Topic: Steering You Right: Random breath tests

[Autos_Editor]

Lawyer Jordan Charness discusses the pros and cons of proposed legislation that would allow police to pull over drivers to randomly perform breathalyzer tests whether or not they have a reason to suspect drivers are intoxicated.
Read More...

[toolatecrew]

They can usually be counted on to use their powers for good and in a legal way. And if they don’t they also know that defence lawyers and boards of inquiry will be all over them in our system of checks and balances that helps to keep everybody safe

And allowing random searches just removes one more barrier that's in place to keep them using their powers in a good and legal way.

There are lots of highly publicised examples of police acting  improperly with some very bad results. There are lots of recent examples of boards of inquiry being convened too late and the officer walking away without proper review. Fear of review is not sufficient to prevent the officer from violating someones rights. Once they are violated you can't unviolate them.

I'm all for keeping drunk drivers off the road but random stops is simply unacceptable. Frankly I think its a waste of resources. Resources are finite. The governments ability to pass legislation is "finite" so why not concentrate it where it will do the most good. This will raise major opposition. It will drag on using up time and resources and in the end have I think minimal effect.

Why not put those time and resources behind tightening the penalties against the people who are doing the real dames. The repeat offenders. There are too many people out there with multiple convictions. Too many times a death or accident is caused by someone who was previously punished for DUI. Spend the resources dealing with those you have already caught. Not on trying to catch a few more that will end up re offending anyways.

[dragonflyjack]

 I agree with the previous poster... Spend the resources more wisely...
  The main reason for drunken repeat offences is addiction (alcoholism)..How we prevent these people who are thusly afflicted, from driving while intoxicated is the issue...Eliminate their drunken driving and you will abate, not eliminate this problem.
  One of the reasons I am against random testing is that their will inevitably be some
 discrimination in the picking of who to pull over...and I'd bet it would tend to be the  guys driving flashier autos..or the poor people driving older cars...
  I definitely agree that it is a problem that should be given attention..
                Thanks   dragonfly

[Boff]

Charness essentially argues that since our police are generally upstanding, we should tolerate even excessive intrusions to our freedom. I couldn't disagree more. In this instance, random checks may catch a few drunks who happen to be good drivers, but will result in a much larger number of people who are unfairly stopped because of profiling. Police already have the power to pull over people who are driving erratically and thus may be drunk. What's next? Police knocking on doors at random and sniffing for pot smoke?

[johngenx]

I too abhor drunk drivers, but this is a dangerous door to open.

[tpl]

I have held forth on this before so I won't now.   random stops for any reason should be expressly forbidden by the Supremes. Driving, boating or walking...no difference.

To dragonfly jack.   Where I lived in Cabbagetown in TO there was the offence of "Driving while Black" and occasionally the one of "Being anywhere while Black".  EVERY officer  at 51 division knew that young black males must have a gun or drugs in their possession or be on their way to get one or the other.

[Jaeger]

I don't see the big deal.  Random stops are already a reality under the RIDE program - and have passed constitutional muster.  This seems to just broaden the scope and I have no real issue with it.  I've been stopped by the RIDE program a couple times - and asked to blow once.  I don't consider this an insidious intrusion upon my personal freedom because a) I have nothing to hide and b) I'm content to tolerate the small inconvenience in order to facilitate the removal of drunk drivers from the road.  It is those drunk drivers - not the police - who present a real threat to my life, liberty and security.  Being detained at the roadside for 10 minutes is one thing.  Being chained to a wheelchair for the rest of my life is quite another.

Sure, addressing alcoholism is a worthwhile, if slightly Quixotic goal.  But remember, the laws don't tell you not to drink - they tell you that if you drink (past the permissible limit), don't bloody well drive.  It is the choice to drive that is targeted - not the choice to drink.

Jaeger

[ian O'Henley]

Bizzaro world...da Lawyer states the Police only have grounds to pull U ov'r if they have reasonable suspision (weaving etc i presume) yet in the next paragraph he says tha SUPREMES (Detroit based!!!) say it's OK to set up random road blocks to toast yer arse..............ARE all the LAWYERS STONED.... ...OK so anly 80% of them    that's OK.................they treat the English language like it's a TAFFY MACHINE they can meld into whateffer is in their favour.............

[tpl]

We just have to disagree Jaeger. Allowing the police to do random ANYTHING is a really bad idea...even in a country like Canada.  I suggest to you also that drunk driving is probably less of a problem than the media and MADD make it out to be. Just as smoking and passive smoking is.   Not to say that both are not dangerous to your and my health but they are just another danger of not choosing to live on a desert island.

"They can usually be counted on to use their powers for good and in a legal way. And if they don’t they also know that defence lawyers and boards of inquiry will be all over them in our system of checks and balances that helps to keep everybody safe"

"And allowing random searches just removes one more barrier that's in place to keep them using their powers in a good and legal way."

I quite agree that USUALLY, probably 90%+ the Police will use their powers for good and in a legal way. Those few on the edge are the dangerous ones... helped on by demagogue politicians.   Example:  When I left the UK the IRA was busily bombing away, heard them at night and one morning had to walk through a street of broken glass after a bomb attack.   But the Great British Public survived all this without 2.5 million surveillance cameras, random stops in the street, firearms banned, 16 year olds not allowed to buy cutlery ( yes really)  and so on.   The slope is very slippery.

[Shnak]

We just have to disagree Jaeger. Allowing the police to do random ANYTHING is a really bad idea...even in a country like Canada.

You're right... instead of being proactive about drunk driving, let's wait until someone kills a whole family before we do anything about it. That way, you can feel better about your "rights". 

If you're not happy about random stops, it's your right to not drive at all. Afterall, driving isn't a right, it's a privilege. If one of the conditions to be allowed to drive on public roads is to have to answer to random stops once in a while, so be it.

This whole discussion is stupid.

[Jaeger]

We just have to disagree Jaeger. Allowing the police to do random ANYTHING is a really bad idea...even in a country like Canada.  I suggest to you also that drunk driving is probably less of a problem than the media and MADD make it out to be. Just as smoking and passive smoking is.   Not to say that both are not dangerous to your and my health but they are just another danger of not choosing to live on a desert island.

Disagree we shall.  I see NO equivalence whatsoever between drunk driving and smoking.

And I very much doubt the dangers presented by drunk driving are a product of media and MADD exaggerations.  The Supreme Court of Canada certainly thinks it is a serious problem.  By and large, I trust their judgment.

Jaeger

[toolatecrew]

We just have to disagree Jaeger. Allowing the police to do random ANYTHING is a really bad idea...even in a country like Canada.

You're right... instead of being proactive about drunk driving, let's wait until someone kills a whole family before we do anything about it. That way, you can feel better about your "rights". 

If you're not happy about random stops, it's your right to not drive at all. Afterall, driving isn't a right, it's a privilege. If one of the conditions to be allowed to drive on public roads is to have to answer to random stops once in a while, so be it.

This whole discussion is stupid.

What is stupid is thrpowing up sily straw man arguments to try to distract from real rational arguments.

No one said "don't be proactive about drunk driving" you made that up.

If you want to truly be proactive you need to stop and test people BEFORE they get in the car and can possibly harm anyone. That means randomly stoping any person in say parking lots or walking from their homes and getting them to take a breath test in case they MIGHT get into a car.

One of ther conditions of being aloowed to drive on the road ISN"T being subjected to random breath tests. The charter of rights protects you from that.

I suppose drug use is also very dangerous when driving so we should also allow the police to randomly stop any vehcile they want and draw blood to check for drugs?

[Shnak]

One of ther conditions of being aloowed to drive on the road ISN"T being subjected to random breath tests. The charter of rights protects you from that.

Does the charter of rights really says a person can't be randomly stopped while driving on the road? I'd like to see that for myself!!

I suppose drug use is also very dangerous when driving so we should also allow the police to randomly stop any vehcile they want and draw blood to check for drugs?

If each cop vehicle had a nurse that knows how to properly draw blood, I wouldn't have a problem with it. My problem with what you're saying isn't the fact that they'd draw blood, it's more about HOW they'd do it. I'd want to ensure that a qualified person does it; someone that knows how to be careful about using sterile needles, etc, etc. I wouldn't trust a cop with that responsability.

I have the perfect solution (other than costs, obviously). Every single car needs to have a breathalizer AND a finger print scanning device on the steering wheel. When you'd buy the car, you'd register your breath as well as your fingerprints with the onboard computer. Every other time you'd want to drive off in the car, the onboard computer would ensure that whoever is exhaling would be the same as who's holding the steering wheel. There you go, that's the solution!

[eLawyer]

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

The Ontario HTA (Highway Traffic Act) currently allows for random stops to check for:

- Vehicle registration
- Driver license validity
- Soberity
- Mechanical fitness

However as a breathalyzer sample is considered seizure of evidence under Section 8, they need to first establish probable cause. If you're slurring your words, were weaving, driving erractically, or you roll down the window and it reeks of Johnnie Walker Blue Label to where the officer can smell it from outside the car, then they can request a sample. RIDE programs have a similar requirement.

This new law would allow an officer to randomly stop someone, and the first thing presented to them is a breathalyzer with an order to blow or go to jail. No probable cause would have been established at this point, so collection of evidence is not justified.

[toolatecrew]

One of ther conditions of being aloowed to drive on the road ISN"T being subjected to random breath tests. The charter of rights protects you from that.

Does the charter of rights really says a person can't be randomly stopped while driving on the road? I'd like to see that for myself!!

I suppose drug use is also very dangerous when driving so we should also allow the police to randomly stop any vehcile they want and draw blood to check for drugs?

If each cop vehicle had a nurse that knows how to properly draw blood, I wouldn't have a problem with it. My problem with what you're saying isn't the fact that they'd draw blood, it's more about HOW they'd do it. I'd want to ensure that a qualified person does it; someone that knows how to be careful about using sterile needles, etc, etc. I wouldn't trust a cop with that responsability.

I have the perfect solution (other than costs, obviously). Every single car needs to have a breathalizer AND a finger print scanning device on the steering wheel. When you'd buy the car, you'd register your breath as well as your fingerprints with the onboard computer. Every other time you'd want to drive off in the car, the onboard computer would ensure that whoever is exhaling would be the same as who's holding the steering wheel. There you go, that's the solution!

Once again throwing up arguments no one made

I said one of the conditions of driving on the troad is not RANDOM BREATH TESTS.

I didn't say you can't be stopped.

The Charter of rights does protect you from random searchs without cause which is exactly what randomly asking people to take a breath test is:

SEARCH OR SEIZURE.
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Random searchs are unreasonable. Carring drugs or firearms is clearly illeagl and presents a hazard to the public. Doesn't mean that the police can drag you off the street and strip search you when they feel like it looking for weapons and drugs.

I have no problem with the idea of breath testers in every car from a civil liberty point of view.

That's simply not the same as giving the police the power to subject random people to breath tests. If you choose not to blow into the breath deveice on a car then you can't drive. If you choose to say no to a cop requesting a random breath sample you get arested fined car impunded etc.

[Shnak]

Random searchs are unreasonable.

That's where our opinions differ. Why are random searches unreasonable? If the end goal is to stop people before they injure/kill people while driving drunk, I'd say the means justify the means. But that's only my opinion.

[Jaeger]

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

The Ontario HTA (Highway Traffic Act) currently allows for random stops to check for:

- Vehicle registration
- Driver license validity
- Soberity
- Mechanical fitness

However as a breathalyzer sample is considered seizure of evidence under Section 8, they need to first establish probable cause. If you're slurring your words, were weaving, driving erractically, or you roll down the window and it reeks of Johnnie Walker Blue Label to where the officer can smell it from outside the car, then they can request a sample. RIDE programs have a similar requirement.

This new law would allow an officer to randomly stop someone, and the first thing presented to them is a breathalyzer with an order to blow or go to jail. No probable cause would have been established at this point, so collection of evidence is not justified.

Nope.  Within the confines of a RIDE program, you can be randomly stopped to investigate possible drinking and driving.  You can be given a roadside screening demand if the officer suspects ( and /or you confirm) that you have consumed alcohol.  He / she does NOT have to have reasonable grounds to believe that you are impaired - merely a suspicion that you have consumed alcohol.  Refusal to submit to that demand for a roadside breath sample (again, based on the combination of a random stop and reasonable suspicion of consumption) is, in itself, a criminal offence.

That is the law today and this law has passed constututional scrutiny.  I don't see the proposed legislation as a wholesale change - merely an expansion of the existing regime.

Jaeger

[Jaeger]

You guys thumping the Charter and hollering about your rights seem to forget an important qualification that's right in the Charter itself.  In fact, it's right at the beginning:

"The... Charter... guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasnable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Rights are not absolute.  Randomly stopping someone in the context of a RIDE program is NOT unconstitutional.  It is a reasonable limit, prescribed by law, that has been demonstrably justified within the context of a free and democratic society.

Jaeger

[toolatecrew]

Random searchs are unreasonable.

That's where our opinions differ. Why are random searches unreasonable? If the end goal is to stop people before they injure/kill people while driving drunk, I'd say the means justify the means. But that's only my opinion.

Becuase they are RANDOM.

Random means without reason.  Random lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by or depending on chance

By definiton anything random is without reason plan or purpose. If the end goal is to stop people from durnk driving then don't let people drive period. BINGO 100% reduction in drunk driving. Ends justfy the means right.

In your opion where as long as the ends justify the means we should also have random home seraches, random parental evaluation, random checks of people's bedrooms to make sure that their sexual partners are of age, random blood samples and random pat downs all to keep us safe.

[tpl]

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

The Ontario HTA (Highway Traffic Act) currently allows for random stops to check for:

- Vehicle registration
- Driver license validity
- Soberity
- Mechanical fitness

However as a breathalyzer sample is considered seizure of evidence under Section 8, they need to first establish probable cause. If you're slurring your words, were weaving, driving erractically, or you roll down the window and it reeks of Johnnie Walker Blue Label to where the officer can smell it from outside the car, then they can request a sample. RIDE programs have a similar requirement.

This new law would allow an officer to randomly stop someone, and the first thing presented to them is a breathalyzer with an order to blow or go to jail. No probable cause would have been established at this point, so collection of evidence is not justified.

Nope.  Within the confines of a RIDE program, you can be randomly stopped to investigate possible drinking and driving.  You can be given a roadside screening demand if the officer suspects ( and /or you confirm) that you have consumed alcohol.  He / she does NOT have to have reasonable grounds to believe that you are impaired - merely a suspicion that you have consumed alcohol.  Refusal to submit to that demand for a roadside breath sample (again, based on the combination of a random stop and reasonable suspicion of consumption) is, in itself, a criminal offense.

That is the law today and this law has passed constitutional scrutiny.  I don't see the proposed legislation as a wholesale change - merely an expansion of the existing regime.

Jaeger

I accept that that suspicion is reasonable grounds.  An experienced police office's "suspicion" is based on his/her experience and I'd bet is usually correct. 

 The Supremes were right GIVEN that wording in the Charter. I would argue that the Charter is wrong and that  both the clause you quote and the Notwithstanding clause should not be there and if Trudeau had had his way they wouldn't be.
Some rights should be absolute.   Refusing to be tested for drunk driving is certainly not one of them but being able to go about your private business without being randomly accosted by a police officer  should be.

As Toolate says  its the Random is the problem not the prevention of drunken driving.