Impaired Driving Laws too Far Reaching?

[Rat Fink]

.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What are you talking about? It’s hard to have a conversation with you and your broad, generalized strokes you make. You’ve made it quite clear in this thread that you argue to argue, with very little thought behind you.

Feel free to read back through the replies if you're struggling. And if you're going to make a lot of broad generalized assumptions about all of this yourself, it's rather hypocritical to accuse others of the same in their replies to you.

I don't have any interest in arguing at all. Trying to have an adult discussion here, but you seem to take issue with anyone questioning you and not taking your wildly biased opinion as gospel. You've made some statements, and I've asked for elaboration, how is that arguing?

[gwill]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I somehow highly doubt this lady was just drinking a beer by the pool and only had 1 drink at the bar. There's almost zero chance she would fail the criminal limit. For the average adult human to blow over 80 you've got to have way more than that. Chances are she drank a whole lot more than she said at the bar, drove home, got arrested and charged, got off on some technicality, and now goes to the media to act as a 'poor me' victim.

If the technicality was cops evidence not lining up with the actual facts, then that's a different story that should be looked into IMO. But that doesn't really have anything to do with the actual law itself.

I think you need to read the article again. The lady was at home for a couple of hours by the time the cops showed up by tricking her and then forced her to blow into a breathalyzer.

This is the big fear that was discussed leading up to this new law. The 2nd issue would be why the lady had her charges thrown out so quickly. Something went horribly sideways for the charges to be thrown out so quickly.

[phil98z24]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Oh you're talking about something else. My bad. I thought you were talking about someone phoning in and reporting a drug house, not pretending to be inside the house or reporting a fake a emergency there.

- - - Updated - - -




Ok, so which part of the article is wrong then? You and phil are giving a lot of conflicting information. The fact that just the two of you here aren't 100% aligned on this issue and the law around it, should indicate to you exactly why people are rightfully worried about this type of law, and that it isn't quite as black and white as you're making it out to be.



Why even reply if you're not going to read the article?

Where are we conflicting? We both said the same thing. I think perhaps you’re getting something confused?

[phil98z24]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I could be wrong, but I don't think that's actually the case. This impaired driving law is the only circumstance I can think of off the top of my head where police can supersede your charter rights(maybe some other terrorism law as well?). In the event of an anonymous drug house call, the police can go knock on the door, but not much else unless invited in. They would still need a warrant to just walk in and search the place. With impaired driving none of this seems to apply. Anonymous call that you were driving erratically and they can just show up and demand a breath sample, despite the fact there was never even any reasonable suspicion to assume you had been drinking in the first place, or that a positive sample gives no indication whether you had been impaired at time of the report or not.

In your defense, I think your understanding of this law is a bit fuzzy.

Police can’t just show up and demand a sample without grounds. They can’t make warrantless entry to a home to make that demand. An anonymous call won’t suffice for grounds to demand a sample, as there needs to be more information gathered by the investigator first.

This change in the law doesn’t supersede anyone’s charter rights aside from the MAS at roadside. That’s the only chance. The rest existed before and the wording has been modified.

What happened here was an investigation after she drove, based (as far as what we know from her account) on her having a drink at a pub, someone calling in about it and her driving (presumably the pub), and the police sweet talking their way in to gather evidence where they built their grounds for demanding samples (which in itself is usually unlawful unless there are specific circumstances.)

This wasn’t warrantless entry. It wasn’t mandatory screening. It was something different, and by all accounts, a totally flawed investigation. I don’t know if it was done with malice, but absolutely was done improperly.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That article is misleading for the sensationalism. Mandatory alcohol screening (without suspicion or grounds) is only applicable when the officer has the person in operation of a conveyance, whether driving or has care/control. You can’t walk into someone’s house and apply mandatory screening. In that case, the officer would either need reasonable suspicion to make an approved screening device demand, or need reasonable grounds to arrest. That article is wrong

Rat is here giving his account of how the law is applied, and calling the article wrong. Despite the fact that the article is simply telling us what the police actually did, which is in direct opposition to what Rats opinion on the law is.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Except that it's NOT wrong. You and Phil always seem to fall back to what the actual legal reach of the police is, as if that is what dictates police actions. You and Phil may very well be the 2 most ethical officers on planet earth, but that does not mean all officers are. Police can essentially do whatever they want as far as demanding breath samples and laying charges. It is up to the court to decide whether those things were done appropriately or with merit.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

...except it is wrong. This wasn't mandatory alcohol screening. They were doing it in relation to an impaired driving investigation, which does allow demand for samples within the presumptive window after someone has driven, and that authority has ALWAYS existed. This wasn't a random roadside demand.

The issue at hand is whether these mounties deliberately lied during the investigation or accidentally fudged something else, and the whole thing got tossed.

Then you pop in to say something about semantics, and that this is isn't "mandatory screening" but rather part of an investigation.

And yes the there is a separate issue of whether the officers lied, but no that is not THE issue. THE issue is the law itself and how it is being applied.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So anonymous hearsay is reasonable suspicion for a full impaired driving investigation?

Being that you said this was not part of the new DUI laws and just part of an investigation, I then ask for clarity on whether the reasons for this ladies DUI investigation are valid.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

An anonymous call isn’t enough. Unless you get a written or video/audio statement it won’t count for shit. An anonymous call would give you info on someone to look out for, but you’d have to form your own suspicion or grounds (your own observations through your investigation).

Rat seems to feel that this ladies case was not reasonable grounds for an investigation. However it seemed like you were saying that what happened is standard practice.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What are you talking about? It’s hard to have a conversation with you and your broad, generalized strokes you make. You’ve made it quite clear in this thread that you argue to argue, with very little thought behind you.

Rat seems to have either forgot what has been said, or not read your replies as well. Or he is trying to deflect now that he realized what happened? Not sure.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Where are we conflicting? We both said the same thing. I think perhaps you’re getting something confused?

If either of you would like to clarify anything you've said I'm all ears. I realize some things may get lost in translation when it comes to typing things out, that's why I asked for clarification instead of jumping to conclusions and being rude. Not sure why Rat has panties in a bunch now?

[revelations]

It would appear that there is confusion with what the police are ALLOWED to do (which the two members have articulated) and what they COULD do (or have done, even though not within the power of the law) which is your point of contention.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In your defense, I think your understanding of this law is a bit fuzzy.

The more I keep reading about it, and reading your replies, it doesn't seem I'm fuzzy on it at all. Or maybe we both are fuzzy on it?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Police can’t just show up and demand a sample without grounds. They can’t make warrantless entry to a home to make that demand. An anonymous call won’t suffice for grounds to demand a sample, as there needs to be more information gathered by the investigator first.

The police CAN just show up and demand sample without grounds, as was demonstrated by this case in question. But yes I would agree that won't stand in court. However that is a major distinction between those two things.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This change in the law doesn’t supersede anyone’s charter rights aside from the MAS at roadside. That’s the only chance. The rest existed before and the wording has been modified.

Agree and disagree. The mandatory roadside screening is exactly what I'm talking about when superseding charter rights is in question. However making unlawful entry and demanding breath samples is charter violating as well, and if there is officers that misunderstand the law and apply this as such like the article in question, then there is a problem with the law and it needs clarifying. This is why I don't think it is genuine for anyone to try and cut this law as black and white. If trained officers are misunderstanding it this poorly, there is too much grey.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

and by all accounts, a totally flawed investigation. I don’t know if it was done with malice, but absolutely was done improperly.

Agreed.

[phil98z24]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Rat is here giving his account of how the law is applied, and calling the article wrong. Despite the fact that the article is simply telling us what the police actually did, which is in direct opposition to what Rats opinion on the law is.

You’re not understanding what happened here. What they did wasn’t mandatory alcohol screening at roadside while she was driving (new law) during a traffic stop. It was a breath demand after driving based on what they thought were reasonable grounds to make a breath demand (existing law). They are two different things under two different sections of the criminal code. We both said the same thing.

Then you pop in to say something about semantics, and that this is isn't "mandatory screening" but rather part of an investigation.

Correct. It’s a breath demand made under a separate part of the criminal code. (Existing law)

And yes the there is a separate issue of whether the officers lied, but no that is not THE issue. THE issue is the law itself and how it is being applied.

Yes, it is the issue. This law isn’t new. You’re thinking the new mandatory screening law was being used in this instance, when it wasn’t. That is exactly why the issue is how these officers did their investigation, not the law itself.

Being that you said this was not part of the new DUI laws and just part of an investigation, I then ask for clarity on whether the reasons for this ladies DUI investigation are valid.

Yes, and I forgot to reply until now when I said the phone call in itself isn’t enough, and more investigation would be required.

Rat seems to feel that this ladies case was not reasonable grounds for an investigation. However it seemed like you were saying that what happened is standard practice.

No, I agreed with him. Until my last post, I didn’t address the part about the phone call being enough for grounds. I didn’t say I agreed with it or they were justified in it, what I did say is they were doing an investigation of impaired driving after the fact, based on them thinking they had grounds to do so. I didn’t address whether they actually had those grounds or if it was justified. You’re extrapolating my opinion on that when I hadn’t yet yet addressed it.

Rat is right in all of this, and I think my last post reflects that. In the absence of me addressing specific things, the idea of what it “seems” I’m saying is in fact not what I said at all.

Rat seems to have either forgot what has been said, or not read your replies as well. Or he is trying to deflect now that he realized what happened? Not sure.

No, we both said the same thing and you’re not understanding it.

If either of you would like to clarify anything you've said I'm all ears. I realize some things may get lost in translation when it comes to typing things out, that's why I asked for clarification instead of jumping to conclusions and being rude. Not sure why Rat has panties in a bunch now?

I thought I already had in my last post, but I’m happy to further clarify if you’d like.

[phil98z24]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The more I keep reading about it, and reading your replies, it doesn't seem I'm fuzzy on it at all. Or maybe we both are fuzzy on it?

No, you’re confusing MAS and samples after driving. You keep saying this was the former when it was the latter. Don’t deflect.

The police CAN just show up and demand sample without grounds, as was demonstrated by this case in question. But yes I would agree that won't stand in court. However that is a major distinction between those two things.

Your assessment of this, after the fact, is they had no grounds when no one knows with any certainty what all those grounds were. You’re basing your opinion off of her account, that’s it.

What I’ve said is they conducted an investigation of impaired driving, post operation of a conveyance, based on whatever grounds they thought they had. You’re assuming they had no grounds, when none of us know outside of the phone call and reports of her erratic driving, what those grounds ACTUALLY are.

Agree and disagree. The mandatory roadside screening is exactly what I'm talking about when superseding charter rights is in question. However making unlawful entry and demanding breath samples is charter violating as well, and if there is officers that misunderstand the law and apply this as such like the article in question, then there is a problem with the law and it needs clarifying. This is why I don't think it is genuine for anyone to try and cut this law as black and white. If trained officers are misunderstanding it this poorly, there is too much grey.

No you weren’t. You were talking about police showing up and making warrantless entry to a home to demand samples without a warrant. You specifically said police showing up and demanding samples without reasonable suspicion. You compared it to an example of police not being able to do that on a drug house call, yet they can with this. That’s not MAS. You weren’t talking about MAS. That’s something else entirely.

You’re making an assumption about all of this when there isn’t enough information to know what ACTUALLY happened. You’re backpedaling because you’re wrong or completely confused, and you’re trying to put this on us like we aren’t the ones who get it.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No, I agreed with him. Until my last post, I didn’t address the part about the phone call being enough for grounds. I didn’t say I agreed with it or they were justified in it, what I did say is they were doing an investigation of impaired driving after the fact, based on them thinking they had grounds to do so. I didn’t address whether they actually had those grounds or if it was justified. You’re extrapolating my opinion on that when I hadn’t yet yet addressed it.

Rat is right in all of this, and I think my last post reflects that. In the absence of me addressing specific things, the idea of what it “seems” I’m saying is in fact not what I said at all.

.

I guess we are both guilty. You seem to keep making note that I'm mistaking this case with mandatory roadside screening, despite the fact I've never once claimed that. Maybe that's why it's a struggle to clarify this, as you're attempting to clarify something that was never stated. Appreciate the attempt at least.

So to be fair I'll just agree that we don't have all the facts, and that without the full story of what actually triggered their investigation, it's impossible to know whether this investigation was done with malice or with good intention based on the officers understanding of the law.

With that in mind, are you able to clarify this part then. If the new amendments to the DUI law are essentially to stop people from using the scam of fleeing to a place they can get out of their vehicle and claim they started drinking after driving. And the old law already allowed these officers to come in and breath test after the fact. Why was this amendment needed? And what is the actual amendment then? Are you saying that the only real change is the mandatory roadside screening?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No you weren’t. You were talking about police showing up and making warrantless entry to a home to demand samples without a warrant. You specifically said police showing up and demanding samples without reasonable suspicion. You compared it to an example of police not being able to do that on a drug house call, yet they can with this. That’s not MAS. You weren’t talking about MAS. That’s something else entirely.

You’re making an assumption about all of this when there isn’t enough information to know what ACTUALLY happened. You’re backpedaling because you’re wrong or completely confused, and you’re trying to put this on us like we aren’t the ones who get it.

You're exactly right, I was talking about breath samples after the fact. NOT about roadside testing, like you kept claiming. I'm not sure where you're going with this? Now that you're changing your tune about what you think I said, that would be back pedaling. So let's just stay on topic and leave the ad hominem at the door.

[spikerS]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I guess we are both guilty.

Nope, I think it is just you man, no offense.

I completely understand what Rat and Phil are explaining, and I don't see any discrepancies.

I think you are getting 2 different things wrapped up into one, and haven't understood the difference.

They can't demand and collect a sample simply from a phone call. They have to investigate first and determine if there are reasonable grounds first, hence why they sweet talked there way into the house. Once inside, it can be pretty much impossible to get them to leave since they were invited in. Regardless, they have to investigate and collect enough evidence to determine that there are sufficient grounds and then collect a sample. They didn't just knock on the door and say give us a breath sample right now. At least this is my understanding. It seems like this follows any other kind of investigation the police would perform.

My question is, if the police were to show up on my property and knock on my door, do I even have to interact with them? Could I simply just not answer the door? Or greet them and then refuse to interact further and ask them to leave? Am I compelled to co-operate in this type of investigation?

[gwill]

Question is what do you have to gain by answering the door if your paranoid of something bad happening? Dont let that be an option.

I'd suspect you wouldn't be able to tell the police to get lost once you greeted them and they began their investigation.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nope, I think it is just you man, no offense.

I've been essentially agreeing with him on everything. It was a little tongue in cheek saying that he is fuzzy on things as well, being that if I agree with him and I'm fuzzy, he has to be too.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I completely understand what Rat and Phil are explaining, and I don't see any discrepancies.

I think you are getting 2 different things wrapped up into one, and haven't understood the difference.

They can't demand and collect a sample simply from a phone call. They have to investigate first and determine if there are reasonable grounds first, hence why they sweet talked there way into the house. Once inside, it can be pretty much impossible to get them to leave since they were invited in. Regardless, they have to investigate and collect enough evidence to determine that there are sufficient grounds and then collect a sample. They didn't just knock on the door and say give us a breath sample right now. At least this is my understanding. It seems like this follows any other kind of investigation the police would perform.

My question is, if the police were to show up on my property and knock on my door, do I even have to interact with them? Could I simply just not answer the door? Or greet them and then refuse to interact further and ask them to leave? Am I compelled to co-operate in this type of investigation?

And fair enough, phil tried to clear up his position a little better, and I give him the benefit of the doubt on it now. The only discrepancy is coming from the assumptions being made, Rat seems to be assuming all proper channels were followed and these officers did everything by the book. And phil seems a little more realistic in at least partially believing the story and that the rules probably weren't followed 100%. And I've been making the assumption that the story was reported correctly and I'm taking it at face value.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Question is what do you have to gain by answering the door if your paranoid of something bad happening? Dont let that be an option.

I'd suspect you wouldn't be able to tell the police to get lost once you greeted them and they began their investigation.

Unfortunately most people do not understand their rights, and when they aren't guilty they feel they have nothing to hide and are welcoming in talking to the police. It's in most peoples nature to trust the police exist to protect them. But like any good lawyer will say, it doesn't matter if you're innocent or not, you have absolutely nothing to gain by speaking to the police.

[Rat Fink]

.

[88CRX]

Don't even go to the door?
Only communicate through the door, dont open it?
If you open the door to speak to them but dont allow them in can you close it on them and its over?
Or once the conversation is started (door opened) its free game?

All seems very complicated.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I’m saying how it should be by law. Do you finally get it yet?

Ok so you didn't want to participate in the discussion, just more interested in arguing. Got it.

[Xtrema]

We are still not catching them all.

[rage2]

Jesus

[revelations]

There are two main types of drunk drivers: the stupid aggressive (as in this video) and the stupid cautious. Men typically fall into the former category.