Topic: Tories revive random roadside breath test

[tpl]

The Harper government appears ready to move ahead with imposing random roadside breath testing, which a new federal discussion paper says has produced "remarkable results" in catching drunk drivers in other countries.

The proposal has encountered skepticism, however, with civil liberties proponents warning that the new legislation could give police the power to detain drivers without reasonable grounds or suspicion.

"The reality is that it creates a bit of a police-state mentality in which an innocent person can be subjected to a whole host of testings," said Edward Prutschi, a Toronto criminal lawyer.

"One's going to have to put an awful lot of faith in the typical officer on the road because they are going to be given a dramatically expanded discretion -- basically absolute carte blanche -- to stop anyone, anywhere, anytime and demand breath alcohol testing."
Empowering police to conduct random tests would replace 40-year-old legislation, which says the Breathalyzer can be administered only when there is reasonable suspicion of drunk driving.
...

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2668391#ixzz0hryMf6NC



However desirable it may be to keep drunk drivers off the roads, random stops should be slapped down by the Supremes if they come to pass.   IMHO.


Edit: Most Canadians would be outraged if we went to a system where a police officer could randomly stop anyone anywhere and ask "for your papers" and you'd have to carry ID everywhere. I would think those on the forum who are NOT white, middle aged and middle class would really object to that  Right?    SO why is it permissible to allow the Police to do it to motorists? 

[safristi]

.... i think "RANDOM"..that Montreal imbiber should be tested in bed ...in the shower and at his weird "smoked MEATS" haunts.................In Vino Veritas............

[Shnak]

Do it. Drunk driving is a big enough problem to warrant measures such as this one, IMO.

[tpl]

Drunk driving IS a problem, no argument.  But there are probably better ways than doing the KGB/Gestapo thing.

I would bet that 95% of the drivers who blow over 50, as it is now in Ontario, will go through their whole lives without ever having a driving incident ( from a simple skid to causing death) caused by their beer or two. The other 5% should probably be locked up and have many convictions and are known to police...which is a sufficient reason under the current rules to Breathalyse them.

[Shnak]

Drunk driving IS a problem, no argument.  But there are probably better ways than doing the KGB/Gestapo thing.

such as....?

[tpl]

Breathalysing people as they leave bars.   No argument about randomness there.  Probably works better in the countryside than in cities.   Even fitting breath monitors in cars. 

Shnak it is ONLY the Randomness I object to. I have no problem at all with breathalysing when there is  some suspicion... aka "reasonable cause to believe". 

The statistics seem to say that in a large proportion of accidents/collisions/crashes  alcohol is involved.  But I wonder. How many of these events per million car miles is it... I would think quite a small percentage.

[inco]

Ok so here is a scenario I conjured up.

Merrily you are driving along and all of a sudden pulled over and asked for a sample of your breath because the officer suspects you might have had a wee bit too mutch. So you blow and all is well. He accepts your reason that some thing fell on the floor and you had to bend down to get it causing the car to veer.

In the meantime though his partner runs your ID through the system and they find out you have missed your alimony payments and there is a court order outstanding. Or you have outstanding fines or whatever. They want to detain you. Can they?

If that answer is yes then I think your freedom was violated because their search was illegal. They had no reason to check on anything other than your sobriety. Now convince me the other isn't possible. I think it will happen if police are given that ability.

[tpl]

Inco, the National Post from where the article came quotes a BC human rights guy as thinking that might happen.  Certainly possible and imho the check is far more likely if the driver is  young,black,cheeky.
They probably CAN detain you ( remember the guy with a SUV full of drugs stopped on the Trans Canada last year or 2008) but a good lawyer would get you free again pretty quickly. 

I don't think it is all that likely but it will happen.

Now if all Police officers were cloned from The Fuzz ( we haven't heard from him lately)

[tenpenny]

At present, the officer has to have 'reasonable grounds'...so, all the officer has to do is see a car weaving, speeding, going too slow, going too fast, not stopping at a stop sign, stopping too long at a stop sign, going too slow through a yield sign, going too fast through a yield sign, driving erratically, smoking with kids in the car....in other words, as it stands now, 99% of cars on the road could be stopped for 'reasonable grounds' at any time.

What the hell do we need to change it for?

I know, we'll hear all the 'but this is different, so we need to suspend any rights or freedoms...' arguments, because that seems to be the current mindset.  But really, the police have all the power they need already, what do we need to give them more for? 

You know how to cut down on drunk driving?  Put people in jail for their 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 10th, 75th offenses, and stop letting politicians off the hook just because they're politicians.

[Shnak]

Breathalysing people as they leave bars.   No argument about randomness there.  Probably works better in the countryside than in cities.   Even fitting breath monitors in cars. 

Shnak it is ONLY the Randomness I object to. I have no problem at all with breathalysing when there is  some suspicion... aka "reasonable cause to believe". 

The statistics seem to say that in a large proportion of accidents/collisions/crashes  alcohol is involved.  But I wonder. How many of these events per million car miles is it... I would think quite a small percentage.

What about those who drink at home and jump into their cars to go get more beer at the store?

And about the randomness, how about you put booths on roads and highways so that everyone passing through has to breathe into a machine and wait for a green light? That's not random, everyone has to do it. You'd be okay with that?

[Erik]

Much easier way to impact drunk driving: Actually punish the people who get caught doing it.Automatic jail time, with long term license suspensions for first offences, like they have in many places around the world will make people think about it when they are sober. We are catching lots of drunk drivers now, but we are just not doing anything to them when we catch them.

[quadzilla]

First, I'm against this.

Second, I agree with those that say actually make tougher punishments and make it happen. None of this will matter if we keep letting drunk drivers back onto the road.

[Shnak]

I think both need to happen at the same time... catch MORE drunk people, and punish them severely right away, zero tolerance. Jail time with a first offense; if you kill someone while drunk, that's 2nd degree murder. If you injure someone while drunk, that's attempted murder.

[tpl]

Breathalysing people as they leave bars.   No argument about randomness there.  Probably works better in the countryside than in cities.   Even fitting breath monitors in cars. 

Shnak it is ONLY the Randomness I object to. I have no problem at all with breathalysing when there is  some suspicion... aka "reasonable cause to believe". 

The statistics seem to say that in a large proportion of accidents/collisions/crashes  alcohol is involved.  But I wonder. How many of these events per million car miles is it... I would think quite a small percentage.

What about those who drink at home and jump into their cars to go get more beer at the store?

And about the randomness, how about you put booths on roads and highways so that everyone passing through has to breathe into a machine and wait for a green light? That's not random, everyone has to do it. You'd be okay with that?

Actually I would be ok.   Not random. An automated process takes away any bias on the part of human police officers.  If you could make it quick and prevent it being suborned by a balloon of sober air (!) or a passenger  then it would be good to try it.

[tpl]

I think both need to happen at the same time... catch MORE drunk people, and punish them severely right away, zero tolerance. Jail time with a first offense; if you kill someone while drunk, that's 2nd degree murder. If you injure someone while drunk, that's attempted murder.

As long as DRUNK is the operative word. Drunk not just blowing 51.    AFAIK there is little actual prosecution in Ont if someone scores under 100 on the machine at the police station...whether that is good or bad is by the way. Probably bad.   Not to mention ex-Tory politicians...


One of the commentators in the article suggested that it would be likely that with random stops far more people would be "done" for over 50.
I am  more worried about the poor guy who blows 51 at the side of the road and loses his car for 3 days AND, although he is NOT GUILTY of anything gets "fined" by his insurance Co. for the entry on his MVR.    The old rule of just keeping the car for 12 hours seemed like a good compromise on that.

[DrJay]

And the hits just keep on commin'.... Heil Harper!

[Erik]

We already have all the laws we need to deal with this. Now all we have to do is enforce and penalize.

[DrJay]

We already have all the laws we need to deal with this. Now all we have to do is enforce and penalize.

Enter Judge Dredd......

[vdk]

^^ ROFL


Furthermore to what TPL said I'd like to see  tests going on in parking lots when people leave the clubs at 2 in the morning. They rarely have a RIDE program around there and I think that's plain stupid. Where they do have RIDE programs is on highway off ramps in places like Newmarket, Pickering etc. I dont get the point of stopping people who are 5 minutes away from home and by this time more sober than when they got in the car for a 30-45 min ride home.

[DrJay]

^^ ROFL


Furthermore to what TPL said I'd like to see  tests going on in parking lots when people leave the clubs at 2 in the morning. They rarely have a RIDE program around there and I think that's plain stupid. Where they do have RIDE programs is on highway off ramps in places like Newmarket, Pickering etc. I dont get the point of stopping people who are 5 minutes away from home and by this time more sober than when they got in the car for a 30-45 min ride home.

Totaly agree and just to spice things up a touch introduce mandatory, immediate rodney king type beatings to offenders.  Guaranteed to never re-offend.