Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Danny

Impaired driving and new laws

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, TieClark said:

That’s not confirmation bias... unless you’re trying to say that non-minorities are not upset about the law? 

There are a lot of small towns/cities where cops think they are robocops. You take smaller populations where the cops try to accumulate quotas, well the push becomes greater to achieve in a sense but this new open policy where they can even go into a restaurant (basically target you) and give you a breathalyzer is not right. 

I live in a town where there is plenty of natives and guess what road the cops usually pull people over? Yup the road leading to the rez. So it is happening now and the scale will become even larger now. I understand your theory of if you did nothing wrong, no need to worry, but,...cops make mistakes and they themselves have got the reputation of being sketchy themselves, and who is to say they couldn't put a drop of rubbing alcohol in the straw you blow in to ensure they tip the scale of being guilty to anyone now, as a matter of fact, the way the law is now, you are guilty before being proved innocent so that table has already turned and the rug has been pulled from basic human rights.

Edited by Danny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By attempting to crack down on that unusual defence, the government is shifting the onus of proof to people who drove and then drank, requiring them to prove that they only became impaired after they stopped driving. This means hiring a toxicologist to provide expert testimony in court.

“You’re going to have to hire a blood-alcohol expert at your own expense, and a lawyer. That’s easily going to run you well over $10,000 to $15,000,” Savage said.https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/how-the-rules-for-breath-tests-in-canada-have-changed-1.4248469

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm operating on the basis that these two things are true about this law.

1. The police do not have to provide reasonable suspicion that you have been driving intoxicated.

2. The police are allowed to enter your home up to 2 hrs after you've driven a car in order to breathalyze you.

Without somebodies life in danger or without a warrant, police have no fucking business being legally allowed into your home, or to pull you out of your home.

If these two things are true this brings in a level of privacy invasion and potential abuse that we absolutely cannot allow.  The 2 hour period seems absolutely absurd. You are no longer free in your house, despite not breaking any laws. The cops have legal grounds to enter/pull you out of your house for a breathalyzer. You could have went home and had a drink which would now put you into the impaired driving zone. You can be harassed at your own place for any reason. Police are now allowed to harass law abiding citizens in their own homes. There are a lot of people that are law abiding shit disturbers, or people that voice displeasure with the police. Those people now can legally be harassed at their own home. Long term, a ruling political party with control of the police force could use this to arrest political opponents in their own homes. It's a slow creep that we have to stop.

This has the markings of a tyrannical law that should not be allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raiden said:

Did.... did you just say the native guy isn't a minority?

 

You're actually retarded. Thank you for answering. 

I actually didn’t even know you were native tbh. You weren’t involved in the discussion prior to be fair.

1 hour ago, Jhator said:

The experience of you/your hockey team is not a reflection of the population as a whole...

That’s hardly what I even came remotely close to saying though. I said none of them are minorities and yet they’re up in arms about the laws... coincidentally they all drink regularly. Are they upset about it because of the potential impact the minority’s in the country may have? Possibly, but unlikely.

57 minutes ago, Danny said:

There are a lot of small towns/cities where cops think they are robocops. You take smaller populations where the cops try to accumulate quotas, well the push becomes greater to achieve in a sense but this new open policy where they can even go into a restaurant (basically target you) and give you a breathalyzer is not right. 

I live in a town where there is plenty of natives and guess what road the cops usually pull people over? Yup the road leading to the rez. So it is happening now and the scale will become even larger now. I understand your theory of if you did nothing wrong, no need to worry, but,...cops make mistakes and they themselves have got the reputation of being sketchy themselves, and who is to say they couldn't put a drop of rubbing alcohol in the straw you blow in to ensure they tip the scale of being guilty to anyone now, as a matter of fact, the way the law is now, you are guilty before being proved innocent so that table has already turned and the rug has been pulled from basic human rights.

Of course there will be police that abuse their power and allow their own bias’ to dictate who they actually use this law on... but that is the case with literally every law. 

We shouldn’t refrain from passing laws because the people enforcing the laws aren’t all the right people for the job. If that is the argument against the law, then look at the police force and their officers, not the law itself. 

From my understanding, they aren’t going to randomly show up at restaurants and breathalyze random people eating dinner. The law is there so if someone reports a suspected dui, the time it takes for the police to actually respond doesn’t allow the offender to get off Scott free because he made it to his destination 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Kulemin said:

I'm operating on the basis that these two things are true about this law.

1. The police do not have to provide reasonable suspicion that you have been driving intoxicated.

2. The police are allowed to enter your home up to 2 hrs after you've driven a car in order to breathalyze you.

Without somebodies life in danger or without a warrant, police have no fucking business being legally allowed into your home, or to pull you out of your home.

If these two things are true this brings in a level of privacy invasion and potential abuse that we absolutely cannot allow.  The 2 hour period seems absolutely absurd. You are no longer free in your house, despite not breaking any laws. The cops have legal grounds to enter/pull you out of your house for a breathalyzer. You could have went home and had a drink which would now put you into the impaired driving zone. You can be harassed at your own place for any reason. Police are now allowed to harass law abiding citizens in their own homes. There are a lot of people that are law abiding shit disturbers, or people that voice displeasure with the police. Those people now can legally be harassed at their own home. Long term, a ruling political party with control of the police force could use this to arrest political opponents in their own homes. It's a slow creep that we have to stop.

This has the markings of a tyrannical law that should not be allowed.

They can’t kick down your door and force you to blow (haha). If you answer the door, they can demand you take a breathalyzer, they still need a warrant to enter your home without permission as far as I’m aware.

The remainder of your post is really just fear of abuse of power which I don’t believe should ever deter you from passing a law designed for greater good. It should be monitored and watched closely, but that should be the case for all police encounters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TieClark said:

I actually didn’t even know you were native tbh. You weren’t involved in the discussion prior to be fair.

That’s hardly what I even came remotely close to saying though. I said none of them are minorities and yet they’re up in arms about the laws... coincidentally they all drink regularly. Are they upset about it because of the potential impact the minority’s in the country may have? Possibly, but unlikely.

Of course there will be police that abuse their power and allow their own bias’ to dictate who they actually use this law on... but that is the case with literally every law. 

We shouldn’t refrain from passing laws because the people enforcing the laws aren’t all the right people for the job. If that is the argument against the law, then look at the police force and their officers, not the law itself. 

From my understanding, they aren’t going to randomly show up at restaurants and breathalyze random people eating dinner. The law is there so if someone reports a suspected dui, the time it takes for the police to actually respond doesn’t allow the offender to get off Scott free because he made it to his destination 

Oh yes they can and do go random and can go into a restaurant even to apply this new law.

It even happened in your town at a beer store for just returning empties.

 

Taking back bottles to the Beer Store? A Mississauga man discovered this past weekend that it can lead to a breath test for alcohol by police.

“He said, ‘I saw you at the Beer Store and to me you were taking back, what looked like in my opinion, an excessive amount of bottles,’” said Art, a 70-year-old Streetsville resident. He asked Global News not to use his surname.

At around Noon on Saturday, Art went to his local Ontario Beer Store and returned about three dozen beer bottles and 10 wine bottles, which his family had accumulated over the holiday season.https://globalnews.ca/news/4828694/impaired-driving-laws-breath-tests-police/

 
Edited by Danny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Danny said:

Oh yes they can and do go random and can go into a restaurant even to apply this new law.

It even happened in your town at a beer store for just returning empties.

 

Taking back bottles to the Beer Store? A Mississauga man discovered this past weekend that it can lead to a breath test for alcohol by police.

“He said, ‘I saw you at the Beer Store and to me you were taking back, what looked like in my opinion, an excessive amount of bottles,’” said Art, a 70-year-old Streetsville resident. He asked Global News not to use his surname.

At around Noon on Saturday, Art went to his local Ontario Beer Store and returned about three dozen beer bottles and 10 wine bottles, which his family had accumulated over the holiday season.

 

After watching him drive I would assume based on that story. It’s all to do with driving... they aren’t looking to arrest people for being drunk. 

I would agree that arresting someone for returning empties is a bit ridiculous... but is it not more logical to have a discussion and talk about why that is unreasonable (imo) but going into a restaurant after receiving a call about a guy driving irrationally and forcing them to take a breathalyzer isn’t (imo). 

Seems far more productive and beneficial than crying about “my freedoms”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TieClark said:

They can’t kick down your door and force you to blow (haha). If you answer the door, they can demand you take a breathalyzer, they still need a warrant to enter your home without permission as far as I’m aware.

The remainder of your post is really just fear of abuse of power which I don’t believe should ever deter you from passing a law designed for greater good. It should be monitored and watched closely, but that should be the case for all police encounters. 

"

Bill C-46, which came into effect last month, gives police wide-ranging new powers to demand sobriety tests from drivers, boaters and even canoeists.

Police no longer need to have any reasonable grounds to suspect you're impaired, or driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of more than .08, which is 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, before demanding you submit to testing.

 

Refusing the test can result in a criminal charge.

But even drinking within two hours after you've stopped driving or boating could now get you arrested, if your BAC rises over .08

 

According to several lawyers canvassed by CBC News, police can come to your home up to two hours after you stopped driving or boating to test your sobriety.

"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/canadians-could-now-be-charged-with-drunk-driving-even-if-not-drunk-lawyers-warn-1.4975008

Reports about this law seem to be very murky and both sides are saying different things.

The greater good is subjective Tie. Countries have done awful things in the name of the greater good. In the name of the greater good, and you have nothing to hide leads us to you have no privacy or freedom.

It's in the greater good for you to have a government camera installed in your home and all around your neighborhood, it will protect you if anything bad happens to you. You have nothing to hide anyways so you shouldn't really care. It would have countless peoples lives. In fact we could reduce all murders if we just installed enough cameras and had microphones in every home and public place. If we all were installed with GPS chips we could solve any murder case moving forward. We should do it for the greater good. I'm just following your greater good bullshit to the extreme.

Also the problem is who monitors it and watches it closely. It's the same problem with policing language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TieClark said:

After watching him drive I would assume based on that story. It’s all to do with driving... they aren’t looking to arrest people for being drunk. 

I would agree that arresting someone for returning empties is a bit ridiculous... but is it not more logical to have a discussion and talk about why that is unreasonable (imo) but going into a restaurant after receiving a call about a guy driving irrationally and forcing them to take a breathalyzer isn’t (imo). 

Seems far more productive and beneficial than crying about “my freedoms”.

"

But Brown calls the law a solution for a problem that rarely existed and claims it will "criminalize Canadians who have done nothing wrong."

He points to number of scenarios where people park their cars with no intention of driving anytime soon, then start drinking.

"You can imagine a situation where a husband and wife are out together. The husband drives to the bar knowing the wife will be the designated driver on the way home, and she's not going to be consuming alcohol that night. The husband drinks alcohol and is now over the limit and has driven a vehicle within the previous two hours," said Brown.

Brown says police can legally enter the bar, or wait for the couple to leave the establishment and demand a breath sample from the husband.

"Even if he's walking to the passenger side of the car, if he is now over 80," added Brown, he could be arrested.

"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/canadians-could-now-be-charged-with-drunk-driving-even-if-not-drunk-lawyers-warn-1.4975008

From an actual lawyer.

It's not just about freedoms it's about wrongful convictions of people who have done nothing wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TieClark said:

After watching him drive I would assume based on that story. It’s all to do with driving... they aren’t looking to arrest people for being drunk. 

I would agree that arresting someone for returning empties is a bit ridiculous... but is it not more logical to have a discussion and talk about why that is unreasonable (imo) but going into a restaurant after receiving a call about a guy driving irrationally and forcing them to take a breathalyzer isn’t (imo). 

Seems far more productive and beneficial than crying about “my freedoms”.

Well in my town, there are so many pot holes that if you didn't swerve to avoid them, most likely you are drunk.

And what about the people who do not drink, swerve to avoid a pot hole and get pulled over by the cops? It is just another invasion of a law to let any cop who has a breathalyzer on them to pull over and test people, even randomly. So, if they are popping people who are just bringing in empties, imagine how they can enforce anyone to take a breathalyzer even if they are having one beer at lunch. I even read, say you are at a bar (and lets say you are the designated driver even who honestly never consumed a drink) and if you went to your car to grab something even if you do not start the car, you can be subjected to a breathalyzer. Guilty before being proved innocent. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Bojack said:

So nobody but me bothered to read the OP article to the end, eh?

I went back and read OP article and I do see where I probably went wrong as it wasn’t in the other articles I read.

Mandatory breathalyzers can only happen roadside according to a lawyer in that global article

 I think the problem is that they don’t really break down the law into its sections in articles. So while I see in the CBC article it says no reasonable suspicion is necessary anymore it might not apply to non roadside breathalyzers. I’d have to read the actual law I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kulemin said:

"

Bill C-46, which came into effect last month, gives police wide-ranging new powers to demand sobriety tests from drivers, boaters and even canoeists.

Police no longer need to have any reasonable grounds to suspect you're impaired, or driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of more than .08, which is 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, before demanding you submit to testing.

 

Refusing the test can result in a criminal charge.

But even drinking within two hours after you've stopped driving or boating could now get you arrested, if your BAC rises over .08

 

According to several lawyers canvassed by CBC News, police can come to your home up to two hours after you stopped driving or boating to test your sobriety.

"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/canadians-could-now-be-charged-with-drunk-driving-even-if-not-drunk-lawyers-warn-1.4975008

Reports about this law seem to be very murky and both sides are saying different things.

The greater good is subjective Tie. Countries have done awful things in the name of the greater good. In the name of the greater good, and you have nothing to hide leads us to you have no privacy or freedom.

It's in the greater good for you to have a government camera installed in your home and all around your neighborhood, it will protect you if anything bad happens to you. You have nothing to hide anyways so you shouldn't really care. It would have countless peoples lives. In fact we could reduce all murders if we just installed enough cameras and had microphones in every home and public place. If we all were installed with GPS chips we could solve any murder case moving forward. We should do it for the greater good. I'm just following your greater good bullshit to the extreme.

Also the problem is who monitors it and watches it closely. It's the same problem with policing language.

Again my dumbasses understanding of it, but that’s essentially what I said no? They can come to your house and demand a breathalyzer up to 2 hours after... if you don’t answer the door though they can’t just kick your door down. 

Completely understand that the greater good is subjective and that there is a line... I don’t believe that we’re at the line where it’s not in the society’s best interest. 

More than anything I think we lack the ability to have open discussions and it causes these massive divides. Why cant we be ok with this and not ok with the next one that might take a step too far over the line? It’s impossible to find the right balance otherwise.

 

6 minutes ago, Kulemin said:

"

But Brown calls the law a solution for a problem that rarely existed and claims it will "criminalize Canadians who have done nothing wrong."

He points to number of scenarios where people park their cars with no intention of driving anytime soon, then start drinking.

"You can imagine a situation where a husband and wife are out together. The husband drives to the bar knowing the wife will be the designated driver on the way home, and she's not going to be consuming alcohol that night. The husband drinks alcohol and is now over the limit and has driven a vehicle within the previous two hours," said Brown.

Brown says police can legally enter the bar, or wait for the couple to leave the establishment and demand a breath sample from the husband.

"Even if he's walking to the passenger side of the car, if he is now over 80," added Brown, he could be arrested.

"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/canadians-could-now-be-charged-with-drunk-driving-even-if-not-drunk-lawyers-warn-1.4975008

From an actual lawyer.

It's not just about freedoms it's about wrongful convictions of people who have done nothing wrong.

Jodi would know more about the legal ramifications but I think we probably have to wait to see until an actual case is tried. I have a hard time believing that police randomly showing up at your house after you started drinking with no suspicion or proof of anything would stand up in actual case.

Just now, Danny said:

Well in my town, there are so many pot holes that if you didn't swerve to avoid them, most likely you are drunk.

And what about the people who do not drink, swerve to avoid a pot hole and get pulled over by the cops? It is just another invasion of a law to let any cop who has a breathalyzer on them to pull over and test people, even randomly. So, if they are popping people who are just bringing in empties, imagine how they can enforce anyone to take a breathalyzer even if they are having one beer at lunch. I even read, say you are at a bar (and lets say you are the designated driver even who honestly never consumed a drink) and if you went to your car to grab something even if you do not start the car, you can be subjected to a breathalyzer. Guilty before being proved innocent. 

 

I think we also have to keep in mind that police are real people too. Good people aren’t trying to jam you up with some bs charge, especially if you treat them with the same respect you’d expect yourself.

All of these concerns just circle back to the real problem of poor choices for who becomes a police officer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Bojack said:

So nobody but me bothered to read the OP article to the end, eh?

Is this what you are getting at?

“Mandatory alcohol screening only applies at the roadside, nowhere else. The law is clear on that,” said David Taylor, director of communications for the minister of justice and attorney general of Canada.

 

if that is the case then why can they do this?

In an instance where someone was drinking in a public place, Doroshenko said it would be hard for someone to prove they weren’t impaired when they were driving earlier.

“If [the police] come and find you at the restaurant they can take you out of the restaurant despite the fact you’ve been drinking at the restaurant, maybe you weren’t going to drive away,” he said, arguing the rules are excessive.

“It is profoundly stupid, so most people assume it can’t be. But that’s what the law is now, you will see it happen — I guarantee it.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TieClark said:

Again my dumbasses understanding of it, but that’s essentially what I said no? They can come to your house and demand a breathalyzer up to 2 hours after... if you don’t answer the door though they can’t just kick your door down. 

Completely understand that the greater good is subjective and that there is a line... I don’t believe that we’re at the line where it’s not in the society’s best interest. 

More than anything I think we lack the ability to have open discussions and it causes these massive divides. Why cant we be ok with this and not ok with the next one that might take a step too far over the line? It’s impossible to find the right balance otherwise.

 

Jodi would know more about the legal ramifications but I think we probably have to wait to see until an actual case is tried. I have a hard time believing that police randomly showing up at your house after you started drinking with no suspicion or proof of anything would stand up in actual case.

I think we also have to keep in mind that police are real people too. Good people aren’t trying to jam you up with some bs charge, especially if you treat them with the same respect you’d expect yourself.

All of these concerns just circle back to the real problem of poor choices for who becomes a police officer. 

That is my dumbass understanding of it now too.

I don't think that line is as far or as thick as you think it is. This law has the ability to send law abiding citizens to jail because of stupid wording and stupid conditions. It's not in the societies best interest to use unfair tactics to put innocent people in jail. This is a radical step that is not going to change the amount of drunk driving deaths in any significant manner. What it is going to do is open the door for abuse and it's very difficult to shut that door once it's open.

What is the next problem we have that kills people on the roadways. Distracted driving. The next step to these series of laws is not requiring reasonable suspicion that you've been texting and driving for a police officer to pull you over and go through your phone. It is absolutely for the greater good to stop distracted drivers from killing people, and if you weren't texting and driving you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

The concerns are very real. Good laws don't have the ability to be abused legally. You limit the impact on innocent people. I think of this with politics, passing new bills broadening the power of the ruling political party may be good when you're political party is in power and you trust them, but when they hand off that torch to the next party, they're now allowed to use that power, so you better make sure that power can't be abused or used incorrectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the fuzz come after you under the 'two-hour' provisions, they still require a reasonable suspicion that you were impaired while driving. 

Quote

 

Operation while impaired

253 (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,

(a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or

(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.

Marginal note:For greater certainty

(2) For greater certainty, the reference to impairment by alcohol or a drug in paragraph (1)(a) includes impairment by a combination of alcohol and a drug.

Marginal note:Operation while impaired — blood drug concentration

(3) Subject to subsection (4), everyone commits an offence who has within two hours after ceasing to operate a motor vehicle or vessel or after ceasing to operate or to assist in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or after ceasing to have the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment

(a) a blood drug concentration that is equal to or exceeds the blood drug concentration for the drug that is prescribed by regulation;

(b) a blood drug concentration that is equal to or exceeds the blood drug concentration for the drug that is prescribed by regulation and that is less than the concentration prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (a); or

(c) a blood alcohol concentration and a blood drug concentration that is equal to or exceeds the blood alcohol concentration and the blood drug concentration for the drug that are prescribed by regulation for instances where alcohol and that drug are combined.

Marginal note:Exception

(4) No person commits an offence under subsection (3) if

(a) they consumed the drug or the alcohol or both after ceasing to operate a motor vehicle or vessel, or after ceasing to operate or assist in the operation of an aircraft or railway equipment or after ceasing to have the care or control of a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment; and

(b) after ceasing the activities described in paragraph (a), they had no reasonable expectation that they would be required to provide a sample of a bodily substance.

 

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-57.html#docCont

I'm not a fan of the changed law, for clarity. It is, in my eyes, clear over-reach facilitating an unjustifiable expansion of state-surveillance powers and a corresponding erosion in civil liberty.

But it's not as cartoonishly evil as parts of the media have used selective quoting to make it appear, either. It doesn't over-ride any of the other protections you already have against unlawful search or detention. The OPP still cannot legally bust your door in, just 'cause they saw you in a car ten minutes ago.

The media is also over-stating the burden a defendant would have to bear to be able to use the ss.4 defences. It's "evidential", not "legal".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidential_burden

The prosecution, on the other hand, bears a "legal" burden, being "beyond reasonable doubt", to show that an offence was committed and that any defences raised do not apply.

 

Edited by Bojack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bojack said:

I'm not a fan of the changed law, for clarity. It is, in my eyes, clear over-reach facilitating an unjustifiable expansion of state-surveillance powers and a corresponding erosion in civil liberty.

 

 

Yet you're sympathetic to communism

Ignoring the state semenatics

Edited by Kulemin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×