Police in Canada can now demand breath samples in bars, at home - Global News

[JesseWZ]

Which is easy to abuse. Story time [helmets on]:

On our way into the base, there was a check stop. No issues, we don't care, we've got a sober driver anyway, this ought to be quick, right? As we pull up the MP asks the driver if she had been drinking "No, they did, I haven't." Has she consumed cannibus (the law had just been passed) "No." Then why were you swerving back there on the road?

Okay, this was pure BS. I was in the passenger seat, also sober, she did not swerve anywhere. This was a question that essentially falsely accused the person of having done something wrong to see what their response would be. That is entirely unprofessional and an entirely made-up premise such as that can easily be used to intrude.

I'm curious what you believe the driver was accused of in your story? There are lots of legitimate reasons to swerve in the road that wont result in criminal charges. (Debris, potholes, animals, etc). Was the driver put on an ASD? We're they arrested? Given a violation ticket? We're they charged? Given an administrative license suspension? If the answer is NO, it sounds like the law worked as it should and an innocent person was not charged with impaired driving. From what it sounds like, all the MPs did was ask a question based on their subjective observation of a vehicle moving from their stationary position.

If you truly believe the conduct of the roadside MPs was not on, we have both an internal Professional Standards organization and an external Military Police Complaints Commission for you to air your grievances to. MPs are duty bound and have lawful orders to assist anyone in how to file a complaint with either organization.

 

[dapaterson]

Example: It's 1:30 A.M. on a Saturday morning, I see a car speeding and change lanes without signalling.

In Montreal, you'd get pulled over as suspicious if you weren't speeding and did signal.

 

[ballz]

I'm curious what you believe the driver was accused of in your story? There are lots of legitimate reasons to swerve in the road that wont result in criminal charges. (Debris, potholes, animals, etc). Was the driver put on an ASD? We're they arrested? Given a violation ticket? We're they charged? Given an administrative license suspension? If the answer is NO, it sounds like the law worked as it should and an innocent person was not charged with impaired driving. From what it sounds like, all the MPs did was ask a question based on their subjective observation of a vehicle moving from their stationary position.

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.

If you truly believe the conduct of the roadside MPs was not on, we have both an internal Professional Standards organization and an external Military Police Complaints Commission for you to air your grievances to. MPs are duty bound and have lawful orders to assist anyone in how to file a complaint with either organization.

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."

 

[ballz]

I'll address this since it's the most annoying fiction in that whole garbage news story. Bear in mind that it was a hypothetical postulated by a lawyer whose business is greatly dependent on a number of the technicality defences that have now been closed.

Let's say police get that call. The caller describes the alleged drunk driver by name, describes vehicle, describes address. Cops get there some time later.

Police do not have the driver operating. Mandatory Alcohol Screening per S.320.27(2) C.C. is not in effect. The power police have is that in S.320.27(1). It is exactly the same as it always have been. The lowest threshold to get a sample would be by Approved Screening Device. The threshold for that, as I described, is polcie must have reasonable suspicion that the person has operated a conveyance with alcohol in their body within the past three hours.

'Reasonable suspicion' isn't a hunch or a tip. There's tons of case law on this. Generally the three accepted grounds for this are an admission to drinking before/during operating; a smell of beverage alcohol on the breath of someone currently operating a vehicle, or a clear and credible witness to a person consuming alcohol prior to operating. The police officer in this case wouldn't have anything close to what a judge would deem 'reasonable suspicion'. It would fail the objective suspicion test.

A person has not committed an 'over 80' offense if the consumed alcohol after operating, AND they had no reasonable expectation that they would be expected to provide samples, AND their BAC if tested is consistent (factoring in subsequent drinks consumed) with them having been under the legal limit at the time of driving.

That's wordy, but why it matters is to cover situations like the hit and run I alluded to above. Police get a hit and run, show up at the house and find the car still warm, driver comes to the door and steps outside and has definitely been drinking. This isn't a guy who simply drove home from the bar and nothing bad happened- he got in an accident. It's reasonable to expect he might be investigated and might have to provide samples. This criminalizes the practices of drinking after an accident to obstruct an impaired driving investigation.

There will definitely be some case law around what is meant by "they had no reasonable expectation that they would be required to provide a sample of breath or blood". There will be case law around what the standard of proof is for a driver to prove their post-driving consumption to rule out having been impaired ahead of time. Every single bit of this new system for impaired driving enforcement is going to get tested in court across a variety of cases that will be soon (if not already) starting to get prosecuted. It is not, however, nearly so flawed or prone to abuses as some recent news stories would have you believe. Again, pay attention to who that reporter *did* speak to, and who they didn't.

I get the desire to close the loophole on cheap "outs" when you've caused an accident. Could this not have been better solved by, if anything, a small change to the "obstruction" laws / sentences? I'm sure it was tried before but I'm pretty surprised those who fled the scene or sat at the scene and drank fireball were not able to be found guilty of obstruction as it was.

 

[brihard]

I get the desire to close the loophole on cheap "outs" when you've caused an accident. Could this not have been better solved by, if anything, a small change to the "obstruction" laws / sentences? I'm sure it was tried before but I'm pretty surprised those who fled the scene or sat at the scene and drank fireball were not able to be found guilty of obstruction as it was.

It has to be pretty blatant to prove obstruction. There have been convictions of that, and there have also been others who got away with it. The new laws most directly target the problem; intent to obstruct the investigation doesn't need to be proven. It's the dangerous behaviour itself that is criminalized.

 

[JesseWZ]

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.

 

[ballz]

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.

 

[JesseWZ]

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?

 

[ballz]

I'll address this since it's the most annoying fiction in that whole garbage news story.

Doesn't seem very fiction-like now that it has happened... how would we have ever predicted something like this  :

https://globalnews.ca/news/5326941/nanaimo-woman-wins-court-challenge-breathalyzer/?utm_source=GlobalBC&utm_medium=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2s7inzWMiqmZh2XFwO7a8KXjNGQLz0nPcpIhCvO5AflI_pl2j8W3GjmLg

Pretty fucking sad state of affairs. How many more people are we going to violate and string them through the legal process because of the Charter violations in this law, before we just throw the garbage out?

 

[Infanteer]

Why did the RCMP show up two hours they arrived at the house?  Can't figure that out from the new story.

But in general, I don't like how the law is constructed, and I feel it'll fail a charter challenge.

 

[brihard]

Doesn't seem very fiction-like now that it has happened... how would we have ever predicted something like this  :

https://globalnews.ca/news/5326941/nanaimo-woman-wins-court-challenge-breathalyzer/?utm_source=GlobalBC&utm_medium=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2s7inzWMiqmZh2XFwO7a8KXjNGQLz0nPcpIhCvO5AflI_pl2j8W3GjmLg

Pretty ******* sad state of affairs. How many more people are we going to violate and string them through the legal process because of the Charter violations in this law, before we just throw the garbage out?

I stand by what I said. The original story was garbage, and based off a shoddy understanding of the law. It presented a fiction that someone could be convicted of impaired driving based on police arbitrarily arriving at their house hours after driving and demanding random breath samples. That remains patently untrue to anyone who has paid sufficient attention as to actually understand the law in detail.

This current news story presents only one side of whatever it was that happened. It does not elucidate on what led police to be arriving at that particular residence to conduct an impaired driving investigation, nor how it was that the specific driver in question was identified. Very clearly there was a sufficiently detailed report to police to cause them concerns leading to a door knock.

The new law does not allow for police to conduct Mandatory Alcohol Screening under S.320.27(2) unless a person is presently operating a motor vehicle. You cannot do a random compulsory demand inside a residence. The only powers that let you demand a breath sample in a residence are those that already existed before the new law came into effect. A police officer following up on a complaint who does not find the driver driving must, before requiring an Approved Screening Device sample be provided, form a reasonable suspicion that the person within the preceding three hours was operating a conveyance with alcohol in their body. An admission to having had one drink at the bar and then driven would suffice for that. It's incumbent on the officer to consider things like intervening drinks, however that doesn't rule out investigation, samples and charges if they have enough info to work with (e.g., how many drinks over what span of time).

Also, not that charges were not laid. This was a proceeding under British Columbia's Immediate Roadside Prohibition. No criminal conviction can result from that it's a purely administrative measure that still has some avenues of appeal- which were successfully exercised in this case.

I don't know any more about the case than what's written in the news, and my knowledge of the law as actually written. I will speculate that one of two things happened:
- The officers misunderstood the application of the new provisions for Mandatory Alcohol Screening and did something they're not allowed to do. That's not a problem inherent in the law, that's a training and supervision issue. This seems, on the test of simplicity, to be the more likely case, because IRPs are reasonably tough to get dismissed. Or:
- The officers acted properly on reasonable suspicion and got an ASD sample, but failed to adequately articulate their observations or evidence in their report, leaving the appeal authority unable to find themselves convinced that the IRP was valid. Definitely possible.

I will further speculate that had this happened in any other province, and presupposing that officers had the necessary reasonable suspicion for an ASD test and the resultant 'fail', they would then have demanded breath samples from an approved instrument, and if samples came in over .08 BAC, charges would have been laid under S.320.14(1)(b), the 'within two hours of driving, over 80' provision. In that case, the defense could argue that their client met the three conditions given in 320.14(5) of 1. Consumed alcohol after ceasing to operate; 2. Had no reasonable expectation tat they would be investigated and required to provide a sample (e.g., hit and run, fled from police), and 3. Their BAC as measured is consistent, given intervening drinks, of having been under the limit at time of driving.

So, as I said- we have one half of a story, and we simply won't get the other half. But none of what I read here, in my fairly informed opinion, suggests to me that what happened is due to any inherent flaw in the new law. Again, to reiterate, because apparently it's necessary to, police have no new legal power to demand a breath sample inside a residence that they did not have before.

 

[Infanteer]

the 'within two hours of driving, over 80' provision.

It's this that I don't like.  Why charge me after for something I did after the fact.  It has nothing to do with impaired driving.

 

[brihard]

It's this that I don't like.  Why charge me after for something I did after the fact.  It has nothing to do with impaired driving.

I outlined why this is in place and how it would work upthread, with real examples of how this defeats circumstances and defenses that have stymied justice for drunk drivers many times over.

 

[ballz]

Also, not that charges were not laid. This was a proceeding under British Columbia's Immediate Roadside Prohibition. No criminal conviction can result from that it's a purely administrative measure that still has some avenues of appeal- which were successfully exercised in this case.

Your downplaying of the negative consequences this has needlessly had on the person and their family is appalling.

I don't know any more about the case than what's written in the news, and my knowledge of the law as actually written. I will speculate that one of two things happened:
- The officers misunderstood the application of the new provisions for Mandatory Alcohol Screening and did something they're not allowed to do. That's not a problem inherent in the law, that's a training and supervision issue. This seems, on the test of simplicity, to be the more likely case, because IRPs are reasonably tough to get dismissed. Or:
- The officers acted properly on reasonable suspicion and got an ASD sample, but failed to adequately articulate their observations or evidence in their report, leaving the appeal authority unable to find themselves convinced that the IRP was valid. Definitely possible.

Neither of those scenarios is acceptable. To err is to be human. To absolve the legislators of culpability because they didn't consider the consequences of human error is unreasonable.

In scenario 2, it's just silly to think two hours after the fact there is any way to prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of DUI. Making something that shouldn't be a crime (being drunk an hour after you get home) into a crime, in hopes to convict people of an actual crime that you can't prove (DUI) is nuts, and there is nothing supportable about it.

I will further speculate that had this happened in any other province, and presupposing that officers had the necessary reasonable suspicion for an ASD test and the resultant 'fail', they would then have demanded breath samples from an approved instrument, and if samples came in over .08 BAC, charges would have been laid under S.320.14(1)(b), the 'within two hours of driving, over 80' provision. In that case, the defense could argue that their client met the three conditions given in 320.14(5) of 1. Consumed alcohol after ceasing to operate; 2. Had no reasonable expectation tat they would be investigated and required to provide a sample (e.g., hit and run, fled from police), and 3. Their BAC as measured is consistent, given intervening drinks, of having been under the limit at time of driving.

It's pretty sad scary that you see nothing wrong with this scenario.

 

[ballz]

I outlined why this is in place and how it would work upthread, with real examples of how this defeats circumstances and defenses that have stymied justice for drunk drivers many times over.

Without a care in the world for the collateral damage.... the ends justify the means apparently.

 

[brihard]

Your downplaying of the negative consequences this has needlessly had on the person and their family is appalling.

Neither of those scenarios is acceptable. To err is to be human. To absolve the legislators of culpability because they didn't consider the consequences of human error is unreasonable.

I'm not downplaying the negative consequences. The context of your post was in relating to something discussed months ago. That was speaking specifically to the criminal liabilities of this potential scenario. It was nonsense then, and it's nonsense now- I simply wasn't drifting the thread in a new direction, but sticking to what we were actually talking about. I recognize that the driver has faced serious consequences, some of which have been remedied, others not. I hope that there is further remedy. When errors are made, if liability exists, then there are systems to deal with that and I hope the driver makes use of them. That system will, of course, have access to the full story- a deficiency we're on the wrong end of, which I note you're not acknowledging.

In scenario 2, it's just silly to think two hours after the fact there is any way to prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of DUI. Making something that shouldn't be a crime (being drunk an hour after you get home) into a crime, in hopes to convict people of an actual crime that you can't prove (DUI) is nuts, and there is nothing supportable about it.

Of course it's possible to prove someone guilty of DUI two hours after they get home (or elsewhere). All kinds of circumstances could take place that could allow for the circumstances to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is likely or common? Of course not. But many iterations of it are reasonably conceivable, given the possible presence of other witnesses, information received in a complaint, etc etc. There have definitely been people vconvicted of DUIs when they were encountered by police hours after the fact. A hit and run can easily lead to a door knock at a residence that leads to a suspect being identified and then ultimately impaired operation charges being laid.

It's pretty sad scary that you see nothing wrong with this scenario.

You're verging on personal attack here. I never said I see nothing wrong with thsoe two scenarios. I simply stated factually that I can assess the possibility of a couple different types of errors being present. To think that police as a profession can uniquely error free is of course silly- as you said above, 'to err is human'. Errors in the professional context must be rectified. I've been a coach to a couple new officers, and on an ongoing basis I mentor several others. If errors aren't being made, people aren't trying to learn their job. We deal with the errors, and when it requires us to be frank and forthright to crown in our disclosures, we are, because that's the integrity demanded of us. But errors must be fixed and learned from. I've learned the most from the handful of cases that I've had not go my way in court. But I've never been 'OK' with my mistakes, because I strive not to repeat them- and that's what I consistently see myself and other more experienced members expect of the rookies. But my sitting back and objetively analyzing a story as presented doesn't mean I'm 'ok' with things being done wrong particularly when they infringe the rights or negatively impact the lives of others, and you're out of line to cast that aspersion on me.

 

[ballz]

I'm not downplaying the negative consequences. The context of your post was in relating to something discussed months ago. That was speaking specifically to the criminal liabilities of this potential scenario. It was nonsense then, and it's nonsense now- I simply wasn't drifting the thread in a new direction, but sticking to what we were actually talking about.

In the article we're discussing, the difference that would be between her administrative charges and criminal charges for blowing over .08 was what exactly? The fact that she hadn't drank an extra drink or two? It sure wasn't anything in this legislation that would have prevented it.

You're verging on personal attack here. I never said I see nothing wrong with thsoe two scenarios. I simply stated factually that I can assess the possibility of a couple different types of errors being present. To think that police as a profession can uniquely error free is of course silly- as you said above, 'to err is human'. Errors in the professional context must be rectified. I've been a coach to a couple new officers, and on an ongoing basis I mentor several others. If errors aren't being made, people aren't trying to learn their job. We deal with the errors, and when it requires us to be frank and forthright to crown in our disclosures, we are, because that's the integrity demanded of us. But errors must be fixed and learned from. I've learned the most from the handful of cases that I've had not go my way in court. But I've never been 'OK' with my mistakes, because I strive not to repeat them- and that's what I consistently see myself and other more experienced members expect of the rookies. But my sitting back and objetively analyzing a story as presented doesn't mean I'm 'ok' with things being done wrong particularly when they infringe the rights or negatively impact the lives of others, and you're out of line to cast that aspersion on me.

I'm not sure why you are talking about errors in this point, I sure wasn't. Under the situation you were talking about and I was quoting your scenario, there would have been no "police" errors made. And yet, someone who has done nothing wrong finds themselves up on criminal charges and essentially has to prove themselves innocent. By making a non-crime (being drunk in your house 2 hours after you stopped driving) into a crime, this law has created a reverse onus... prove that you weren't drinking and driving, or we're going to slap you with an unrelated criminal charge for something that is otherwise not a crime.

You seem to have zero problems with this, because it might help you catch an extra drunk driver or two. To me it is scary that people support these kind of Orwellian measures, perhaps a little more so when it's a police officer that can't seem to grasp that we can't just easily accept collateral damage to innocent people so that the police can catch more bad guys. So if that's a "personal" attack, so be it.

 

[brihard]

In the article we're discussing, the difference that would between her administrative charges and criminal charges for blowing over .08 was what exactly? The fact that she hadn't drank an extra drink or two? It sure wasn't anything in this legislation that would have prevented it.

You're still not getting it. There's far too little info to tell what actually happened here, but nothing presented suggests the new legislation was a part of it. Police got a complaint, showed up at her house, got invited in, and spoke with her. One of two things happened:
- They demanded a sample under the new Mandatory Alcohol Screening provision. If that's what they did, it was utterly incorrect to do so, and is NOT what the law allows because they weren't stopped with her operating a conveyance in real time. Or;
- They developed reasonable suspicion, which can be as simple as "yeah, I was driving, but I only had one drink at the bar". That's all they need to demand a breath sample under reasonable suspicion. That's not new to this law. They could always do that. They could always charge for impaired in those circumstances. The new law has closed a number of loophole defences, most particularly someone who flees a collision and drinks, but it did NOT create any new powers to do breath tests in a home. You really need to wrap your head around this.

So it's possible a mistake was made, it's also possible that in that abundant details we didn't get, they may have had grounds to do testing, such as an admission of consumption and of driving, and they may have had other evidence from the original complaint to cause them that real concern.

So while you're right that nothing in this legislation prevented what did happen, neither did anything in this new legislation actually allow it to happen either

I'm not sure why you are talking about errors in this point, I sure wasn't. Under the situation you were talking about and I was quoting your scenario, there would have been no "police" errors made. And yet, someone who has done nothing wrong finds themselves up on criminal charges and essentially has to prove themselves innocent. By making a non-crime (being drunk in your house 2 hours after you stopped driving) into a crime, this law has created a reverse onus... prove that you weren't drinking and driving, or we're going to slap you with an unrelated criminal charge for something that is otherwise not a crime.

You need to go and read the actual law, because no, you're wrong. Sub (5) of the offense section, 320.14, explicitly makes it NOT an offense to simply drive home sober, then get drunk afterwards. It literally states "No person commits an offense if..." and goes on to list the things I said. That's not creating a reverse onus, because as I state the police first have to be in the course of an investigation that leads them to reasonable suspicion in the first place, and that case law has been beaten to death abundantly already. To get to charging someone for impaired in their own residence after the fact of driving has taken place is possible, but it's hard. Police need reasonable suspicion for a breath test on scene, and then reasonable grounds to believe a person has operated while impaired in order to get samples back at the station that can actually determine charges, because the roadside test doesn't do that. That 'reasonable grounds' threshold is higher still. This isn't just 'I think, so I'm gonna charge you'.

You seem to have zero problems with this, because it might help you catch an extra drunk driver or two. To me it is scary that people support these kind of Orwellian measures, perhaps a little more so when it's a police officer that can't seem to grasp that we can't just easily accept collateral damage to innocent people so that the police can catch more bad guys. So if that's a "personal" attack, so be it.

Wrong again. My concern is more with deterring impaired drivers. I want people to be scared to drive drunk, because so far far too many haven't been. I want that person to take an Uber, or drink a couple less drinks, and to never cross my path that day. I'd like drunk driving to not be a thing. Instead, since the new year alone, I've gotten a suspended driver who blew well over the limit on his second impaired in three years. I got a guy driving home from the bar with his lights off at night who was an absolute piss tank and nearly twice the limit three hours after I pulled him over. I got a guy who blew past an accident scene (caused by another drunk driver) on a bridge with two police cars and a tow truck all with lights going, clocked him 90 in a 50, and he refused to provide a sample but stank of booze when I pulled him over, and degenerated into a drunken mess during the time he was in the back of my car. Finally I ended up in a drive through behind a guy who literally passed out at the wheel with his foot on the brake, and blew over .200 when we got samples from him. He'd been drinking for 4 hours straight after hockey. That's four normal people with good jobs and pretty clean histories in most cases, all in or close to the downtown core, and I'm just thankful none of them killed anyone. And that's just the small proportion of them that end up encountering police. Most drunk drivers get away with it many times over before they're caught. Or before they kill someone.

You've got my motivations all wrong on this. Not accepting collateral damage to innocent people is exactly what this whole thing is about. It only takes one accident scene with a drunk driver and a wrecked child seat in a car to develop pretty strong opinions on this.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I can see the potential for this to become a new variation on SWATing. Neighbour doesn't like you mowing your lawn before 10:00 on Sunday morning. He calls up and claims to see you swerve a couple of times and drive over a curb. The police show up at 14:00 and ask you to blow. you blow over because it's Sunday afternoon and you've had a few well earned drinks after yard work day. Destination fucked.

 

[brihard]

I can see the potential for this to become a new variation on SWATing. Neighbour doesn't like you mowing your lawn before 10:00 on Sunday morning. He calls up and claims to see you swerve a couple of times and drive over a curb. The police show up at 14:00 and ask you to blow. you blow over because it's Sunday afternoon and you've had a few well earned drinks after yard work day. Destination ****ed.

Doubful. The circumstances you describe wouldn't allow a breath sample demand anyway. More to the point, any competent police officer is not going to try to build an impaired out of something that thin.

Once again police cannot simply show up at your house later on after you've been driving, and, without evidence that you were driving with alcohol in your body (and it must have been within three hours), demand a sample from you. Random samples without reasonable suspicion must be while you're driving. The new law creates no new power whatsoever for police to demand breath samples in any context other than someone presently operating a motor vehicle. Now, if you're operating your car in your living room, a breath sample might be permissible and perhaps even a good idea...