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

[mariomike]

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

"Rights" was the word being used by some people complaining to the local papers back in 1977...

 

[Jarnhamar]

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...

Alright, I'm sold on it being intrusive and a bad idea.
Educational initiatives, social pressure and targeting offenders is better than a blanket attempt to control everyone.

 

[brihard]

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.

Random police stops of motorists to check license status, registration, insurance, mechanical fitness, and sobriety were challenged against the Charter in R. v. Ladouceur, 1990. The SCC held that police are able to stop vehicles completely at random to check these things (inclusive of RIDE checks, though they were affirming pre-Charter case law regarding that). They held that, while an arbitrary detention does result, it was justified as a reasonable limitation under S.1.

Ladouceur will unquestionably be one of the key decisions considered once parts of this new law begin hitting appeals courts. It will be challenged many times over, with different sections of it being subjected to Charter challenge depending on the facts of each case. I expect one of the most contentious decisions will be the mandatory roadside breath tests, absent ‘reasonable suspicion’, as a ‘seizure’ under S.8.. H

 

[tomahawk6]

But to enter a person's home uninvited to get a breathalyzer smacks of intrusive policing.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

But to enter a person's home uninvited to get a breathalyzer smacks of intrusive policing.

Don't answer the door.

 

[brihard]

But to enter a person's home uninvited to get a breathalyzer smacks of intrusive policing.

Yes, which is why it cannot be done. I can’t put this any more plainly: police cannot simply show up at a house based on a tip and enter uninvited to investigate impaired driving. Unless police are in fresh pursuit of a fleeing suspect, or have a warrant authorizing entry, or have credible reason to fear for the safety of someone in the house- they cannot enter uninvited. Clear as mud?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Yes, which is why it cannot be done. I can’t put this any more plainly: police cannot simply show up at a house based on a tip and enter uninvited to investigate impaired driving. Unless police are in fresh pursuit of a fleeing suspect, or have a warrant authorizing entry, or have credible reason to fear for the safety of someone in the house- they cannot enter uninvited. Clear as mud?

If the police get a tip that I was drinking and driving and they show up at my door, I answer, and I'm clearly intoxicated, can the police administer a breathalyzer then? What if I say I haven't left my house all day?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Hypotheticals are rabbit holes.

There are two rules when dealing with police in a situation like this. Don't open the door and don't speak to them without a lawyer.

Police don't come to your door like Jehova's Witnesses wanting to share with you.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Best free legal advice ever!  :rofl:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTurSi0LhJs

 

[brihard]

If the police get a tip that I was drinking and driving and they show up at my door, I answer, and I'm clearly intoxicated, can the police administer a breathalyzer then? What if I say I haven't left my house all day?

I’ll preface by saying that this answer is not affected by the new laws- it applies equally before and after. So:

Sort of / yes / but...

If you’re clearly intoxicated, an on scene Approved Screening Device shouldn’t be the way to go; someone clearly drunk is already past that and you generally go right to arrest if you have the rest of the pieces of the puzzle. But that aside, I infer that the bigger ‘so what?’ is more whether police can detain or arrest you. Police can do that without a breath sample on scene; the intent of a drunk driving arrest is generally to get a breath sample from a better instrument at the station.

Whether an ASD sample on scene, or going right to arrest, police have to be convinced that the person was in fact operating a motor vehicle. A credible enough witness can give them that even in the face of denials or claims to the contrary. Startlingly, some drunk drivers actually lie to police. A positive ID from a witness versus a denial by a suspect becomes a judgement call by the investigating officer.

But, without continuity of the driver, police will struggle to be able to articulate reasonable grounds to say that they have evidence showing conclusively that the driver was intoxicated while behind the wheel. Recency comes into this too. Is there a lengthy delay? Or do you arrive to find the tail pipe still warm?

Some people absolutely come to the door just after drunk driving. Usually in this case police are investigating a hit and run or some egregiously dangerous driving, or they generally wouldn’t bother once they see the car made it home.

The one difference the new law makes is that if a person should be reasonably expecting to be investigated - hit and run is the best example by far - then the ‘within two hours’ provision can apply for charges. But that has zero impact on the ability of police to get samples, and gives no powers to go into a house that didn’t otherwise exist.