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

[Jarnhamar]

Everyone makes mistakes. But, considering how many CAF members there are ( 95,000? ) I don't believe their members get sued as frequently by the public as members of our emergency services do when they make a mistake.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Of course, it's the taxpayers who end up paying the bill.

When CAF members make mistakes it generally doesn't effect members of the public; medically, financially, emotionally, employability, public image, etc...

 

[mariomike]

When CAF members make mistakes it generally doesn't effect members of the public;

That's what I was trying to say.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-the-liberals-police-state-impaired-driving-law-has-to-go

Chris Selley: The Liberals' police-state impaired driving law has to go

With Canada's drunkest drivers continuing to cause carnage on our roads, the government is targeting asthmatics and people buying wine

The Liberals felt they had to 'get tough' on impaired driving, but this is evidence of what happens when you essentially outsource lawmaking to Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

John Lappa/Sudbury Star/Postmedia Network
Chris Selley
Chris Selley

June 7, 2019
10:59 PM EDT
Filed under

More and more victims of the federal Liberals’ insane new impaired driving law are making themselves heard, and they’re making Justin Trudeau’s government look very, very foolish — not least because what’s happening is precisely what everyone predicted.

Last week CBC reported on the case of Jimmy Forster, a British Columbia man with diagnosed severe asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), who twice in recent months has been charged with failing to provide a breath sample.

People with lung conditions being unable to register a sample has been an issue in the past. But in the past, police had to articulate some suspicion of impairment before compelling a breath sample. Bill C-46, which received Royal Assent nearly a year ago, eliminated that requirement. Police don’t seem to have suspected impairment either time they nabbed Forster. He says he volunteered to give a blood test, but was rebuffed.

In each case his licence was suspended and his car impounded. All told he’s out some $1,800 and without transportation, which he relies upon not just for himself but for his disabled sister. Even appealing — which he did once successfully and once not — costs $200.

Another British Columbian, 76-year-old Norma McLeod, who also suffers from COPD, was reportedly pulled over and breathalyzed for having just left a liquor store. She couldn’t make the machine go ding, and had her licence and car seized. Her appeal failed despite her doctor testifying to her condition. She’s launching a constitutional challenge against the law, and well she might.

In a statement to CBC, the RCMP claimed their officers’ hands are tied: Where they suspect impairment, the Criminal Code provides for alternative testing methods; but the new section covering “mandatory alcohol screening” does not. This may well be evidence of shoddy lawmaking. But the section emphatically does not compel officers to charge people in situations like Forster’s and McLeod’s.

    The Liberals were warned that these two provisions in particular were engraved invitations to abuse

More at link

 

[Jarnhamar]

It would be interesting to see the number of drunk drivers charged and found guilty before this law came into affect and after.

 

[brihard]

It would be interesting to see the number of drunk drivers charged and found guilty before this law came into affect and after.

My understand is that DOJ in conjunction with prosecutors and police are trying to figure out how to do some decent data collection on this. Not just before/after, but in greater depth about the use of mandatory alcohol screening. I haven’t seen anything come of it yet, but I know a guy in the RCMP’s National Traffic Service who was seeking input from from line police on what viable data collection could look like.

Charges are just one metric of course. Ideally what we want to see is fewer collisions, injuries, and fatalities involving drivers found to be impaired by alcohol. Deterrence is infinitely preferable to enforcement against an offense in commission.

British Columbia saw impaired driving deaths drop by approximately half when they brought in Immediate Roadside Prohibitions. That’s the kind of metric that is sought over anything else. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/driving-and-transportation/driving/publications/dec-2016-alcohol-related-fatalities.pdf

 

[Kirkhill]

If find it curious that criminal cases can be imperiled because evidence in bags is improperly transferred in custody and yet the assumption here appears to be that evidence collected after the fact, remote from the scene of the "crime", is held to be valid.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm more concerned with people saying "Hey, this works! What other criminal acts can we diminish by removal of more rights?"

That points to no rights = no crime.

How about a curfew? How about an interlock device in every car? Why not just keep all cars in one lockup and you have to show the cop your license, insurance and a clean BAC before you can retrieve your property? Oh, and all over again when you park for the day.........before curfew and your shuttle home?

Proactively trampling rights to diminish crime is a non starter.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Yes to interlocks.

Yes to a curfew in Toronto and maybe Vancouver.

 

[Furniture]

Yes to interlocks.

Yes to a curfew in Toronto and maybe Vancouver.

That's the same reasoning that's used to ban all firearms.

It's easy to agree to people losing their rights, so long as it doesn't negatively impact your own life.

 

[Sub_Guy]

Yes to interlocks.

Would it be a bad idea to have a interlock in every vehicle?

Perhaps Victoria city council can table a motion to have car manufacturers foot the bill for checkpoints.  If cars were installed with interlocks there would be a reduced need for checkpoints.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Would it be a bad idea to have a interlock in every vehicle?

Who do you impose upon to pay for it all?

Who pays to retrofit all the vehicles currently out there?

Of course, the presumption of innocence has long since faded into history, so no need to worry about that anymore.  J'accuse and off to jail you go.

 

[Lumber]

Who do you impose upon to pay for it all?

Who pays to retrofit all the vehicles currently out there?

Of course, the presumption of innocence has long since faded into history, so no need to worry about that anymore.  J'accuse and off to jail you go.

Who paid to have airbags and seat belts installed in every vehicle?

 

[Jarnhamar]

That's the same reasoning that's used to ban all firearms.

But I'm not trying to ban firearms. I'd be more than happy to put an interlock device on my gun vaults  ;D

It's easy to agree to people losing their rights, so long as it doesn't negatively impact your own life.

You're right there.

Would it be a bad idea to have a interlock in every vehicle?

I don't think so.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Who paid to have airbags and seat belts installed in every vehicle?

You did.

 

[mariomike]

Would it be a bad idea to have a interlock in every vehicle?

Probably depends upon one's point of view.

A US study, for reference to the discussion,

2015

An interlock device in every new car 'could prevent 80% of drunk-driving deaths'
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/291043.php
Every day, almost 30 people in the US lose their lives in an alcohol-related motor vehicle crash. But according to a new study, introducing alcohol interlock devices to all new motor vehicles could prevent more than 80% of these deaths.

The study results suggest that 85% of alcohol-related motor vehicle deaths and 84-88% of nonfatal injuries in the US could be prevented over a 15-year period through installation of interlock devices in all new vehicles. This equates to 59,554 lives saved and around 1.25 million nonfatal alcohol-related vehicle crashes prevented, according to the researchers.

 

[Furniture]

But I'm not trying to ban firearms. I'd be more than happy to put an interlock device on my gun vaults  ;DYou're right there.

I don't think so.

The problem with chipping away at individual rights and freedoms is, it leads to more chipping away at them. Today it's interlocks, tomorrow it's banning operation of a vehicle during "unsafe" driving hours, next it's requesting permission to travel outside your municipality. Anything for safety, think of the children...

Maybe at the same time in the name of safety it will a ban on private possession of firearms, or knives over a certain length. After all, it's good enough to restrict people's cars for safety why not restrict private possession, and use of all "dangerous" objects.

 

[cld617]

Who paid to have airbags and seat belts installed in every vehicle?

The purchaser of the vehicle did, who has the potential to get into an accident through no neglect of their own. An interlock imposed on everyone for the few who cannot control their criminal behavior is an abhorrent suggestion.

 

[Loachman]

On the plus side, it might protect a few non-drinking drivers from some drinking ones.

Like making it mandatory for everybody to purchase and wear kevlar body armour to protect against criminal misuse of firearms instead of taking firearms away from the law-abiding.

Not that I'm a fan of either suggestion.

 

[mariomike]

We've had RIDE in Toronto since 1977. A lot of people complained in the local papers about their "rights" back then.

I guess most got used to it.

 

[Furniture]

We've had RIDE in Toronto since 1977. A lot of people complained in the local papers about their "rights" back then.

I guess most got used to it.

An occasional check stop is one thing, having the government involved every time I start my car is a bit much.

It's similar to me not minding that my car might get searched when I go onto the base, but I sure wouldn't accept random vehicle searches just because the police were bored.

That you called them "rights" says a lot...