I'm not sure they're prepared for.

[DIBdaQUIB]

1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

 

Lol.  The ironing.

 

Secondly, what laws are those?

First they came for the Communists....

 

Don't be lazy, read the thread

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

Jimmy,  Depending on what magazine you use, you could actually be a criminal and not know it.  The gun laws in Canada exempted rimfire rifles ( .22s) from magazine capacity limits. Considering their use as a small game and target rifles, this was a reasonable position to take.  The RCMP in recent years chose to outlaw a particular 25 shot magazine as it could also be used in a semi-auto pistol made by the same manufacturer.  I won't get into all the legal wording of the legislation or the RCMP

s but basically, this violated the government's legislation and instantly made thousands of Canadians criminals for simply being in possession of said magazines.  What is so bizarre in all this is that other magazines designed for the same rifle but built by different manufacturers are still legal, including a 20 round drum magazine designed for this rifle while owners with the banned  25 round mag are deemed to be criminals by the RCMP. 

Sorry to be long-winded on this but I have little to no faith in the RCMP to be unbiased or fair in any application of the laws as they have already show extreme bias in dealing with legal matters in which they have their own agenda. 

The RCMP being the organization that Monty Robinson, a renowned scumbag, worked for.

[JM_]

1 minute ago, debluvscanucks said:

That's not how I understand it.

 

I was pulled over and ticketed for the first time ever in my driving career for speeding.

 

The cop was an absolute ass.   As a matter of fact, partway through, I think he realized it and softened when his suggestion I was lying about previous tickets proved to be untrue!    He seemed rather shocked and was taken aback.  Tried to "joke" after the fact...I was not amused by that time.

 

I have a neighbour who's a cop (not saying which jurisdiction).  He's an ass and I've watched him drive out of our complex, coffee in hand, with no seatbelt.  Above the law stuff.  I have no confidence that he's a fair or reasonable individual and have seen it in action.  "Do what I say, not what I do".  These are individuals and there are bad ones as well as good ones.  So to leave it to fate on which one demands a test?  That concerns me.

there's multiple parts to it. The "innocent intervening" part has to do with things like testing people at home within 2 hours of a suspected driving incident. 

 

The second quote has to do with a change in the law where they can ask you to take the breath test now without providing a reason. That to me should be a pretty damn good deterrent for people to not drink and drive anymore, and i'm fine with that one. 

 

@aGENT and I are arguing about numbers, but I think this part might be the most effective thing to reduce deaths, if people now know that anytime they get behind the wheel that they can be checked for being impaired. 

 

We'll see about the rest of it, we'll have to see how it all plays out. 

[DIBdaQUIB]

1 minute ago, debluvscanucks said:

How about scenarios like mouthwash.  Off to an interview, have JUST brushed my teeth and used mouthwash.  That can provide a false reading.  This is a huge can of worms deal that I'm not sure they're prepared for.

Agree Deb.  I am all for getting drunk drivers off the road but this legislation smacks of a government wanting desperately to look lie they are dong something with no long term analysis of the implications. 

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

Jimmy,  Depending on what magazine you use, you could actually be a criminal and not know it.  The gun laws in Canada exempted rimfire rifles ( .22s) from magazine capacity limits. Considering their use as a small game and target rifles, this was a reasonable position to take.  The RCMP in recent years chose to outlaw a particular 25 shot magazine as it could also be used in a semi-auto pistol made by the same manufacturer.  I won't get into all the legal wording of the legislation or the RCMP

s but basically, this violated the government's legislation and instantly made thousands of Canadians criminals for simply being in possession of said magazines.  What is so bizarre in all this is that other magazines designed for the same rifle but built by different manufacturers are still legal, including a 20 round drum magazine designed for this rifle while owners with the banned  25 round mag are deemed to be criminals by the RCMP. 

Sorry to be long-winded on this but I have little to no faith in the RCMP to be unbiased or fair in any application of the laws as they have already show extreme bias in dealing with legal matters in which they have their own agenda. 

huh, so 20 is ok, 25 is not? if things are being misapplied like that i can see why people are frustrated. We should shoot this discussion over to a new thread. 

[-DLC-]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

there's multiple parts to it. The "innocent intervening" part has to do with things like testing people at home within 2 hours of a suspected driving incident. 

 

The second quote has to do with a change in the law where they can ask you to take the breath test now without providing a reason. That to me should be a pretty damn good deterrent for people to not drink and drive anymore, and i'm fine with that one. 

 

@aGENT and I are arguing about numbers, but I think this part might be the most effective thing to reduce deaths, if people now know that anytime they get behind the wheel that they can be checked for being impaired. 

 

We'll see about the rest of it, we'll have to see how it all plays out. 

But I'm not one of them and don't need a deterrent.  So I get to be rounded up anyhow?  Again..."innocent until proven guilty".  Not the other way around.

 

I'm not considering the guilty parties here, it's the innocent ones I'm concerned for.  How we're being all thrown together in a pool for the cops to sift through.

 

So what about my scenario with mouthwash?   Issues with a faulty breathalyzer?  Now innocent people have to retain lawyers to prove their ... innocence.  I thought guilty parties do that?

 

I believe the "we'll see" part should be figured out first.  Not after the fact.

[RRypien37]

4 hours ago, Shift-4 said:

Just get too drunk to blow

Problem solved

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/man-too-drunk-to-have-mugshot-taken-has-head-1371611

 

In all seriousness, this is scary stuff. Following the lead of the US. Will be another police state in no time...

[JM_]

Just now, debluvscanucks said:

But I'm not one of them and don't need a deterrent.  So I get to be rounded up anyhow?  Again..."innocent until proven guilty".  Not the other way around.

 

I'm not considering the guilty parties here, it's the innocent ones I'm concerned for.  How we're being all thrown together in a pool for the cops to sift through.

 

So what about my scenario with mouthwash?   Issues with a faulty breathalyzer?  Now innocent people have to retain lawyers to prove their ... innocence.  I thought guilty parties do that?

I see it as part of being a responsible driver, so I'm OK with it IF it can reduce needless deaths. I don't drink and drive so for me its an inconvenience but its one that hopefully helps a lot of people avoid real grief. So for the roadside checks, if you didn't drink you aren't in any trouble. 

 

I think the mouthwash scenario if it actually registered on the machine and they didn't believe you, you could ask for a blood test which would prove you to be innocent. But that would be a bad day for sure. Or just use a non-alcohol mouthwash I guess. 

 

[RUPERTKBD]

2 minutes ago, RRypien37 said:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/man-too-drunk-to-have-mugshot-taken-has-head-1371611

 

[DIBdaQUIB]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

huh, so 20 is ok, 25 is not? if things are being misapplied like that i can see why people are frustrated. We should shoot this discussion over to a new thread. 

My mistake Jim,  I meant to say 120 round magazine is legal and 25 is not.  But not all 25 round magazines.  

The bigger issue as it relates to this thread is that the RCMP have applied guidelines in this case that contravene the legislation as written.  I am with Deb in that I do not believe giving too much discretionary authority to our police is a way to safeguard our democracy.  It may lead to some increased safety/oversight but it comes at the erosion of our rights and at the very real risk of potential abuse by individuals who are only different than the rest of us by way of a 6 month training course and the uniform they wear.  They still have biases, hold grudges, can be frustrated and vengeful, mean and cruel like the rest of society.   The opportunity for major injustices and abuse is far too great in this kind of legislation.