REVscene Automotive Forum - 'Most drivers' stopped by police will likely be tested for drunk driving: RCMP

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)

- Vancouver Auto Chat (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-auto-chat_173/)

- - 'Most drivers' stopped by police will likely be tested for drunk driving: RCMP (https://www.revscene.net/forums/715711-most-drivers-stopped-police-will-likely-tested-drunk-driving-rcmp.html)

'Most drivers' stopped by police will likely be tested for drunk driving: RCMP

I'm surprised no one has posted on this story in recent days, given the VI discussion.

Quote:

'Most drivers' stopped by police will likely be tested for drunk driving: RCMP
Under new law, no one is exempt from being asked to prove their sobriety if stopped lawfully

Police officers in Canada who lawfully pull over a driver no longer need reasonable grounds to demand a sample of their breath.

New changes in the Criminal Code that came into effect Tuesday give officers more authority when screening drivers for alcohol in hopes of reducing impaired driving and the number of deadly collisions.
Previously, when a driver was pulled over at a checkpoint or for violating traffic laws, an officer needed reasonable suspicion to request a breath sample to determine blood alcohol concentration.

Suspicion could arise from the smell of alcohol on their breath, slurred speech or strange behaviour from the driver.

"Officers will no longer have to articulate that suspicion," said Const. Chad Morrison of the Nova Scotia RCMP.

"If an officer is roadside with a vehicle, they will automatically have the authority to make a demand to any driver to provide a sample of their breath."
Anissa MacLeod of MADD Canada said the new legislation is a 'very big deal.' (CBC)

MADD Canada has been working to get a mandatory alcohol screening law into effect for 20 years, said Anissa MacLeod, the organization's Atlantic director.

Countries including New Zealand and Australia have similar legislation to help discourage impaired driving.

"We are really excited and thankful that this is coming into effect," said MacLeod.

"We know from examining other countries where they use mandatory alcohol screening, that it's had a huge effect on deterring individuals from driving while impaired, and it has reduced impaired driving considerably."

MacLeod said MADD suspects the new legislation, enacted with Bill C-46, will decrease impaired driving by as much as 20 per cent — or about 200 lives every year.
'Every expectation' new law will be challenged

Some legal experts, however, feel that the new legislation is likely to be challenged in the courts for being too broad. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, "everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

Toronto-based lawyer Michael Engel, who often defends those charged with impaired driving, said the new rules raise concerns about baseless searches.

Changes to Canada's drunk driving laws will give police sweeping powers, warn legal experts

"This is a radical departure from previous law, which insulated people against warrantless searches without probable cause," he said.

The new rules could lead to a backlog in the legal system as lower courts wait for higher courts to make a decision on likely challenges to the law's constitutionality, he said.

"It's a brave new world," Engel said. "This is a wholesale change to the Criminal Code."

Civil rights organizations have also sounded alarms about the new rules, with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association expressing concern that mandatory alcohol screening will unfairly affect racial minorities who are disproportionately singled out by police for traffic stops.

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould has said she has "every expectation" the law will be challenged in the courts, Wilson-Raybould said she believes it's in line with the charter and would pass the legal test.

Morrison said he believes "most drivers who come into contact with police will be screened" but an exception to that could be a busy checkpoint where obtaining a breath sample from every driver would be time consuming and create long delays.
RCMP Const. Chad Morrison of Nova Scotia RCMP says the law 'has been credited with reducing impaired driving and fatal collisions around the world.' (RCMP Nova Scotia facebook page)

Officers performing checkpoints and other traffic initiatives will be expected to establish criteria for using their new authority ahead of time, including the frequency with which they are checking vehicles, said Morrison.

He said it's critical officers are documenting their procedures and actions "so there's no accusations that they are targeting any specific person or type of group of people."

Morrison said officers will also undergo updated ethics and fairness training.

"Our training and policies are hoping to address the concern that [mandatory alcohol screening] could be used as a means of police targeting certain marginalized groups," he said.

"We are just making sure that officers are using it in a fair ethical way."

Speeding? Blow into this device. Is that the stock ride hight? Blow into this device.

Sober or even just a drink with dinner, better hope you don't blow a false positive.

i have no problem with this

how common are false positives?

is there also some way to test if someone's high?

The comments section on the article for this on FB was filled with cancer. People claiming it violates their charter of rights...What other reason is there to oppose this other than "I drink and drive"?

In 14 years of driving, I've been pulled over 4 times, twice because the officer couldn't see my temp license properly. For someone who has been affected by drunk driving, I'll gladly sit through the minor inconvenience of having to blow into a machine to get drunk drivers off the road.

So if they can't get you for drunk driving they will vi you now? :pokerface:

Same. I never drink and drive, and naturally never had any problems with cops. Most of them are quite nice, actually.

And I think it will probably work the same way as before, really. If you don't look like you are drunk, they will probably still let you go quickly so the line can move quickly.

I’d generally agree that they won’t be taking the time to test everyone anyways

However yea it is kind of fucked that if you’re getting pounded with fines or a suspension for having 1 beer if the timing is wrong.

Bring in fucking Uber if you’re gonna go so hardcore like fuck man

I believe that this is a good change.

I think the only concern i have for this (givin the VI fiasco) is if they actually LAWFULLY pull you over. I haven't had a problem with VI or drunk driving cause frankly i don't drive try not get attention (knock on wood) and i definitely don't drink and drive. I just really hope they don't abuse this authority.

Other than that, hell yeah, test away, shit any plate that registers to a driver with a record of dui is now free game to pull them over and test em, it's good deterrence.

Works in Australia. It’s compulsory for everyone to blow regardless of the reason for traffic stop

Quote:

Originally Posted by inv4zn (Post 8932967)

I don't drink and drive, I'm opposed to this.

Police have a terrible track record of abusing power when checks and balances are not present, BC has a warning limit of 0.05% (as opposed to the scientifically-based 0.08%) blood alcohol content, and the cannabis tests, which are notoriously-unreliable in other parts of the world, won't be far behind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jmac (Post 8932976)

Yes, but the lower limit for BC would have been exactly the same as before. Cannabis tests are a different story, I agree, as there seems to be no reasonable test for now and is ripe for abuse.

As for Alcohol testing, I fail to see why you oppose this. It gives the popo the authority to breathalyze you for ANY stop...but if you weren't drinking, what's the problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by inv4zn (Post 8932980)

Presumption of innocence was once a thing.

and your innocence is still in tact if you didn't have more than a glass or two of wine/beer with your dinner
they're not saying you're guilty, they just wanna check if you're guilty more easily

Quote:

Originally Posted by twitchyzero (Post 8932965)

i have no problem with this

how common are false positives?

is there also some way to test if someone's high?

I've had a breathalizer before. It was a waste of everyones time.

Going through a road block, I tell him no. He asks me to pull over because he smells alcohol (I don't drink). He asks me for my license and asks why I'm not wearing corrective lenses, I tell him I'm wearing contacts. He tells me to step out of the car because my eyes are glassy which is an indication of heavy drinking. I tell him again that I'm wearing contacts and he's not looking at my eyes. Had me take a breathalizer, I blow a big fat 0. He throws my license back at me and told me to get lost. I pick it up off the ground and drive off.

I don't know where he was getting the alcohol smell from, I had literally just replaced my brake pads and took it out for a spin. Maybe it was the smell of the cleaning solvents I was using but it smells way different from the alcohol that you drink.

I've never had the police stop me for suspected drinking and driving. Don't even know what a breathawhatever looks like. However, for those who oppose this, what if your wife, loved one, child, parent or best friend gets killed by a drunk driver? I believe this is a good move. Talk to those who have been affected by a drunk who gets behind the wheel. You can't get that loved one back.

Combine this with ride sharing and I believe the number of drunk drivers will go down.

My two bits.

As for !LittleDragon's post. It's so sad that some cops have to be complete assholes. It makes all cops look stupid. They claim that the public has little confidence in them. Well, clean up your fucking act and discipline the bad apples on the force. It'll get to the point where the kids and the elderly will be afraid of the cops.

In before the first "I blew a false positive thread".

I feel like this is being implemented more for cannabis testing. Since suspicion can be more difficult to detect than alcohol. Plus there's the timing of it...

They actually have 2 breathalyzer on hand to help prevent false positive by having to compare results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by !LittleDragon (Post 8932988)

sorry that he was a dick about it
but you were only inconvenienced for 5 minutes?
sounds like a worthwhile trade-off if they get someone above acceptable BAC off the street

Just box 1 everyone. Tow on the spot, no question. No need to waste time breathalyzing. :D

So just had a quick read through the bill and yup, looks like drugs are the main focus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jmac (Post 8932984)

Presumption of innocence was once a thing.

You are still presumed innocent, they just want to make it easier to contest your innocence.

Honestly, if this was something like "the government wants to make it easier for police to search your home without a warrant", then of course the outrage is justified.

But specifically for roadside breathalyzers, purely to get drunk drivers off the road, I think it's a very good thing.

I'm ok with this, but it would be nice if things like Uber, and the SkyTrain running later on weekends would follow suit. Instead we're going to get some gimped version of Uber *maybe* by next Christmas, so rest assured being a good law abiding citizen will net you a nice 3 hour wait for a Taxi over the holidays.

So there is gonna be road side checks with them making everyone do a breathe test Causing a Huge Grid lock for blocks going down the street???....

I wonder if that line can get so huge you could just pull out and drive the other way :troll:

Quote:

Originally Posted by inv4zn (Post 8933014)

If you have to prove your innocence without justified reasoning, that's being presumed guilty until you prove otherwise.

How do you feel about Stop & Frisk and Papers, Please policies of years gone by?