Topic: Steering You Right: Random breath tests

[johngenx]

Even under check-stop programs, no one can be asked to blow into a machine unless the police officer has reasonable grounds to force you to do so.  These grounds must be proven within a court of law.

This is a slippery slope that could be extended and used as a basis for unlimited search and seizure without probable cause.

We could eliminate unpunished crime completely.  Seriously.  Require every person to be implanted with a GPS chip and micro cameras to record their every action and location.  The technology is either there, or not far off.  We could monitor and recall every action of every person in the country.

What do you have to hide?  If you break the law, you're caught.  Your car would be equipped with a monitoring device so that everytime you break the speed limit (by even 1 km/h) your bank account is automatically debited the cost of the ticket.  This technology certainly exists.  Don't like it?  Don't speed.

Toilets could be created that would analyze your urine on every flush.  You'd have to have your finger on the pad to pee, and then if you're found to have any illegal substances in your blood, you'd either be fined instantly, or arrested and sentenced automatically.  Sounds nuts?  Don't think it couldn't happen.

Laws could be come absolutes, with punishments meted out without a justice system.  Behaviour could be strictly controlled and crime would become rare and never unpunished.

But, who makes the laws?  In a democracy, we face mob rule.  True democracy ignores the rights of any minorities and combine it with the system of legal enforcement as stated above, and we're treading in some very dangerous waters.  As an example, homosexuals make up 1-10% of the population depending on the stats you read.  It would be simple to make homosexual behaviour illegal, and completely enforceable.

Look at "the war on drugs."  Why is pot close to becoming legal?  Because we can't really stop people from using it.  This happened with alcohol previously.  But, with the tools of no-Charter-of-Rights democracy and 100% monitoring "for public safety and the abatement of crime" we could finally win that war on drugs, alcohol, or whatever the mob found to dislike.

The elimination of criminal behaviour has always been a problem, not only from the standpoint of ceasing it, but also in figuring out what exactly it is.  The freedom from random searches is one tool in finding a balance in that process.

[tpl]

You have been overdosing on dystopias I see.    

I'd go the other way.  Get rid of a whole pile of the laws that restrict behavior but insist that people were responsible for their actions.   You get drunk and runover my kid. You won't pay me blood money, I shoot you. I kill you so I am now responsible for your kids. and so on.   Unworkable Libertarianism, Anarchy on the Gold standard.

Trouble is that your dystopia is possible or nearly so as you say. Mine probably isn't.

[rrocket]

We need public caning...

[johngenx]

You have been overdosing on dystopias I see.    

Trouble is that your dystopia is possible or nearly so as you say.

Look at the proliferation of cameras and other monitoring devices.  Today, employers can use random drug testing even though the police cannot!  Huh?  A company has more ability to search me than the police? That is wrong!

Care are now coming with black-box recording devices, GPS tracking and other systems designed to monitor the goings-on of the car and driver.  It's not tough to change the access to the data, expand the time frame of monitoring, or alter it's intended use.

Most cell phones are now GPS enabled.  I saw a commercial on TV showing how you can track your children now using their phone.  Once again, a slow, but steady, expansion of the use of location and behaviour data.

This list grows every day.  If we grant police discretionary use of it (searches are using this information) then we open the floodgates to untold amounts of abuse and control.

Scary .

[Jaeger]

Even under check-stop programs, no one can be asked to blow into a machine unless the police officer has reasonable grounds to force you to do so.  These grounds must be proven within a court of law.

Wrong.  And missing the same point as toolatecrew.

The officer needs no court to validate his suspicion of alcohol consuption - that is something he concludes at the roadside, without judicial approval, and his roadside demand carries criminal sanction for failing to comply.  The only person he has to satiisfy as to his suspicion of alcohol consumption is himself.  He doesn't need to explain it to you and he doesn't need to explain it to a judge.  And you are still required by law to blow.

The officer only needs to demonstrate reasonable grounds in court IF the driver failed the screening test, and IF he then failed the subsequent breathalyzer test at the station.  If the driver passed either the screening test or the breathalyzer test, no criminal charge would be laid, and therefore no need to go to court.

As such, even under the current regime "innocent" people are required to blow - by law - long before the matter comes to court, if it ever does.  And that requirement flows from a random stop.  Surprisingly, this has not led to the existence of a fascist police state.   Surprising to some, anyway.

Jaeger

[rrocket]

As such, even under the current regime "innocent" people are required to blow - by law - long before the matter comes to court, if it ever does.  And that requirement flows from a random stop.  Surprisingly, this has not led to the existence of a fascist police state.   Surprising to some, anyway.

Jaeger

But it has led to abuse of such power, and in many cases the violation of one's rights.

[Jaeger]

But it has led to abuse of such power, and in many cases the violation of one's rights.

The mere existence of any police power has historically led to abuse in some cases - this is a product of human nature.  With police, like any other group (doctors, lawyers, judges, lawyers, mechanics, lawyers, whatever) you have some truly excellent, many merely good and a few rotten apples.  The answer, in my view, is to rigorously root out the rotten apples, not tie the hands of the of the majority of good officers.

And again, the violation of individual rights is something that is contemplated as permissible within our constitutional framework - back to the whole "reasonable limits" thing.  Even when police conduct violates an individual's rights outside of the framework of established "reasonable limits", the courts are still required to balance that violation against the state's interest in the evidence obtained in determining a remedy.  Sometimes the answer is "too bloody bad about your idividual rights, pal, the state's interests outweigh yours."  May sound harsh, but it's the reason murderers don't walk free because of some technical deficiency in a search warrant that led to the discovery of the bodies.

Jaeger

[tpl]

You have been overdosing on dystopias I see.    

Trouble is that your dystopia is possible or nearly so as you say.

Look at the proliferation of cameras and other monitoring devices.  Today, employers can use random drug testing even though the police cannot!  Huh?  A company has more ability to search me than the police? That is wrong!

Care are now coming with black-box recording devices, GPS tracking and other systems designed to monitor the goings-on of the car and driver.  It's not tough to change the access to the data, expand the time frame of monitoring, or alter it's intended use.

Most cell phones are now GPS enabled.  I saw a commercial on TV showing how you can track your children now using their phone.  Once again, a slow, but steady, expansion of the use of location and behaviour data.

This list grows every day.  If we grant police discretionary use of it (searches are using this information) then we open the floodgates to untold amounts of abuse and control.

Scary .

Indeed and that's why I was agreeing with you.

The UK has 2.5MM cameras not counting the London congestion charge ones and they can read number plates some are connected to computers with good facial recognition softwware.  A lot of the London cameras are monitored 24/7.    There are a few in TO downtown but for some reason , Charter?, Cost? Public opinion ( unlikely) they are not ubiquitous.

[Shnak]

The mere existence of any police power has historically led to abuse in some cases - this is a product of human nature.  With police, like any other group (doctors, lawyers, judges, lawyers, mechanics, lawyers, whatever) you have some truly excellent, many merely good and a few rotten apples.  The answer, in my view, is to rigorously root out the rotten apples, not tie the hands of the of the majority of good officers.

I couldn't agree more. Well said! 

[canuckystan]

Charness needs to go back to law school and refresh the basics of legal philosophy.

I don't know any other lawyer who would support random police stops for a breathalyzer!!

THINK ABOUT THE RAMIFICATIONS:

- By blowing in the breathalyzer, the police have now obtained a perfect sample of your DNA (without any probably cause lets remember).  But our police forces are so upstanding that you shouldn't worry about the state now having your DNA.

- You are stopped by the side of the road blowing into a breathalyzer and your boss/spouse/child/coach etc drives by and sees this.  But everyone knows our police forces are so upstanding so your boss/spouse/child/ etc won't think any less of you standing by a police car with all the lights flashing and you blowing into a breathalyzer.

- You are late for a meeting.  Your are being laid off.  Your spouse/child is ill.  In other words, you are very stressed out.  Now you are pulled over for no reason and told to blow.  A heated exchange ensues between you and the police because you rightly believe you have done nothing wrong.  You have a weak heart.  The police taser you and you perish.  But our police forces are so upstanding that they would only taser you as a last resort if they fear for their lives.  And this for no reason at all.

- The number of offenders the police catch with random stops will be very small.  Think about it.  If you are swerving on the road or running stop signs, that is probable cause and the police can stop you.  If you are driving normally and the police pull you over, what is the likelihood you are drunk?  COME ON!!

THE STATE DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DETAIN YOU, TEST YOU, AND TAKE YOUR DNA FOR NO REASON AT ALL.  THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS WILL STOP MORE DRUNK DRIVERS IS A FALLACY.

[Yukker]

Next thing is searching you car - if you have nothing to hide why would you worry. Next searching your house - why would you worry if you have nothing to hide - How about stopping you in the street and having a little pat down - if you have nothing to hide why worry ""We are only doing these things to protect society".
Its the slippery end of the wedge. Its happened before, give the state an in and they are going to misuse it.

Try Nazi Germany, East Germany, the Old Soviet Union. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. People died fighting for the rights of other people.

[Jaeger]

Next thing is searching you car - if you have nothing to hide why would you worry. Next searching your house - why would you worry if you have nothing to hide - How about stopping you in the street and having a little pat down - if you have nothing to hide why worry ""We are only doing these things to protect society".
Its the slippery end of the wedge. Its happened before, give the state an in and they are going to misuse it.

Try Nazi Germany, East Germany, the Old Soviet Union. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. People died fighting for the rights of other people.

So why aren't we living in a fascist state today?  We've had random stops and warrantless searches for a while now, yet Nazi Germany is hardly our contemporary Canadian experience.  But hey, don't feel you have to answer - I'd hate for you to let reality get in the way of a good apocalyptic rant. 

Jaeger

[ForFreedom]

Intelligent people tend to make socially desirable choices without prodding or incentive more often than less intelligent people do, so that a high IQ society does not have to trade much away for high levels of personal liberty, while lower IQ societies must.

Well we see next election.  Currently, the dumb ones are prevailing. 

Unfortunately, the dumb ones are killing some of the smart ones. If you can live with that, well good for you.

Or maybe it's the smart ones killing some of the dumb ones...

You guys who would trade away essential liberties for some temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security...to quote Ben Franklin. There is a cost to living in a truly free society and sometimes the cost is lives. Stop whining about it. If you don't know that life comes with risks then go have a talk with your mommy. How's that for "living with it".

And as far as the Supreme Court saying checkstops are legal they can blow it out their butt. A stop without reasonable cause is a stop without reasonable cause, no matter how it's done. Must be the same cowardly clowns in the Unsupreme Court as in our shiftless government.

[Brad Madore]

This would be too much of a slippery slope to travel down. While it would get drunk drivers off the road, thus saving lives. How about not granting bail for those charged with criminal offences, most are guilty anyways, and it would save lives and injury. The same could be said for police randomly searching peoples homes for illegal weapons, or drug labs. If you haven't been drinking and driving you have nothing to fear is the argument for this, I ask you if you have nothing illegal occuring in your home you would have no problem with officers of the law searching whenever they want, do you? After that how about being detained while walking for a simple frisking? Perhaps if you are comfortable with that a body cavety search. To live in a free society, is to accept the risk that there are people who will break the rules. Yes this means innocent people will at times suffer from that but the MAJORITY will not.  

[safristi]

WING?.......why are so many posters "IGNORED" when I have not so requested!!!!...............I have NO ONE on IGNORE.......yet many "newer" posters appear on my page as "IGNORED"....do i has ta follow Artic/yerself/Bridge/snowballs/Giant "D"/Turbo 'B"/et als proclivities..............

[newf1946]

Some of you find it very easy to give up rights that it has atken us a long time to get. Any "power" group including the police needs to have definte limits to their power and to have reasons why they are interfering at all with a citizen going about their business bothering no one. Sure it is always easier to have a person denied their rights so that authority can do whatever they want and caim it is for the common good. If more rights had  been forced on the Nazi "authorities" we probably would not have had WWII.

[toolatecrew]

How about all the people who don't care about their right to not be searched without cause put a sticker in their window indicating they waive that right. Then the cops can subject  those people randomly to breath tests, blood test body cavity searches whatever they want,. The rest of us who want to keep that right can.

Everyone wins.

[johngenx]

I was peacefully protesting 9 years ago at a well known event in Quebec.  I was hundreds of meters from the area where some protesters were confronting the police, and was sitting on a patch of grass with some friends, holding signs.  Not breaking any laws.

We were tear gassed from some police coming down the road, about 30-40M from us.  Then...

...A van rolled up, the side doors opened, police in riot gear streamed out, and began hammering us with their batons.  Then we were "arrested" (just cuffed/zip-tied and thrown in another van) and taken to holding cells.  We were never charged with a crime, but held for hours without any explanation.

DO NOT think that the police in Canada will not abuse power that is granted to them.  DO NOT take your rights for granted.  DO NOT think "oh, this is Canada, it can't happen here."  That's total BS.

[johngenx]

Sounds like a scary experience.

Effing right.  My bruises healed, but my cynicism has not.  We need to be on guard at all times as there are many that would steal our rights.  They are fragile, even in Canada.

[Jaeger]

How about all the people who don't care about their right to not be searched without cause put a sticker in their window indicating they waive that right. Then the cops can subject  those people randomly to breath tests, blood test body cavity searches whatever they want,. The rest of us who want to keep that right can.

Everyone wins.

I have a better idea.  How about we make all those who oppose the law wear badges - heck, we're a Nazi fascist state anyway, so no biggie.    Then, whenever there's a drunk driving fatality, we make one of you go along with the cops to the grieving, devasted family of the deceased and explain to them why a 15 minute incursion upon your precious freedom (and that of the drunk driver) wasn't worth even the chance of saving the life of their loved one(s).

You first.

Jaeger