Law Canadian police can now give you a breathalyzer test at home or in a bar or anywhere without reason.

[Wet Blanket]

This took two seconds to read:

"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."
http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-46/royal-assent



Ffs....

I get how that's supposed to work, but I am quite confident this will be abused by law enforcement. It's still definitely overreach.

 

[wlu.29]

lmao @ this 3rd world country.

lol at thinking a third world country can afford breathalyzer

 

[trac209]

This is all over the news here,thanks liberals...

 

[Sano]

I get how that's supposed to work, but I am quite confident this will be abused by law enforcement. It's still definitely overreach.

Overreach maybe. You're confident that it will be abused, just like many were confident that C-16 would be abused yet it never happened. I guess time will tell. As long as there's an explicit exemption in the law, I have a very hard time seeing it being misused. In fact, your legal rights are protected right there and if they wanted to do unwarrented arrests then they would never formulate it that way. They are shooting themselves in the foot. If they cannot prove without reasonable doubt that you did not consume the alcohol after driving ended then any laywer will chew them up with that exemption.

What I see it as is a poor attemt to ammend the law to somehow do something about drunk driving.
accidents instead of sitting on their hands. Will it help? Doubtful. Is it a plot by the government to jail you for no reason? Obviously no.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

how do you prove you drunk after getting home?
film yourself?

 

[Wet Blanket]

how do you prove you drunk after getting home?
film yourself?

Legally, the burden of proof would be on the police.

 

[Wet Blanket]

Overreach maybe. You're confident that it will be abused, just like many were confident that C-16 would be abused yet it never happened. I guess time will tell. As long as there's an explicit exemption in the law, I have a very hard time seeing it being misused. In fact, your legal rights are protected right there and if they wanted to do unwarrented arrests then they would never formulate it that way. They are shooting themselves in the foot. If they cannot prove without reasonable doubt that you did not consume the alcohol after driving ended then any laywer will chew them up with that exemption.

What I see it as is a poor attemt to ammend the law to somehow do something about drunk driving.
accidents instead of sitting on their hands. Will it help? Doubtful. Is it a plot by the government to jail you for no reason? Obviously no.

Bottom line, my complaint is that the police shouldn't be able to demand a breath test without reason and certainly not two hours after you were driving.

I feel the same way about carding.

 

[Sano]

Bottom line, my complaint is that the police shouldn't be able to demand a breath test without reason and certainly not two hours after you were driving.

I feel the same way about carding.

I agree in principle but I'd like to see someone with a legal background interpret the law. Hopefully the Canadian bar association will put out a statement. I think my main point is that I don't see it being threatening at all the way it's written, and if authoritarianism is your concern there's far greater issues at hand happening all over right now.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

lol test you 2 hours after you get home? What can that possibly prove? Do they get to fuck your wife after they're done?

While I do think this is a bit much, the blood curve is pretty solid scientifically to tell when you last drank vs when you drove... But that's a blood test not a shitty breath test

 

[HIMBOB]

I can see purpose but any self respecting drink driver is going to have some empties or half drunk bottles around the house.

 

[method115]

While I do think this is a bit much, the blood curve is pretty solid scientifically to tell when you last drank vs when you drove... But that's a blood test not a shitty breath test

Yes if we were talking a blood test that would be different but a breath test is crap.

 

[Wet Blanket]

I agree in principle but I'd like to see someone with a legal background interpret the law. Hopefully the Canadian bar association will put out a statement. I think my main point is that I don't see it being threatening at all the way it's written, and if authoritarianism is your concern there's far greater issues at hand happening all over right now.

Luckily, I have a criminal law expert at my disposal. I will certainly be discussing it with them tonight.

And of course I agree that there are areas of more concern, but that doesn't mean I can ignore this. With all the "police related" challenges that marginalized people have to go through, I can forsee them being the victims of the misuse of these new police powers.

 

[3825 968]

Take the refusal charge and take it to court.

 

[Dirt Road Soldier]

Close the curtains, refuse to answer the door. Problem solved.

And yah, this law is bunk. This wouldnt last 15 minutes in the US before a judge tossed it out the window.

 

[Andy Capp]

So as of Jan 1st 2019 police in Canada can now demand a breath test without needing a cause (bad driving, slurred speech, smell of alcohol, etc) and they can do it at you home or anywhere they like for up to 2 hours AFTER you were 'spotted' driving a vehicle.

Furthermore, you are susceptible to charges , fines, and suspension if you do not comply.

So if you drive home sober (or under limit) and have a few drinks whike watching tv you could blow over the limit and be charged. One man was recently pulled over after a police officer saw him returning "a lot" of empties to the beer store.

Its quite an authoritarian law IMO and I got to see it challenged. It's pointed out that it would be easy to abuse the law to harass ex's during divorce etc.

https://www.blogto.com/city/2019/01/police-can-now-breathalyze-canadians-home-and-bars/

https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...ng-laws-to-take-effect-across-canada-tomorrow

http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-46/royal-assent

I hate this but I am just as adamant it will not survive its first court challenge.

It's pretty fucked up that this even passed, mind you. Don't get me wrong, there is a very real problem with impaired driving in this country. PEI is the drunk driving mecca. So, it's great if police have some improved ability to enforce impaired driving laws, but this is going much too far in its violation of civil liberties, not to mention cold logic.

If what you say is true, that they can test you even some time after you have been driving, the law is moronic on its face. Who the fuck are they to say I can't spark up as soon as I arrive at my destination (taking as a given that I'm doing so in a space where it's legal to smoke, let's say, my driveway or backyard, depending. Then they show up 10 minutes later and test me? Fuck that noise. Admittedly, I haven't read your sources yet, but that doesn't sound like it can be right to me.

 

[Sano]

I hate this but I am just as adamant it will not survive its first court challenge.

It's pretty fucked up that this even passed, mind you. Don't get me wrong, there is a very real problem with impaired driving in this country. PEI is the drunk driving mecca. So, it's great if police have some improved ability to enforce impaired driving laws, but this is going much too far in its violation of civil liberties, not to mention cold logic.

If what you say is true, that they can test you even some time after you have been driving, the law is moronic on its face. Who the fuck are they to say I can't spark up as soon as I arrive at my destination (taking as a given that I'm doing so in a space where it's legal to smoke, let's say, my driveway or backyard, depending. Then they show up 10 minutes later and test me? Fuck that noise. Admittedly, I haven't read your sources yet, but that doesn't sound like it can be right to me.

There's an excemption, just read a little further up. Still a bad law though, but not quite as malevolent.

 

[Andy Capp]

I hate this but I am just as adamant it will not survive its first court challenge.

It's pretty fucked up that this even passed, mind you. Don't get me wrong, there is a very real problem with impaired driving in this country. PEI is the drunk driving mecca. So, it's great if police have some improved ability to enforce impaired driving laws, but this is going much too far in its violation of civil liberties, not to mention cold logic.

If what you say is true, that they can test you even some time after you have been driving, the law is moronic on its face. Who the fuck are they to say I can't spark up as soon as I arrive at my destination (taking as a given that I'm doing so in a space where it's legal to smoke, let's say, my driveway or backyard, depending. Then they show up 10 minutes later and test me? Fuck that noise. Admittedly, I haven't read your sources yet, but that doesn't sound like it can be right to me.

Harumph. Answered my own question:
“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.”

 

[Andy Capp]

There's an excemption, just read a little further up. Still a bad law though, but not quite as malevolent.

It doesn't get much more malevolent than this: "But under C-46, police do not need to have reasonable grounds to suspect impairment."

The whole reason "reasonable grounds" is a requirement in the first place is that otherwise the law is too easily abused by law enforcement. That's fucked and it won't withstand a court challenge unless things have gone completely batshit.

 

[Wet Blanket]

It doesn't get much more malevolent than this: "But under C-46, police do not need to have reasonable grounds to suspect impairment."

The whole reason "reasonable grounds" is a requirement in the first place is that otherwise the law is too easily abused by law enforcement. That's fucked and it won't withstand a court challenge unless things have gone completely batshit.

That is my (and most others) problem with it as well.

I agree impared driving is a major problem, but this is not right.

I'd prefer mandatory tests at ride checks over this. At least the person is driving the car at the time of the test.

 

[Andy Capp]

This took two seconds to read:

"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."
http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-46/royal-assent



Ffs....

Indeed. This does not address what happens if they decide to confront you in the first place just because they want to, and then "catch" you at something else.

And incidentally, at that link, I also read,
"(3) The portion of subsection 254(2) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Testing for presence of alcohol or a drug

(2) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol or a drug in their body and that the person has, within the preceding three hours, operated a motor vehicle or vessel, operated or assisted in the operation of an aircraft or railway equipment or had the care or control of a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment, the peace officer may, by demand, require the person to comply with the requirements of either or both of paragraphs (a) and (c), in the case of a drug, or with the requirements of either or both of paragraphs (a) and (b), in the case of alcohol:

(4) Subsection 254(2) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (a), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following after paragraph (b):

(c) to forthwith provide a sample of a bodily substance that, in the peace officer’s opinion, is necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made by means of approved drug screening equipment and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose."

I don't know where the "2 hours after" is coming from when in fact it's anytime within the past 3.