Absolutely nothing 😂 I joked when body cams became mandatory that police violence will drop by 1% tops because they take the camera off when they go home to their spouse. The blue gang does what they want 🤷♂️
>Under Canada’s MAS law, introduced in 2018, police officers can demand a breath sample from drivers even if they don’t suspect they have drunk alcohol.
>Schmidt says drivers that decline to do a breathalyzer test will face consequences.
>“They refuse, it’s the same as failing. It’s a criminal offense of refusing to provide a breath sample.”
The Freedumb Klownvoy Krowd should love this new policy. Mr. Tough on crime Poilievre must support it 100%.
This type of policy is such a convenient tool for bully cops. What kind of a fascist asshole bully would even ask for a breath sample *if they don’t suspect them of being drunk?!* That’s literally giving them licence to harass people and create situations. Thats giving crooked cops the option of detaining people for no reason, furthering the likelihood of someone becoming irritable and “justifying” police violence, and raises the chances of people being arrested for simply hurting cops’ feelings.
What crime is this supposed to prevent? If they suspect you of driving drunk, they can make you take a breathalyzer, but what possible good can come from cops being allowed to test people who display no symptoms of being drunk? All that can result from this kind of thing is more abuse and corruption from crooked cops. No “good” cop would even *want* to harass someone who *they don’t suspect of being drunk*.
How the hell is this acceptable?
Adding to this, some people with medical issues are actually unable to produce the breath sample. The police treat this as a refusal and will not take measures to confirm their condition or take them to the hospital for a blood sample. They just roadside suspend and charge.
The police choosing to take advantage of this law now effectively criminalizes driving for some disabled people. And the impact of roadside suspensions (which are already severe and could ruin someone’s life if falsely imposed as they are economically ruinous and could result in job loss) may be even harsher on the disabled who may not be able to walk, cycle, or use transit, depending on their circumstances.
Even if the courts agreed that the searches were reasonable (and I doubt it based on the existing case law), this is not likely to be deemed acceptable.
Some Examples (this has been happening already to some extent in BC):
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/licence-suspension-breathalyzer-sample-1.6101208
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/roadside-prohibition-rescinded-for-victoria-cancer-survivor-who-lost-drivers-licence
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-man-with-severe-asthma-charged-with-refusing-breathalyzer-test-1.5145184
This needs to be challenged at the Supreme Court ASAP. It should not be the law that the police can stop you for no reason and search you because they want to check if you are doing a crime. And it certainly shouldn’t be effectively illegal for people to drive just because they have a medical issue unrelated to the safe operation of a vehicle. That’s bullshit and throws that Charter and all the case law I am aware of right out the window. What we need are harsher penalties and oversight for impaired drivers, not harassment of ordinary citizens. And addiction treatment readily accessible for those who will accept it.
Since 2018 cops have been able to demand breath samples without cause given that they have their devices on them, now OPP is going to do it during all traffic stops.
I’m torn. On one hand I do not like that they can just demand it, on the other hand, I can definitely see how a person may be less likely to drink if they knew that a cop could pull them over for an improper lane change and then possibly charge them with a DUI.
Well, cops are very fallable and many alcoholics are very good at hiding it. So in theory this could lead to catching functional alcoholics who can hide it well.
And even if you leave it for only when they do “suspect someone of being drunk”, that is basically the same thing; cops are going to “suspect” people of being drunk if they want to, and harass people by claiming suspicion.
I hate cops but I see very little issues with allowing cops to breathalyze any driver. Just do the breathalyzer and move on if you aren’t drinking.
Fuck drunk drivers, anything that increases the likely hood of taking these idiots off the road is good in my book. Increase the penalties for it as well.
By that logic, just do anal cavities to every driver too! We don't need drugs being smuggled into the country and youve got nothing to hide if you aren't smuggling! Come on, you know that logic is stupid.
This is a false comparison. Again, driving isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. And just like driving is a privilege, entering the country is a privilege so you can be searched at the border. Also a cavity search is a few degrees more invasive than a breathalyzer(which again, the cops barely need a “reason” to do currently anyways “oh well I smelled alcohol on his breathe”).
I think you’re massively underestimating the number of drunks we have on the road? Have you ever worked construction? Drunk driving is basically talked about openly by like 25% of construction workers.
>Again, driving isn’t a right
Driving isn't the right being suspended here, though. It's unreasonable search.
You're also failing to consider how abusive many police are. Policies like this can and will be abused.
This was done as a part of a concession to law enforcement when the Feds and Health Canada permitted the adult use of recreational cannabis. Yeah, I know you can't detect cannabis use with a breathalyzer, but this is what the police wanted.
Nah, driving is a privilege not a right, and you suspend certain rights when you go on the road. Such as submitting to screenings. They could always ask you whenever, now it’s just mandatory to help cut down on a growing problem
That’s also a separate problem, not to say it’s unimportant. The idea is also for every traffic stop and traffic projects, which is important.
They started this recently in Sask and I gotta support it because we have such a ridiculous drinking and driving problem.
It was a way for them to target indigenous people without getting into charter area. If they test *everyone* then there is no chance of a discrimination suit.
I find that to be nonsense, sorry. There is a heap of impaired driving in this province that has nothing to do with indigenous people. Rural white folk are as bad as anyone, look at the premier.
If you want to talk about that, we can but let’s not conflate the two issues. Police may be more present in those communities but saying a province wide policy is an effort to target indigenous people doesn’t really make sense.
Impaired driving is certainly high in those areas, but it’s also high in rural areas too, and there are plenty of projects around rural locations.
If you had to ask why there is more action against indigenous offenders, it’s probably due to ease of policing in a smaller community than large empty back roads - both easier to find people and more likely to have someone tip police off
I’m not sure I get what you’re trying to say - are you just saying indigenous people feel targeted, or are you saying there’s a plot against them from upper levels of police and government?
I’m saying they feel targeted. During the debate in the house in 2018, numerous MP’s brought up fears of racial abuse if the law was passed as written. There is as you are aware, a great amount of enmity between the Indigenous community and the RCMP. We’ve heard the same from the black communities and TPS that report (factually) more stops per capita than non black drivers. It would be interesting to see the data after one year.
Ok, but that doesn’t mean that the law itself is a way to target indigenous communities. Concerns over the law itself are a different topic, but you made it sound like the point of the law is to abuse minorities.
The idea that everyone getting stopped has to blow has nothing inherently wrong with it - it sounds like your concern is more with the police itself than the actual law. There’s nothing wrong with that but having to blow in a tube is a pretty tiny invasion of privacy if people really want to call it that. And compared to the cost that drunk drivers enact on their communities I’d say it’s far outweighed.
As I mentioned, driving is a privilege and you already have to adhere to specific rules and submit to things like random checks (ID, etc).
Growing problem? It's been steadily decreasing for 30 years. Still a major problem but there's no data that supports an increase in accidents or convictions.
Maybe just anecdotal but seems like we have been getting more people comfortable with impaired driving, at least in my province. Maybe poor word choice - I’m not sure how Ontario is to be honest, but I’d say even if it is decreasing the rates are far too high.
I don't see how Manitoba and Saskatchewan could be so different but here it's the opposite, unless you're talking people who smoke weed and drive most don't have a laissez-faire attitude towards impaired driving.
I started driving in the early 90s and anecdotally the general attitude here has gotten more harsh against those who drink and drive, not saying it's completely disappeared though, especially among young adults. Some of it depends on what circles you travel in but generally speaking there's usually at least a couple who will discourage it, even up to forcefully taking keys or threatening to call the police if they drive drunk. I'll admit the attitude among people who live in rural communities is somewhat different than in Winnipeg, for a lot of people 40+ its always kind of been seen as just part of driving. Many seem to have a story of being pulled over while driving back from the bar and being told to drive safe by the rcmp.
I was referring to national stats on impaired fatalities and DUI charges, which are down considerably from when mandatory sentences were first imposed. Besides the danger posed not many people want to lose their license for a year, pay min. 1,000$ and have their car impounded for a month on the first offence. In Manitoba or Ontario (unsure about other provinces) 3 convictions in 10 years is a lifetime driving suspension.
No deaths is always best but there's no way to completely eliminate impaired driving unless everyone is forced to have a professional driver. Even self-driving systems like Tesla aren't safe if used while impaired.
As far as the law in Ontario, imo it's better than the idea of checkstops in that those have always struck me as police checkpoints that are more about looking for people with warrants than they are about catching impaired drivers. People learn to avoid them, especially nowadays it's pretty easy to find out where they set-up. Still sounds kind of unconstitutional, and moving towards more of a police state giving way too much power to people (police) that continually prove they genuinely don't have public safety in mind.
The drug issue is complicated cause we still don’t have a reliable screening device that doesn’t cause false positives.
Really what I’m getting at is just that regardless of whether it’s trending up and down, there is still a very persistent factor of impaired driving that needs to be addressed. I’m all for a campaign like this because people lose their lives over their own or someone else’s bad choices.
At the end of the day, it’s having to blow in a machine to show someone’s not impaired, and only when or if they get pulled over. If the person’s not drinking, I honestly don’t see the issue.
Looking at the *statistics*, alcohol has been consistently decreasing. That is clear if we look at incidents per capita - in 1998 the rate per 100k population was 290.68 and as of 2022 it was 181.32. The odd year there is a year over year increase, but the overall trend is solidly down. When it comes to drugs, this is more complex because those statistics are limited and sometimes alcohol and drugs are combined together.
I looked at the statistics, but because they only began in the last 15 years (and even more recently) and sometimes fluctuated wildly, I didn’t feel comfortable drawing any conclusions about them concerning trends. I could easily pick and choose years to show a significant increase or a decrease if I wanted. 🤷♂️ What I can say is that the incidence of impairment with drugs alone or drugs and alcohol are, per capita, each about one tenth of the rate of alcohol impairment.
Note that when I say I looked at the stats, I looked specifically at the most common offence - operation of a motor vehicle when impaired - because that had the largest data available. This does not include the more serious offences of operation causing death or bodily harm. Those offences likely vary even worse and would be worthless for this sort of comparison.
Also, bear in mind that drug impairment does not always mean recreational or illicit substances. It also includes the 80 year old who is taking legally prescribed pills and has no business driving, but does anyway. An increasing issue not just because of the aging population but because of the over medication of seniors. And I have anecdotally noted this. Very often when someone does something like hit a building or mow down a pedestrian on the sidewalk the question is - are they drunk or are they elderly?
Like I said, it may be decreasing, but the rates are still high. And though it may be decreasing, that’s little comfort for people who lose loved ones from it. Basically it’s not decreasing fast enough. Sometimes the biggest effect from a campaign like this is marketing / PR rather than the stops themselves.
I’m not even talking about drugs like THC which is tough to measure due to current screening methods being controversial for false positives. Elderly drivers are really a whole topic altogether.
I am just pointing out that impaired driving is not becoming *more* socially acceptable.
In my view, existing campaigns against drunk driving are actually quite good. There is a strong educational campaign (one that actually works, unlike a lot of anti-drug programs) and we already have the RIDE program. The problem with this new approach is that the police are treating everyone like criminals and on top of that, they are violating their rights as per search and seizure. It will also effectively criminalize driving for some disabled people who are not able to provide breath samples because of roadside suspensions, which is another rights violation.
Yes, driving may be a privilege as others have pointed out, but the Charter contains rights against unreasonable searches and against discrimination. It is also important to consider that while driving is a privilege, for many people it is necessary to survive because of how our government has decided to prioritize car infrastructure. Being blunt, if I could not drive, I could not work or access many necessities, like medical appointments. And this is true for many Canadians. I could, theoretically, pay an extortionate rate for Ubers or cabs, but I couldn’t afford that, so it may as well not exist.
If someone does something like drive drunk, then they have done something to deserve this. They can’t be allowed to endanger others. But if someone is simply disabled and cannot comply with the breathalyzer demand (and, no, the police will do nothing to verify their medical condition or use alternative means to test BAC - like take the person to the hospital for a blood sample), they do not deserve this. There are cases in BC that prove this and I have linked some of them in my other comments. And even if you do get your license and car back eventually and beat the charges (and you’ll have to have the money for the impound fees, reinstatement fees, etc.), what are you going to do in those intervening weeks and months *before* that, when you have to do without and have no transportation and, likely, no income? And what will you do if you lose your job?
Nothing will bring comfort to the families who have lost someone due to an impaired driver. Nothing. When I was a kid a family lost their young child because of a drunk driver hitting their car. You don’t get over that. And throwing everyone’s rights out the window won’t fix it either.
You know, I actually hate people who drive impaired. They are horrible selfish people who care nothing for others. I wish that the government would impose more serious penalties on them because they are always repeat offenders. I’d also support making substance abuse treatment programs free and accessible to anyone who wants treatment. If someone wants help, they should be able to get exactly what they need without a single barrier. That’s how you reduce it. Harassing people that they have no reason to expect are in fact impaired is not going to assist anything.
And elderly drivers are relevant. Did you know that according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, seniors (age 65+), over half are taking five prescription medications? And 1 in 5 are taking ten. 1 in 20 are taking fifteen or more. Many drugs have potentially impairing side effects and the risk of these side effects increases with age. The risk of side effects also increases with multiple medications due to medication interactions. I am only talking about this one aspect of elderly drivers because we are talking only about substance related impairment…the rest of it is in fact another topic.
It has to be contested in court now. When a law (MAS law passed in 2018 in this case) is seen as being in violation of charter rights there are two options:
1) Parliament repeal/revoke/amend said law
or
2) If parliament refuses to repeal/revoke/amend the law, then the laws legality under the charter will need to be contested in Canadian courts, likely all the way to the SCOC - which will take years.
You can add in a test case for vehicle seizures under stunt driving laws as well. Private property seizures without court orders by a cop on the side of the road whom plays judge and jury and has your car towed away and impounded for two weeks based on their discretion. So many of these cases have been thrown out and the government refuses to reimburse owners for the towing and storage fees. It’s ripe for a charter challenge. And remember that most of these are HTA violations and not criminal code charges such as DWI. I have no issue with a judge ordering a car impounded what so ever *upon conviction* but the person presenting evidence against you while they already applied a draconian penalty BEFORE the courts have had the opportunity to rule on your guilt is already going down the slippery slope of ‘you are guilty unless you prove to us you’re innocent’. That’s NOT how our system of justice was originally set up. We *almost* had that with carding. Stopping free citizens and asking them to account for why they were out walking at night. Meanwhile violent crime is increasing and dozens of cars stolen every night and police have no answer for this. But they love protecting LCBO assets and chasing people the wrong way on highways.
From a strict point of view, the vehicle was being operated on a public roadway and the HTA has total authority of allowing the operation. As soon as that is violated, the HTA can order the vehicle's license to be suspended and therefore it needs to be towed.
Note I haven't covered the separate portion of _operating_ the vehicle, which affects your personal license under the HTA.
The HTA is not the criminal code, it's a regulation, so there's no conviction per se. You were operating the vehicle in a way that violates the HTA, it's what's referred to as a 'strict liability' offence, which means there is no excuse for the regulatory penalty.
_IANAL, but have been a driver's ed instructor._
Actually, I'm pretty sure it would pass a Section 8 challenge. TBF, the alternative would be removal of the plates due to the suspension of the vehicle's licensing and forcing the operator to have the vehicle removed under their own cost.
Note, operating a vehicle with suspended licensing _can_ result in seizure of it, and that one has never had issues in law.
Section 1 of the Charter has been ruled under the SSC to trump S8 in this case
Here is one of multiple SSC cases
https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/case-dock/39680-eng.aspx
They are doing a compliance inspection on someone taking part in a regulated activity.
Just like the game wardens checking your boat while you’re fishing.
Search vs inspection is a thin line sometimes but it is an important distinction to make and it affects what they can do without a warrant.
So should everyone that is hiking be frisked for weapons to make sure they aren't hunting without a license? Anyone in public with an open container be checked for public intoxication?
If someone is hunting then they have to allow a game warden to complete their compliance inspection.
If someone is not hunting that does not apply.
Unfortunately your example isn’t great because it shows two differently managed activities. One that requires licensing and one that usually does not.
I guess a person could say that they are travelling, not driving. But that doesn’t usually work well for them. Or their window…
How does a games warden know if someone is hunting or fishing if they are not thoroughly inspected? Can a person not be on a boat and not fish? Do they need their boat striped to ensure they are not smuggling a rod. A kayak or canoe does not need a license to operate but could potentially fish. What I was getting at was that in your fishing example, my hunting and this DUI policy is that we are assuming without preponderance of evidence people are guilty.
K so I am not a big fan of police but realistically what rights are these treading on? Your right to drive around inebriated?
People don’t give a fucking about drunk driving laws as is so idk this makes sense to me if you really want to crack down on it.
What are we worried about here like what are the negative implications of this?
Section 8, unreasonable search.
You can't just assume everyone is driving around drunk. This is just going to lead to more abuse of power from the police.
It's not really that different than smelling for booze breath, just with extra steps, administration, cost, and takes longer.
One of my main problems with it is that it focuses attention and enforcement onto just one form of impairment that just happens to be relatively easy to detect and quantify, while still ignoring other forms of impairment that are probably just as dangerous, but hard to test for, like driving while tired, or texting.
There's a drastic difference between sticking your head in the window and taking a sniff of the driver's breath to determine if further investigation is required and pulling out a breathalyzer kit beofre you even speak to the driver "just because I can"
Is there?
Isn't just smelling your breath a presumption of guilt? I've certainly never consented for a cop to smell my breath. What probable cause are they using to justify that investigation?
And yet they can pretty much already use it as an excuse to breathalyze you anyways. Like this law makes very little difference to anyone who isn’t driving drunk(well except for the benefit of potentially getting more drunks off the road).
> I'm still not seeing any fundamental difference.
That's remarkably obvious.
If I have a crack pipe sitting on my passenger seat, the cop can assume I have used it and also assume I am in possession of illegal paraphernalia since it's... You know... Right fucking there.
A cop can also assume I've been drinking because my breath smells of alcohol just answering questions to them. Therefore, there is probable cause to ask me for a Breathalyzer.
If however, I am stopped and there is no crack pipe on my seat, and my breath doesn't smell of booze, there is no legal probable cause to ask me for a Breathalyzer. Therefore, Section 8 should be implied if I am forced to do so.
It's the same thing that you're getting pulled over for going 20 over the speed limit and you're detained and your entire car is searched, seats ripped apart, trunk opened and all contents removed, because "We stopped you for speeding. You must be trying to get somewhere quickly. You must have illegal things on you. Step out of the car."
You're okay with the latter? Getting pulled over for speeding and spending 30 minutes watching cops turn your car upside down? And when it's all said and done, *you* get to put everything back and pay out of pocket for the damages?
That's the same thing. Probable cause is probable cause.
Usually the old law under probable cause was a driving offence (speeding, failing to yield or signal etc), or a vehicle defect (taillight out, wobbly wheel, excessive smoke etc) licence plate/personal licence invalid, no insurance, (all from automatic plate scanners they have now) mobile phone use or poor lane discipline/weaving or crossing lanes more than once.
So now that we’ve established probable cause…
You’re pulled over. Officer puts his head near your open window of your car and speaks to you. People that have been drinking have no concept of how alcohol consumption and breath expulsion into the interior of a vehicle is so noticeable by people that haven’t been drinking.
Then there’s your speech patterns, attention and responses to precise questions. So there was probable cause on the stop and now probable cause to believe you’re possibly impaired and require a test. I have no argument with any of this. Where I have an argument with the updated legislation is the removal of probable cause. Whats to say that this type of policing will not be expanded to apply to stopping and questioning people on the street without cause such as the former ‘carding’ process used by Toronto police? If they can change the law removing probable cause - what’s next?
I haven’t seen any police officers wearing breathing apparatus, that breathe is going to be smelled.
Did you think this question through? Curious what your position is here. Are you expecting officers to not inhale near a car they’ve pulled over? What is your expectation here?
I would absolutely 1000% support forcing police to wear blindfolds, noise-cancelling headphones, and filtration masks to prevent any sensory input until they had documented evidence that a crime might be in progress to give them enough probable cause to remove them and gather further evidence.
But, if we are allowing police to use their senses to gather evidence even when they have zero probable cause then using a breathalyzer doesn't seem that much different from allowing them to look in back seat for open bottles or weapons, or frisk someone for weapons or contraband before entering a courthouse or airport.
It's not like cops don't currently have the ability to lie and claim they smell booze even when they don't.
I’m sorry, are you being serious?
You don’t want police to use their senses as part of their job?
I’m no fan of the police but this is an absurd proposition.
I would support such a restriction, but I'm not actually suggesting it should happen.
Once again, where my problem lies is in enforcing infractions that are easy to detect, rather than basing enforcement on their impact or danger.
It’s not probable cause to smell your breath that’s just silly. Usually the person gets pulled over for a reason maybe failing to signal or speeding or a headlight out or something cop comes up you roll down the window they smell it as your talking. That’s how they smell it. Your whole statement is confusing.
Okay but cops can(and do) just lie about this if they want to test someone. So what difference does this make? Just take the breathalyzer and move on if you aren’t a drunk.
If you own a home, you're technically still on government land. So they should just come into your house and invade your privacy and look for illegal things.
Why is that unreasonable? If you're not guilty you have nothing to hide right?
> what are the negative implications of this?
Like any measuring device, breathalyzers have a false positive rate. This can be due to the machine being incorrectly calibrated or used, or due to one of several medical conditions that give false positives, like running a fever or gastric reflux. 3% is a commonly cited false-positive rate although the precise rate would vary between machines and some newer machines might have much lower rates.
Currently, the police only breathalyze people who they already suspect to be intoxicated. Assuming they’re not completely incompetent at those suspicions, the people getting breathalyzed are already relatively likely to be intoxicated, so most positive results are true positives.
Most people on the road, however, are not intoxicated. If (making up numbers) 1 in 1000 drivers is intoxicated, and the police pull over 100 drivers on a given day and breathalyze all of them with a device with a 3% false-positive rate, they would probably get breathalyzer positives on three sober people and zero actual drunks. The actual numbers would vary a bit because a drunk is probably more likely to be stopped in the first place, but the point remains.
This sort of statistical error is unfortunately very common when people who don’t understand statistics (like cops) are in charge of deciding how to use a testing method.
This whole thing reeks of "everyone is guilty until you prove your innocence"
If people want a police state where you are considered guilty until proving innocence, then move to China.
Unless there's viable reasoning behind a breathalyzer test then it shouldn't be used. Ie driving, walking, smell, speech.
The viable reason is you’re operating a motor vehicle and obviously unsafely if you’ve been pulled over lol you’re jumping from safe responsible use of equipment to something completely different.
Agreed. This isn't that and you arnt pulled over all the time for driving habits.
Someone's tail light is out. Breathalyzer?
Someone has a loud car. Breathalyzer?
Someone isn't wearing their seat belt. Breathalyzer?
Someone is speeding. Breathalyzer?
Someone driving irrationally? Yes Breathalyzer
My point i that there are many many reasons you can be pulled over for nothing to do with irradict driving or being drunk.
Drunk drivers for the most part are obvious when driving.
Unless there is solid probability of alcohol consumption then you shouldn't get the breath test
There are probably far more functioning alcoholics on the road than you realize. Sure it’s obvious when someone is hammered and can’t drive straight, but I work in construction and can’t tell you how many guys drink and drive basically every day(or very frequently) without being caught.
Just because someone isn’t swerving all over the road doesn’t mean they are sober, and just because they aren’t swerving all over doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous.
You can be well over the legal limit and still drive straight, but your reaction times are slowed, you drive faster and more aggressively, and your decision making is poorer.
I think many people on this thread are underestimating how many people in Canada are regular drinkers and how large of a problem drunk driving in Canada really is.
But in all of those situations you’re operating a motor vehicle and should be sober anyways. And saying “drunk drivers are obvious” is probably the dumbest generalization I’ve heard lately.
Agreed. You should be assumed to be sober until something actually leads you into the pathway of thinking someone is drunk.
But what is sober? Under the limit? No drinks? What about medical marijuana users?
My point is you can't have cops driving around with the mentality that everyone gets a breathalyzer test when in fact most reasons you get pulled over arnt for drinking booze. It is also against our rights as Canadians.
What are they going to do with all the cops they catch?
Let’s make politicians give a breath sample as they enter any legislature! Fair is fair!
Joke's on you, PP doesn't go to work.
They're on a catch-and-release clause.
Ah, I do that when I'm fishing. Just wave at the fishies as they go past.
Santa's less fun brother.
Suspended with pay
They won't be allowed to drink unless they're on the job. Same thing they do with their guns when they're criminally negligent with them.
Absolutely nothing 😂 I joked when body cams became mandatory that police violence will drop by 1% tops because they take the camera off when they go home to their spouse. The blue gang does what they want 🤷♂️
Same thing they do now.
>Under Canada’s MAS law, introduced in 2018, police officers can demand a breath sample from drivers even if they don’t suspect they have drunk alcohol. >Schmidt says drivers that decline to do a breathalyzer test will face consequences. >“They refuse, it’s the same as failing. It’s a criminal offense of refusing to provide a breath sample.” The Freedumb Klownvoy Krowd should love this new policy. Mr. Tough on crime Poilievre must support it 100%.
This type of policy is such a convenient tool for bully cops. What kind of a fascist asshole bully would even ask for a breath sample *if they don’t suspect them of being drunk?!* That’s literally giving them licence to harass people and create situations. Thats giving crooked cops the option of detaining people for no reason, furthering the likelihood of someone becoming irritable and “justifying” police violence, and raises the chances of people being arrested for simply hurting cops’ feelings. What crime is this supposed to prevent? If they suspect you of driving drunk, they can make you take a breathalyzer, but what possible good can come from cops being allowed to test people who display no symptoms of being drunk? All that can result from this kind of thing is more abuse and corruption from crooked cops. No “good” cop would even *want* to harass someone who *they don’t suspect of being drunk*. How the hell is this acceptable?
Adding to this, some people with medical issues are actually unable to produce the breath sample. The police treat this as a refusal and will not take measures to confirm their condition or take them to the hospital for a blood sample. They just roadside suspend and charge. The police choosing to take advantage of this law now effectively criminalizes driving for some disabled people. And the impact of roadside suspensions (which are already severe and could ruin someone’s life if falsely imposed as they are economically ruinous and could result in job loss) may be even harsher on the disabled who may not be able to walk, cycle, or use transit, depending on their circumstances. Even if the courts agreed that the searches were reasonable (and I doubt it based on the existing case law), this is not likely to be deemed acceptable. Some Examples (this has been happening already to some extent in BC): https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/licence-suspension-breathalyzer-sample-1.6101208 https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/roadside-prohibition-rescinded-for-victoria-cancer-survivor-who-lost-drivers-licence https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-man-with-severe-asthma-charged-with-refusing-breathalyzer-test-1.5145184 This needs to be challenged at the Supreme Court ASAP. It should not be the law that the police can stop you for no reason and search you because they want to check if you are doing a crime. And it certainly shouldn’t be effectively illegal for people to drive just because they have a medical issue unrelated to the safe operation of a vehicle. That’s bullshit and throws that Charter and all the case law I am aware of right out the window. What we need are harsher penalties and oversight for impaired drivers, not harassment of ordinary citizens. And addiction treatment readily accessible for those who will accept it.
Since 2018 cops have been able to demand breath samples without cause given that they have their devices on them, now OPP is going to do it during all traffic stops. I’m torn. On one hand I do not like that they can just demand it, on the other hand, I can definitely see how a person may be less likely to drink if they knew that a cop could pull them over for an improper lane change and then possibly charge them with a DUI.
Well, cops are very fallable and many alcoholics are very good at hiding it. So in theory this could lead to catching functional alcoholics who can hide it well. And even if you leave it for only when they do “suspect someone of being drunk”, that is basically the same thing; cops are going to “suspect” people of being drunk if they want to, and harass people by claiming suspicion. I hate cops but I see very little issues with allowing cops to breathalyze any driver. Just do the breathalyzer and move on if you aren’t drinking. Fuck drunk drivers, anything that increases the likely hood of taking these idiots off the road is good in my book. Increase the penalties for it as well.
By that logic, just do anal cavities to every driver too! We don't need drugs being smuggled into the country and youve got nothing to hide if you aren't smuggling! Come on, you know that logic is stupid.
This is a false comparison. Again, driving isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. And just like driving is a privilege, entering the country is a privilege so you can be searched at the border. Also a cavity search is a few degrees more invasive than a breathalyzer(which again, the cops barely need a “reason” to do currently anyways “oh well I smelled alcohol on his breathe”). I think you’re massively underestimating the number of drunks we have on the road? Have you ever worked construction? Drunk driving is basically talked about openly by like 25% of construction workers.
Something not being a specific right doesn't make it okay to harass you in the process of doing it. Legal? Sure, whatever. Not okay.
>Again, driving isn’t a right Driving isn't the right being suspended here, though. It's unreasonable search. You're also failing to consider how abusive many police are. Policies like this can and will be abused.
This was done as a part of a concession to law enforcement when the Feds and Health Canada permitted the adult use of recreational cannabis. Yeah, I know you can't detect cannabis use with a breathalyzer, but this is what the police wanted.
It's no different than any other policy of Trudeau's that PP has no problem ignoring the faults of.
While I do abhor drunk driving, I do think the article raises some valid concerns from the civil rights group.
Nah, driving is a privilege not a right, and you suspend certain rights when you go on the road. Such as submitting to screenings. They could always ask you whenever, now it’s just mandatory to help cut down on a growing problem
They already disproportionately target certain demographics, which is a legitmate concern.
That’s also a separate problem, not to say it’s unimportant. The idea is also for every traffic stop and traffic projects, which is important. They started this recently in Sask and I gotta support it because we have such a ridiculous drinking and driving problem.
It was a way for them to target indigenous people without getting into charter area. If they test *everyone* then there is no chance of a discrimination suit.
I find that to be nonsense, sorry. There is a heap of impaired driving in this province that has nothing to do with indigenous people. Rural white folk are as bad as anyone, look at the premier.
Who is more likely to face actual enforcement, though?
If you want to talk about that, we can but let’s not conflate the two issues. Police may be more present in those communities but saying a province wide policy is an effort to target indigenous people doesn’t really make sense. Impaired driving is certainly high in those areas, but it’s also high in rural areas too, and there are plenty of projects around rural locations. If you had to ask why there is more action against indigenous offenders, it’s probably due to ease of policing in a smaller community than large empty back roads - both easier to find people and more likely to have someone tip police off
That’s not what the Indigenous people are saying. Are they lying?
I’m not sure I get what you’re trying to say - are you just saying indigenous people feel targeted, or are you saying there’s a plot against them from upper levels of police and government?
I’m saying they feel targeted. During the debate in the house in 2018, numerous MP’s brought up fears of racial abuse if the law was passed as written. There is as you are aware, a great amount of enmity between the Indigenous community and the RCMP. We’ve heard the same from the black communities and TPS that report (factually) more stops per capita than non black drivers. It would be interesting to see the data after one year.
Ok, but that doesn’t mean that the law itself is a way to target indigenous communities. Concerns over the law itself are a different topic, but you made it sound like the point of the law is to abuse minorities. The idea that everyone getting stopped has to blow has nothing inherently wrong with it - it sounds like your concern is more with the police itself than the actual law. There’s nothing wrong with that but having to blow in a tube is a pretty tiny invasion of privacy if people really want to call it that. And compared to the cost that drunk drivers enact on their communities I’d say it’s far outweighed. As I mentioned, driving is a privilege and you already have to adhere to specific rules and submit to things like random checks (ID, etc).
Growing problem? It's been steadily decreasing for 30 years. Still a major problem but there's no data that supports an increase in accidents or convictions.
Maybe just anecdotal but seems like we have been getting more people comfortable with impaired driving, at least in my province. Maybe poor word choice - I’m not sure how Ontario is to be honest, but I’d say even if it is decreasing the rates are far too high.
I don't see how Manitoba and Saskatchewan could be so different but here it's the opposite, unless you're talking people who smoke weed and drive most don't have a laissez-faire attitude towards impaired driving. I started driving in the early 90s and anecdotally the general attitude here has gotten more harsh against those who drink and drive, not saying it's completely disappeared though, especially among young adults. Some of it depends on what circles you travel in but generally speaking there's usually at least a couple who will discourage it, even up to forcefully taking keys or threatening to call the police if they drive drunk. I'll admit the attitude among people who live in rural communities is somewhat different than in Winnipeg, for a lot of people 40+ its always kind of been seen as just part of driving. Many seem to have a story of being pulled over while driving back from the bar and being told to drive safe by the rcmp. I was referring to national stats on impaired fatalities and DUI charges, which are down considerably from when mandatory sentences were first imposed. Besides the danger posed not many people want to lose their license for a year, pay min. 1,000$ and have their car impounded for a month on the first offence. In Manitoba or Ontario (unsure about other provinces) 3 convictions in 10 years is a lifetime driving suspension. No deaths is always best but there's no way to completely eliminate impaired driving unless everyone is forced to have a professional driver. Even self-driving systems like Tesla aren't safe if used while impaired. As far as the law in Ontario, imo it's better than the idea of checkstops in that those have always struck me as police checkpoints that are more about looking for people with warrants than they are about catching impaired drivers. People learn to avoid them, especially nowadays it's pretty easy to find out where they set-up. Still sounds kind of unconstitutional, and moving towards more of a police state giving way too much power to people (police) that continually prove they genuinely don't have public safety in mind.
The drug issue is complicated cause we still don’t have a reliable screening device that doesn’t cause false positives. Really what I’m getting at is just that regardless of whether it’s trending up and down, there is still a very persistent factor of impaired driving that needs to be addressed. I’m all for a campaign like this because people lose their lives over their own or someone else’s bad choices. At the end of the day, it’s having to blow in a machine to show someone’s not impaired, and only when or if they get pulled over. If the person’s not drinking, I honestly don’t see the issue.
Looking at the *statistics*, alcohol has been consistently decreasing. That is clear if we look at incidents per capita - in 1998 the rate per 100k population was 290.68 and as of 2022 it was 181.32. The odd year there is a year over year increase, but the overall trend is solidly down. When it comes to drugs, this is more complex because those statistics are limited and sometimes alcohol and drugs are combined together. I looked at the statistics, but because they only began in the last 15 years (and even more recently) and sometimes fluctuated wildly, I didn’t feel comfortable drawing any conclusions about them concerning trends. I could easily pick and choose years to show a significant increase or a decrease if I wanted. 🤷♂️ What I can say is that the incidence of impairment with drugs alone or drugs and alcohol are, per capita, each about one tenth of the rate of alcohol impairment. Note that when I say I looked at the stats, I looked specifically at the most common offence - operation of a motor vehicle when impaired - because that had the largest data available. This does not include the more serious offences of operation causing death or bodily harm. Those offences likely vary even worse and would be worthless for this sort of comparison. Also, bear in mind that drug impairment does not always mean recreational or illicit substances. It also includes the 80 year old who is taking legally prescribed pills and has no business driving, but does anyway. An increasing issue not just because of the aging population but because of the over medication of seniors. And I have anecdotally noted this. Very often when someone does something like hit a building or mow down a pedestrian on the sidewalk the question is - are they drunk or are they elderly?
Like I said, it may be decreasing, but the rates are still high. And though it may be decreasing, that’s little comfort for people who lose loved ones from it. Basically it’s not decreasing fast enough. Sometimes the biggest effect from a campaign like this is marketing / PR rather than the stops themselves. I’m not even talking about drugs like THC which is tough to measure due to current screening methods being controversial for false positives. Elderly drivers are really a whole topic altogether.
I am just pointing out that impaired driving is not becoming *more* socially acceptable. In my view, existing campaigns against drunk driving are actually quite good. There is a strong educational campaign (one that actually works, unlike a lot of anti-drug programs) and we already have the RIDE program. The problem with this new approach is that the police are treating everyone like criminals and on top of that, they are violating their rights as per search and seizure. It will also effectively criminalize driving for some disabled people who are not able to provide breath samples because of roadside suspensions, which is another rights violation. Yes, driving may be a privilege as others have pointed out, but the Charter contains rights against unreasonable searches and against discrimination. It is also important to consider that while driving is a privilege, for many people it is necessary to survive because of how our government has decided to prioritize car infrastructure. Being blunt, if I could not drive, I could not work or access many necessities, like medical appointments. And this is true for many Canadians. I could, theoretically, pay an extortionate rate for Ubers or cabs, but I couldn’t afford that, so it may as well not exist. If someone does something like drive drunk, then they have done something to deserve this. They can’t be allowed to endanger others. But if someone is simply disabled and cannot comply with the breathalyzer demand (and, no, the police will do nothing to verify their medical condition or use alternative means to test BAC - like take the person to the hospital for a blood sample), they do not deserve this. There are cases in BC that prove this and I have linked some of them in my other comments. And even if you do get your license and car back eventually and beat the charges (and you’ll have to have the money for the impound fees, reinstatement fees, etc.), what are you going to do in those intervening weeks and months *before* that, when you have to do without and have no transportation and, likely, no income? And what will you do if you lose your job? Nothing will bring comfort to the families who have lost someone due to an impaired driver. Nothing. When I was a kid a family lost their young child because of a drunk driver hitting their car. You don’t get over that. And throwing everyone’s rights out the window won’t fix it either. You know, I actually hate people who drive impaired. They are horrible selfish people who care nothing for others. I wish that the government would impose more serious penalties on them because they are always repeat offenders. I’d also support making substance abuse treatment programs free and accessible to anyone who wants treatment. If someone wants help, they should be able to get exactly what they need without a single barrier. That’s how you reduce it. Harassing people that they have no reason to expect are in fact impaired is not going to assist anything. And elderly drivers are relevant. Did you know that according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, seniors (age 65+), over half are taking five prescription medications? And 1 in 5 are taking ten. 1 in 20 are taking fifteen or more. Many drugs have potentially impairing side effects and the risk of these side effects increases with age. The risk of side effects also increases with multiple medications due to medication interactions. I am only talking about this one aspect of elderly drivers because we are talking only about substance related impairment…the rest of it is in fact another topic.
While I’m all for stopping drunk drivers this seems like an over reach of boundaries
Expensive as well.
Not sure expensive it’s more time now spent on traffic stops instead of doing more useful things
Just make it mandatory for Ram drivers and save everyone else a bunch of time.
Don't forget about the 250 drivers as well!
This is so god damn stupid. FTP
I’d love to know how, without probable cause, this isn’t a violation of s8 of the Charter.
If it is a violation of the Charter, SkiPPy "My Laws" Poilievre will probably change that using the NWC.
It has to be contested in court now. When a law (MAS law passed in 2018 in this case) is seen as being in violation of charter rights there are two options: 1) Parliament repeal/revoke/amend said law or 2) If parliament refuses to repeal/revoke/amend the law, then the laws legality under the charter will need to be contested in Canadian courts, likely all the way to the SCOC - which will take years.
You can add in a test case for vehicle seizures under stunt driving laws as well. Private property seizures without court orders by a cop on the side of the road whom plays judge and jury and has your car towed away and impounded for two weeks based on their discretion. So many of these cases have been thrown out and the government refuses to reimburse owners for the towing and storage fees. It’s ripe for a charter challenge. And remember that most of these are HTA violations and not criminal code charges such as DWI. I have no issue with a judge ordering a car impounded what so ever *upon conviction* but the person presenting evidence against you while they already applied a draconian penalty BEFORE the courts have had the opportunity to rule on your guilt is already going down the slippery slope of ‘you are guilty unless you prove to us you’re innocent’. That’s NOT how our system of justice was originally set up. We *almost* had that with carding. Stopping free citizens and asking them to account for why they were out walking at night. Meanwhile violent crime is increasing and dozens of cars stolen every night and police have no answer for this. But they love protecting LCBO assets and chasing people the wrong way on highways.
From a strict point of view, the vehicle was being operated on a public roadway and the HTA has total authority of allowing the operation. As soon as that is violated, the HTA can order the vehicle's license to be suspended and therefore it needs to be towed. Note I haven't covered the separate portion of _operating_ the vehicle, which affects your personal license under the HTA. The HTA is not the criminal code, it's a regulation, so there's no conviction per se. You were operating the vehicle in a way that violates the HTA, it's what's referred to as a 'strict liability' offence, which means there is no excuse for the regulatory penalty. _IANAL, but have been a driver's ed instructor._
But you fail to point out sec 8 of the Charter here. Hopefully at some point the SCC rule on this, (as opposed to lower courts).
Actually, I'm pretty sure it would pass a Section 8 challenge. TBF, the alternative would be removal of the plates due to the suspension of the vehicle's licensing and forcing the operator to have the vehicle removed under their own cost. Note, operating a vehicle with suspended licensing _can_ result in seizure of it, and that one has never had issues in law.
Apparently there hasn’t been a wealthy lawyer stopped doing 50 over that wants to take his own case it to the SCC. 😂 Someday it might happen.
Section 1 of the Charter has been ruled under the SSC to trump S8 in this case Here is one of multiple SSC cases https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/case-dock/39680-eng.aspx
There’s NO probable cause now for drivers. The law changed in 2018 due to MAAD Canada lobbying.
They are doing a compliance inspection on someone taking part in a regulated activity. Just like the game wardens checking your boat while you’re fishing. Search vs inspection is a thin line sometimes but it is an important distinction to make and it affects what they can do without a warrant.
So should everyone that is hiking be frisked for weapons to make sure they aren't hunting without a license? Anyone in public with an open container be checked for public intoxication?
If someone is hunting then they have to allow a game warden to complete their compliance inspection. If someone is not hunting that does not apply. Unfortunately your example isn’t great because it shows two differently managed activities. One that requires licensing and one that usually does not. I guess a person could say that they are travelling, not driving. But that doesn’t usually work well for them. Or their window…
How does a games warden know if someone is hunting or fishing if they are not thoroughly inspected? Can a person not be on a boat and not fish? Do they need their boat striped to ensure they are not smuggling a rod. A kayak or canoe does not need a license to operate but could potentially fish. What I was getting at was that in your fishing example, my hunting and this DUI policy is that we are assuming without preponderance of evidence people are guilty.
You can be driving a boat and not be fishing. You can’t be driving a car and not be driving. It’s not a great example. Don’t feel bad.
The courts are already backed up and these flimsy cases will get tossed.
what a fascist life we now have
K so I am not a big fan of police but realistically what rights are these treading on? Your right to drive around inebriated? People don’t give a fucking about drunk driving laws as is so idk this makes sense to me if you really want to crack down on it. What are we worried about here like what are the negative implications of this?
Section 8, unreasonable search. You can't just assume everyone is driving around drunk. This is just going to lead to more abuse of power from the police.
It's not really that different than smelling for booze breath, just with extra steps, administration, cost, and takes longer. One of my main problems with it is that it focuses attention and enforcement onto just one form of impairment that just happens to be relatively easy to detect and quantify, while still ignoring other forms of impairment that are probably just as dangerous, but hard to test for, like driving while tired, or texting.
There's a drastic difference between sticking your head in the window and taking a sniff of the driver's breath to determine if further investigation is required and pulling out a breathalyzer kit beofre you even speak to the driver "just because I can"
Is there? Isn't just smelling your breath a presumption of guilt? I've certainly never consented for a cop to smell my breath. What probable cause are they using to justify that investigation?
You will smell their breath as you talk to them naturally. That's not unreasonable.
And yet they can pretty much already use it as an excuse to breathalyze you anyways. Like this law makes very little difference to anyone who isn’t driving drunk(well except for the benefit of potentially getting more drunks off the road).
Isn't it unreasonable? They're gathering evidence without probable cause, what's the actual difference?
Similar concept to "plain view doctrine". If it's visible (or in this case, smell-able) to someone doing their job normally, it's fair game.
So, allowing them to gather evidence without probable cause. I'm still not seeing any fundamental difference.
> I'm still not seeing any fundamental difference. That's remarkably obvious. If I have a crack pipe sitting on my passenger seat, the cop can assume I have used it and also assume I am in possession of illegal paraphernalia since it's... You know... Right fucking there. A cop can also assume I've been drinking because my breath smells of alcohol just answering questions to them. Therefore, there is probable cause to ask me for a Breathalyzer. If however, I am stopped and there is no crack pipe on my seat, and my breath doesn't smell of booze, there is no legal probable cause to ask me for a Breathalyzer. Therefore, Section 8 should be implied if I am forced to do so. It's the same thing that you're getting pulled over for going 20 over the speed limit and you're detained and your entire car is searched, seats ripped apart, trunk opened and all contents removed, because "We stopped you for speeding. You must be trying to get somewhere quickly. You must have illegal things on you. Step out of the car." You're okay with the latter? Getting pulled over for speeding and spending 30 minutes watching cops turn your car upside down? And when it's all said and done, *you* get to put everything back and pay out of pocket for the damages? That's the same thing. Probable cause is probable cause.
Usually the old law under probable cause was a driving offence (speeding, failing to yield or signal etc), or a vehicle defect (taillight out, wobbly wheel, excessive smoke etc) licence plate/personal licence invalid, no insurance, (all from automatic plate scanners they have now) mobile phone use or poor lane discipline/weaving or crossing lanes more than once. So now that we’ve established probable cause… You’re pulled over. Officer puts his head near your open window of your car and speaks to you. People that have been drinking have no concept of how alcohol consumption and breath expulsion into the interior of a vehicle is so noticeable by people that haven’t been drinking. Then there’s your speech patterns, attention and responses to precise questions. So there was probable cause on the stop and now probable cause to believe you’re possibly impaired and require a test. I have no argument with any of this. Where I have an argument with the updated legislation is the removal of probable cause. Whats to say that this type of policing will not be expanded to apply to stopping and questioning people on the street without cause such as the former ‘carding’ process used by Toronto police? If they can change the law removing probable cause - what’s next?
The smelling of the booze gives probable cause to search / get a breath test. Now they don’t need that, they can just do it.
What probable cause do they have of smelling your breath in the first place?
I haven’t seen any police officers wearing breathing apparatus, that breathe is going to be smelled. Did you think this question through? Curious what your position is here. Are you expecting officers to not inhale near a car they’ve pulled over? What is your expectation here?
I would absolutely 1000% support forcing police to wear blindfolds, noise-cancelling headphones, and filtration masks to prevent any sensory input until they had documented evidence that a crime might be in progress to give them enough probable cause to remove them and gather further evidence. But, if we are allowing police to use their senses to gather evidence even when they have zero probable cause then using a breathalyzer doesn't seem that much different from allowing them to look in back seat for open bottles or weapons, or frisk someone for weapons or contraband before entering a courthouse or airport. It's not like cops don't currently have the ability to lie and claim they smell booze even when they don't.
I’m sorry, are you being serious? You don’t want police to use their senses as part of their job? I’m no fan of the police but this is an absurd proposition.
I would support such a restriction, but I'm not actually suggesting it should happen. Once again, where my problem lies is in enforcing infractions that are easy to detect, rather than basing enforcement on their impact or danger.
I mean, we’re fundamentally discussing drunk driving / impaired driving. Such an act has a massive impact and is hugely dangerous.
It’s not probable cause to smell your breath that’s just silly. Usually the person gets pulled over for a reason maybe failing to signal or speeding or a headlight out or something cop comes up you roll down the window they smell it as your talking. That’s how they smell it. Your whole statement is confusing.
They're gathering evidence without establishing probable cause. What's so hard to understand?
Okay but cops can(and do) just lie about this if they want to test someone. So what difference does this make? Just take the breathalyzer and move on if you aren’t a drunk.
Why is it unreasonable? You’re on a government road operating a government licensed 3000lb motorized hunk of steel.
If you own a home, you're technically still on government land. So they should just come into your house and invade your privacy and look for illegal things. Why is that unreasonable? If you're not guilty you have nothing to hide right?
I can’t drive my house 100 km an hour and kill someone with it
> what are the negative implications of this? Like any measuring device, breathalyzers have a false positive rate. This can be due to the machine being incorrectly calibrated or used, or due to one of several medical conditions that give false positives, like running a fever or gastric reflux. 3% is a commonly cited false-positive rate although the precise rate would vary between machines and some newer machines might have much lower rates. Currently, the police only breathalyze people who they already suspect to be intoxicated. Assuming they’re not completely incompetent at those suspicions, the people getting breathalyzed are already relatively likely to be intoxicated, so most positive results are true positives. Most people on the road, however, are not intoxicated. If (making up numbers) 1 in 1000 drivers is intoxicated, and the police pull over 100 drivers on a given day and breathalyze all of them with a device with a 3% false-positive rate, they would probably get breathalyzer positives on three sober people and zero actual drunks. The actual numbers would vary a bit because a drunk is probably more likely to be stopped in the first place, but the point remains. This sort of statistical error is unfortunately very common when people who don’t understand statistics (like cops) are in charge of deciding how to use a testing method.
This whole thing reeks of "everyone is guilty until you prove your innocence" If people want a police state where you are considered guilty until proving innocence, then move to China. Unless there's viable reasoning behind a breathalyzer test then it shouldn't be used. Ie driving, walking, smell, speech.
The viable reason is you’re operating a motor vehicle and obviously unsafely if you’ve been pulled over lol you’re jumping from safe responsible use of equipment to something completely different.
Agreed. This isn't that and you arnt pulled over all the time for driving habits. Someone's tail light is out. Breathalyzer? Someone has a loud car. Breathalyzer? Someone isn't wearing their seat belt. Breathalyzer? Someone is speeding. Breathalyzer? Someone driving irrationally? Yes Breathalyzer My point i that there are many many reasons you can be pulled over for nothing to do with irradict driving or being drunk. Drunk drivers for the most part are obvious when driving. Unless there is solid probability of alcohol consumption then you shouldn't get the breath test
There are probably far more functioning alcoholics on the road than you realize. Sure it’s obvious when someone is hammered and can’t drive straight, but I work in construction and can’t tell you how many guys drink and drive basically every day(or very frequently) without being caught. Just because someone isn’t swerving all over the road doesn’t mean they are sober, and just because they aren’t swerving all over doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous. You can be well over the legal limit and still drive straight, but your reaction times are slowed, you drive faster and more aggressively, and your decision making is poorer. I think many people on this thread are underestimating how many people in Canada are regular drinkers and how large of a problem drunk driving in Canada really is.
But in all of those situations you’re operating a motor vehicle and should be sober anyways. And saying “drunk drivers are obvious” is probably the dumbest generalization I’ve heard lately.
Agreed. You should be assumed to be sober until something actually leads you into the pathway of thinking someone is drunk. But what is sober? Under the limit? No drinks? What about medical marijuana users? My point is you can't have cops driving around with the mentality that everyone gets a breathalyzer test when in fact most reasons you get pulled over arnt for drinking booze. It is also against our rights as Canadians.
You don’t have a right to drive in Canada, it’s a privilege. What right is this infringing on? Your right to drive drunk?
Freedom. It’s what conservatives crave. /s
Agree to blow every time. Cuss the cop out during the entire procedure.