- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Yeah mandatory breathalyzer is fine and I think is more fair than having an officer making a judgement after you roll down your window.
If you drink, take transit or hire a ride. There’s no two ways about drinking and driving.
I will be against mandatory weed tests as those don’t test accurately enough yet. (Even if I’m not a marijuana user myself).
take transit
Ha! I can just take the one bus every 2 hours that goes by the bar.
If you can’t make a plan to get home safely while you’re sober, maybe you should go to a different bar, or not go altogether. Your right to get shitfaced doesn’t cover being a danger to the public.
Yes, I’m the guy who would go to the bar with his friends, maybe have one drink at the beginning of the night, and make sure they got home safely.
I don’t drink and drive (a wobbly bike ride at 2am feels great), I just think it’s funny that transit is always pushed as an option in Canada when we almost don’t have it.
The federal govt should be putting $18B into public transit instead of oil and gas.
Well, I can’t disagree on that last part.
If there is no reason to suspect a crime, then this seems like unreasonable search and seizure, which is unconstitutional. It’s like randomly searching people’s homes to see if anything illegal is going on. Actually worse, it’s like searching EVERYONE’S home.
If you mention “the constitution” you are probably referring to another country.
In Canada, this would be a charter issue, but it’s not a charter issue.
A requirement of driving is having BAC below 0.8.
This is a traffic stop, where the point is to confirm that there are not legal issues with the vehicle or its operation. The search of showing your license is already more of a privacy issue than providing a breath sample.If you’re more curious about it, read section 8 of the charter.
Um, yeah, Canada has a Constitution and the Charter is a part of it:
The Constitution Act, 1982 gave Canada complete independence from Britain. Months of negotiations between the federal and provincial governments were held to determine how to “patriate” the country’s last British-held powers from Britain. The resulting Constitution Act, 1982 made several changes to Canada’s constitutional structure. The most important were the creation of an amending formula (the criteria that would have to be met to make future changes) and the addition of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/constitution
So, yeah, I am Canadian and laws in Canada can be unconstitutional. If you are curious about it our constitution, try finding basic information about it before condescending to teach someone else about it.
deleted by creator
You do understand that Toronto isn’t the US, and that other countries have other laws? Wether this is lawful or not is a different discussion
Canada has unreasonable search and seizure protections
It’s section 8 of the Charter
However our next PM (polling wise) said this when speaking to police in regards to the constitution limiting their powers
“We will make them constitutional, using whatever tools the Constitution allows me to use to make them constitutional. I think you know exactly what I mean,” Poilievre told the crowd.
Yeah, I do understand that we, like the US, also have a Constitution. Do you? Our Constitution includes a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. You should look it up sometime. Here’s a starting point from the Canadian Encyclopedia:
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/constitution
Edit: I should also say that protections against unreasonable search and seizure long predate the Canadian and US Constitutions and are derived from our countries’ common lineage back to England. If you are ever confused about why Canada and US have many similar rights and freedoms, it is because both Canada and the US were British colonies before achieving independence.
I really don’t so how this can be abused. You blow into the device and it reads out how much alcohol is in your breath. It takes seconds to do and cops can’t discover anything else about you other than how much alcohol is in your breath. It’s nothing like searching your home. It provides police with less information about you than your licence does, which cops can check anytime.
The breathalyzer isn’t the problem. It’s a free pretextual stop where they can look inside your car and decide if they want to hassle you over something else
They don’t need a reason to stop you when you’re driving. It’s a regulated activity and you’re required to be licensed. They can stop you to check your license just because they feel like it.
If you have something in your car that could give police reason to hassle you over, the pretextual stop was probably worth it. I get that police stopping drivers is annoying, and ACAB, but having to prove you aren’t drunk while driving is already a thing in Ontario. RIDE Programs are literal police checkpoints where you need to prove you aren’t drunk to pass through. That is already a thing and has been for years. I’ve yet to see any serious complaints about it or police abusing it to hassle people.
Untrue. If you are a class of person that that the police are interested in harassing, they only need an excuse to look around legally. Powdered donut residue, dirt, just a “suspicious smell” that has no need to be proven is enough to ruin your life even if you are eventually vindicated. There’s a reason stop and frisk is no longer official policy in NYC
But this isn’t stop and frisk. You’ve already been stopped. The policy is that everyone who gets stopped gets a breathalyzer. There’s literally no way this can be used to hassle you any further than you’ve already been hassled. You’ve already been pulled over. If cops want to hassle you for donut powder they already can without the breathalyzer bit. This doesn’t change when cops can pull you over.
Ok, I misread what was happening here, sorry 😞
They absolutely abuse it! See how many ride stops they do when someone is at large in the city. They throw them up under the guise of a ride program when searching for someone. I have heard them doing this on police scanner. If you had access to the data I’m sure you could prove this…
But it doesn’t read BAC. It just detects organic compounds with methyl groups and the courts assume it is alcohol. That’s usually a pretty safe bet if the person is also clearly inebriated. But now people who work with organic chemicals either at home or at work could get charged even with 0 actual BAC. Paint your bathroom with oil paint and have toluene in your system? Believe it or not, straight to jail.
Youre right! That’s why if someone blows high on a roadside test they will be taken to the station and tested again multiple times over a longer period of time using a more sensitive device. Roadside tests aren’t admissible in court as evidence and are only used as probable cause to force someone to take the real test at the station. Nobody is going to jail because they used mouthwash before driving.
The device at the police station works no differently than the roadside one. It is just considered more accurate in that it gives a number value to represent the estimated percentage of alcohol in your blood, based on the concentration of VOCs in your breath that have methyl groups. Roadside only does pass/fail/warn. The only way to actually know what is present in your system is a blood test. People don’t normally get breathalyzers unless there is a reason for it, even at RIDE checkpoints so yes, we may introduce a possibility of incriminating someone based on the results of a breathalyzer test alone. Unless we just stick to probable cause.
This has been the law of the land in Alberta for several years and has withstood legal challenges so far.
I believe the argument goes: A driver’s license is a privilige, not a right. Therefore forcing you to blow during a traffic stop to maintain the privilege of having your license isn’t a breach of your constitutional rights.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
All drivers in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area who are pulled over by Ontario Provincial Police highway safety officers will now be asked to provide a breath sample — no matter what they’re stopped for.
Officers will be conducting “mandatory alcohol screening” at every routine traffic stop as part of a new enforcement policy taking aim at drinking and driving, even if there is no reason to suspect a driver is impaired, the OPP said this week.
The policy will be implemented by officers operating out of OPP detachments in Toronto, Mississauga, Burlington, Cambridge, Aurora, Whitby, Niagara and Highway 407.
The Department of Justice says research shows up to 50 per cent of drivers with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit may not be detected at roadside check stops.
Shakir Rahim, director of criminal justice for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said his organization is “seriously concerned” the expansion violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure.
It concluded a definitive link between mandatory breath samples a decrease in drunk driving in those jurisdictions couldn’t be established because other factors such as education campaigns and increased enforcement also played a role.
The original article contains 861 words, the summary contains 188 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
