Author Topic: Police in Canada can now demand breath samples in bars, at home - Global News  (Read 2156 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JesseWZ

  • Directing Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 40,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 511
She *wasn't* swerving over the road, and was told she was by a law-enforcement officer at a check stop who is testing for impairment that she was. If you are truly "curious" about what is being implied by someone who is being deliberately untruthful about her driving in this scenario, I suggest you think deeply about what he could possibly be getting at and if you can't still figure it out, phone a friend.

All the various legitimate reasons to make a swerving manouevre are irrelevant when you are being accused of swerving when you in fact did not make any such manouevre.

Yeah yeah yeah, we all know how that would go...
Complainant: "He said I was swerving across the road and it's not true."
Subject of complaint: "I saw her swerving, seriously."
12 months later... "Complaint not substantiated."

I'm not trying to get under your skin or rankle you mate. I do believe in the complaint process. You can blow it off all you want as a foregone conclusion, but that's not what it will be. Visit the MPCC site, lots of case summaries on there where complaints were substantiated. The MPCC is pretty thorough and has no loyalty to the branch.

To talk more about your war story...
In a legal context saying someone was "accused of something" means something. Was she accused of a crime? It sounds like the MP asked if she was swerving, which she denied, and then the story ends. She's not being accused of a crime - only of swerving. I can only assume nothing further happened which caused an issue at the stop because your narrative ends there. Maybe the MP did get it wrong and didn't see her swerving, I wasn't there, but then so what? If no negative consequences occurred, I'm not sure what the issue is. Maybe the MP even lied about the swerving, but to what end? If she blew a 0 on the ASD like she would have if she hadn't been drinking, that would've been the end of it anyway.

To play the devil's advocate... - Let's say you're a police officer at a roadside sobriety check. A check that has been ruled lawful by the SCC due to the extreme danger to everyone about impaired driving. You're checking pretty much every car that comes your way. A car full of people, some who have been drinking pulls up to your stop. Driver says she hasn't been drinking, but you smell alcohol in the vehicle (because of all the drunk passengers) You know from your patrol experience, that sometimes people don't designate drivers and they pick the least drunk person to drive. You *could* ask the driver to step out in order to see if there is alcohol on her breath (begging the argument of further shame to the driver to get out at a roadside stop)... or perhaps you ask a question to get a response and smell her breath and ensure she is being truthful about consumption.

Lets say your a lazy MP, and you don't want to process an impaired driver, so you ignore some of the little red warning bells in your head. That driver carries on down the road and hits a school bus of orphan nuns - that's on the MP. Due diligence is important.

People lie to the police all the time. I've arrested a number of impaired drivers and every single one lied to me about whether they had had alcohol. Again, I'm not trying to get under your skin, or defend the actions of an incident I know .5 of a story about - simply trying to understand what occurred that has caused you to remember this story and feel compelled to retell it.
I will be seen and not heard... I will be seen and not heard... I will be seen and not heard...

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 113,581
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,203
To play the devil's advocate... - Let's say you're a police officer at a roadside sobriety check. A check that has been ruled lawful by the SCC due to the extreme danger to everyone about impaired driving. You're checking pretty much every car that comes your way. A car full of people, some who have been drinking pulls up to your stop. Driver says she hasn't been drinking, but you smell alcohol in the vehicle (because of all the drunk passengers) You know from your patrol experience, that sometimes people don't designate drivers and they pick the least drunk person to drive. You *could* ask the driver to step out in order to see if there is alcohol on her breath (begging the argument of further shame to the driver to get out at a roadside stop)...

If he would have said "I smell alcohol in the vehicle and therefore I'm going to administer a breathalyzer" I would have had zero issues with that.

He *made up a lie* that she was swerving. He didn't even have to make it up, as you said, there's a bunch of us in there drinking that had drinks, as was offered up voluntarily by the driver, it's perfectly reasonable that he smells alcohol and wants to test the driver.

It's the fact that he may up a lie about her actions. It's unprofessional. He was literally just being a dick because he could be. I don't  know why that's hard to understand. People's lives have been ruined by an LEO lying about their actions. That's why it's a big deal.

It sounds like the MP asked if she was swerving,

No, his exact words were "then why were you swerving on the road back there?" That is not asking if she was, that is accusing her of swerving (not accusing her of a crime, but accusing her of an action nonetheless). That there were no negative consequences of him being as arsehole doesn't change the fact that he was an arsehole. As I said, not all LEOs are competent or professional, and so giving LEOs more and more authority intrude on a law-abiding citizen without any reasonable suspicions, etc, *is* going to lead to more errors / more law-abiding citizens having their day or year ruined.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 15:21:50 by ballz »
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline JesseWZ

  • Directing Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 40,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 511


I think our sub discussion may have run its course. The only thing I'd add is why assume automatically the LEO is lying or simply being a dick for the sake of being a dick? It portrays a bias. To play devils advocate again, what if the LEO subjectively thought he observed swerving? Maybe his definition of a swerve and yours differ. Maybe he was mistaken. It's not uncommon for drivers approaching a check stop to be nervous and act erratically. There are lots of flashing lights, it can be hard to see.

He may have been dickish or abrupt in his approach, but it sounds from the half of a story we've got here, like the law was followed and no unnecessary intrusion into the drivers privacy was had.

Believe it or not, most of the time, there isn't a larger conspiracy by LEO to intrude on an individuals privacy rights for the sake of it. Manufacturing evidence, maintaining a lie, silencing witnesses, all take a huge amount of manpower. It's often more preferable and easier to just enforce the law. /tongue in cheek

And again, despite your misgivings about laying a complaint, that option is on the table for you.

It's the fact that he may up a lie about her actions. It's unprofessional. He was literally just being a dick because he could be. I don't  know why that's hard to understand.

I suggest you think deeply about what he could possibly be getting at and if you can't still figure it out, phone a friend...
Yeah yeah yeah, we all know how that would go...

I'm not quite sure what I've done to ruffle your feathers other than possibly just existing. You posted a narrative which invited response. I responded, with what I think was an open mind. I floated some possibilities about what could have been going on in the MP's head based on my subjective personal experience. I didn't rule out that he/she was a dick - maybe he/she was. I tabled an option for you to get justice for the way you feel you were treated and yet I feel like you are replying contemptibly.

Should I have just agreed 100% with everything you said no questions asked?
I will be seen and not heard... I will be seen and not heard... I will be seen and not heard...