Quantcast
Impaired Driving Laws too Far Reaching? - Page 7 - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 291

Thread: Impaired Driving Laws too Far Reaching?

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    R.F. is an entity that is everywhere
    Posts
    1,289
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arcticcat522 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The biggest thing for me is if a cop shows up to your house, with or without reasonable cause, you are guilty until proven innocent.
    That scenario of being at your house would only happen if you (or your vehicle) was just involved in a hit and run, fleeing from police, or a member of public calls you in for what they believed to be an incident of impaired driving. Those same calls were being handled every day before Dec 18th. The difference is you canít hide behind the defence of ďi ran home and chugged a Mickey of Vodka because I was so stressed about the collisionĒ that wouldíve allowed you to skate clear of an impaired charge in the past.
    1983 Dodge W150 Power Ram. 360/NP435/D44/9.25

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Technically the NE
    My Ride
    C63S
    Posts
    3,924
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    did scat make a new account lol
    Originally posted by Thales of Miletus

    If you think I have been trying to present myself as intellectually superior, then you truly are a dimwit.
    Originally posted by Toma
    fact.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere between YYC and YVR
    Posts
    6,730
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rat Fink View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That scenario of being at your house would only happen if you (or your vehicle) was just involved in a hit and run, fleeing from police, or a member of public calls you in for what they believed to be an incident of impaired driving. Those same calls were being handled every day before Dec 18th. The difference is you can’t hide behind the defence of “i ran home and chugged a Mickey of Vodka because I was so stressed about the collision” that would’ve allowed you to skate clear of an impaired charge in the past.
    I don't understand why they don't try to fix the root of this problem

    The issue is that fleeing the scene of an accident isn't penalized nearly as seriously as a DUI. It should be at least as tough, or tougher, to try and discourage people from doing that.

    DUI charges are so disproportionate compared to everything else. It is crazy that fleeing the scene of an accident is considered preferable to getting hit with a DUI.


    Whatever, because Canada justice...

    I don't drink and drive, so I don't care that much. I would however feel like my constitutional rights were violated if people start showing up at my house or interrupting my dinner at a restaurant to obtain evidence for an alleged crime with the onus on you to prove otherwise (which is impossible). That kind of thinking belongs in the 1600's... not a modern society.
    Last edited by Sugarphreak; 01-12-2019 at 09:28 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by flipstah View Post
    You can't score on shots you don't take.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    McDonalds Wifi
    My Ride
    100% SAVAGE
    Posts
    5,749
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    This will be really interesting to see how the courts interpret. I feel like the worse case scenarios that some of you are predicting won't stand up in our courts, but I'm not basing that on any specific expertise, just a gut feel.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jun 1987
    Location
    SK
    My Ride
    Fit Dugan Signature (2016)
    Posts
    2,873
    Rep Power
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ExtraSlow View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This will be really interesting to see how the courts interpret. I feel like the worse case scenarios that some of you are predicting won't stand up in our courts, but I'm not basing that on any specific expertise, just a gut feel.
    You're likely right (one would hope) but I'll feel sorry for the people who's lives and finances are ruined having to be the test cases. They're bogeyman scenarios for a reason, because the door seems to now be open for them to happen under the right circumstances. To me, that's wrong.
    Originally posted by SJW
    Once again another useless post by JRSCOOLDUDE.
    Originally posted by snowcat
    Don't let the e-thugs and faggots get to you when they quote your posts and write stupid shit.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    calgary
    My Ride
    2g Eclipse / EP3
    Posts
    3,830
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Its confusing indeed. I'm guessing the police arent publicly setting the record straight as their happy with the information or misinformation that's floating around.

    Why would people want a clear law that's easily understood by all???
    The CPS did post about this on their FB page and clearing up some of the misconceptions perpetuated by MSM. They also gave a specific example.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    YYC
    My Ride
    2 x E Class Benz
    Posts
    20,677
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sugarphreak View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't understand why they don't try to fix the root of this problem

    The issue is that fleeing the scene of an accident isn't penalized nearly as seriously as a DUI. It should be at least as tough, or tougher, to try and discourage people from doing that.

    DUI charges are so disproportionate compared to everything else. It is crazy that fleeing the scene of an accident is considered preferable to getting hit with a DUI.


    Whatever, because Canada justice...

    I don't drink and drive, so I don't care that much. I would however feel like my constitutional rights were violated if people start showing up at my house or interrupting my dinner at a restaurant to obtain evidence for an alleged crime with the onus on you to prove otherwise (which is impossible). That kind of thinking belongs in the 1600's... not a modern society.
    Before the change, you wouldn’t even need to leave the scene of the accident. Pop open the trunk, pop a few beers, good to go.

    I mean I get what they’re trying to accomplish. But if I have an asshole parent in my life that’s willing to post about me being dead as a joke, what’s stopping him from calling me in for suspicious drunk driving with a child when picking up the kid and getting fucked over this at home watching a hockey game?
    Originally posted by SEANBANERJEE
    I have gone above and beyond what I should rightfully have to do to protect my good name

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    alberta
    Posts
    123
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by revelations View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The CPS did post about this on their FB page and clearing up some of the misconceptions perpetuated by MSM. They also gave a specific example.
    Thats good to hear. If the law is being misunderstood our police forces across canada need to be setting the record straight more publicly.

    For example Rob brekenridge just wrote another article on global Calgary today that's continuing the narrative of home owners getting persecuted with this law.

    It's really odd to see the police taking a back seat to all the misconceptions being spread in the media. If no ones speaking up then most will assume what's being written in the media is correct.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Axis powers
    Posts
    2,303
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Facebook post by a CPS member


    https://www.facebook.com/notes/const...t=feed_comment

    “No - Police are not going to randomly walk into homes or restaurants to conduct breath tests.”
    CONSTABLE MARK SMITH∑FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 2019

    Police in Canada can now demand breath samples in bars and at home!
    You may have seen the above headline in your social media feed the past few days and I wanted to provide some clarification around this legislation update.
    To begin – Police are not going to randomly walk into homes or restaurants to conduct breath tests.
    The title and stories basically make it sound like police will be randomly walking into bars and homes to demand a sample of your breath and lay charges if you fail. The wording is designed to be sensational and make it sound like we have sweeping new powers, the fact is we can’t and don’t want to just walk into your home to test you for alcohol for no reason.
    Most people are surprised to know that we could always investigate you for impaired driving if we found you sitting at a bar or at home after driving. What is important to note is that we can’t just do a random check without having evidence that you were recently operating a motor vehicle. So we are not, and have no interest in just randomly showing up to your home or bar and testing you. Trust me, we have better things to do with our time.
    There is a time and a place for this however, and you may be surprised to know that we could always demand a sample from you with sufficient evidence, even if we found you at home or in a bar. This is called conducting an impaired driving investigation. As police officers we get paid to be suspicious and conduct inquiries to determine whether an offence was committed. The below is an example of an impaired driving investigation where a breath demand after the fact may be requested:
    John Doe crashes a car and flees the scene. He runs into a home or bar to try and avoid prosecution and is witnessed by members of the public or police. We find Mr Doe at home or in the bar and through our investigation we determine Mr Doe was operating the vehicle and is under the influence of alcohol. This type of investigation could include gathering witness statements, reviewing security camera footage, and collecting physical evidence found at the scene. In this case we demand a breath sample from Mr Doe as part of that investigation. This process is not new and has not changed.
    What has changed is that the law now states that you can’t be over the legal limit within two hours of operating a vehicle. This change was designed to mitigate some of the common defenses utilized by impaired drivers. For example, claiming they were sober when they were driving and got drunk between exiting their vehicle and being arrested by the police. This is often what happens in cases of hit and runs similar to the example I shared above.
    These legislative amendments actually changes very little procedurally for Police but still requires the investigating officer to articulate enough grounds to prove the person was operating the vehicle impaired within the past two hours.
    In conclusion, police in Canada have always been legally entitled to request a sample of breath after the fact, this is not something new.
    Please understand that we will only be enforcing these changes as part of an impaired investigation and all the circumstances for each individual case will be taken into consideration prior to laying of any charges. And no, we won’t be randomly walking through bars or up to homes to request a test. It would only be part of an impaired investigation and even then the evidence needs to be present and significant to successfully lay a charge in this manner.
    The best and safest rule still remains: Don’t drink & Drive.
    Constable Mark Smith & Constable Chris Martin
    Calgary Police Service
    Sig nuked by mod.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    92
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rat Fink View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That scenario of being at your house would only happen if you (or your vehicle) was just involved in a hit and run, fleeing from police, or a member of public calls you in for what they believed to be an incident of impaired driving. Those same calls were being handled every day before Dec 18th. The difference is you can’t hide behind the defence of “i ran home and chugged a Mickey of Vodka because I was so stressed about the collision” that would’ve allowed you to skate clear of an impaired charge in the past.
    Exactly. This is my problem with this entire tactic of rustling up the public's worst fears on behalf of experts who are allegedly trying to protect people's rights. This all existed before, and the significant change that people are worried about is to do with BAC two hours after driving - but that has to be very specifically connected to something else, and how it's not illegal under most circumstances. I find it interesting that all of section 320.14 isn't being talked about, and only very specific parts that make it look like the state is taking away your right to do whatever you want when it comes to drinking after you've already driven.

    In closing, this is my recommendation to most people: read the laws for yourself. The entire law, not just snippets that look bad or good. There is open source information out there comparing new laws to the old in their entirety and they are provided by ACTUAL legal experts. Most of what you're hearing about already existed in 2008 when the impaired laws were last modified, and I think it's poor form that there are folks out there throwing their arms up in disgust NOW when this should have already been an in issue for the last 10 years. It doesn't serve the public well.

    I maintain as I did before, there is a lot of case law surrounding police showing up at homes and conducting searches regarding impaired driving investigations. This doesn't make all that go away. These new sections don't override any of that. Your rights are still protected when it comes to this specific area of impaired law.
    ---------------------------------------------------

    Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    2,116
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Say John Doe rushes home, parks his vehicle in the garage and proceeds to drink his face off. The police arrive within two hours and knock, but he does not answer the door, thus avoiding the 2 hour window where he is required to be sober. Are police entitled to force entry to gather the sample within the 2 hours?

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    92
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adam c View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Facebook post by a CPS member

    *snip*
    That's what I have been (albeit very poorly) trying to say, haha. I need to be less jarhead and more articulate, I suppose.
    ---------------------------------------------------

    Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    92
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beyond_ban View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Say John Doe rushes home, parks his vehicle in the garage and proceeds to drink his face off. The police arrive within two hours and knock, but he does not answer the door, thus avoiding the 2 hour window where he is required to be sober. Are police entitled to force entry to gather the sample within the 2 hours?
    Why would they? It's not illegal to be hammered within two hours of driving under most circumstances.
    ---------------------------------------------------

    Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Axis powers
    Posts
    2,303
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phil98z24 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That's what I have been (albeit very poorly) trying to say, haha. I need to be less jarhead and more articulate, I suppose.
    I mainly posted it as some others have been asking why CPS hasn't made any public posts/comments regarding this, aside from you here on beyond

    I feel the article basically states you cannot get drunk in your own home until 2 hours after you get home, again relating to some people who have vindictive Ex's who love to terrorize their former spouse.

    How would the police actually verify 2 hours though? If someone were to call in because they knew their ex was at home drunk, do you wait 2 hours before proceeding to the house?


    - - - - -

    Different scenario question, what if someone had borrowed my vehicle and had an incident where they were called in, and I'm at home drinking? And that person denied using the vehicle?
    Last edited by adam c; 01-12-2019 at 02:58 PM.
    Sig nuked by mod.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    2,116
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phil98z24 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why would they? It's not illegal to be hammered within two hours of driving under most circumstances.
    I was piggy backing off of the story posted by the other officer, where John Doe had committed an offence.

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    alberta
    Posts
    123
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    read the laws for ourselves is the solution to the media shit storm on this topic???

    How about the police use the media relationships they use on a DAILY basis and call out their BS? What am I missing that this yes yet to happen since December when the stories first started popping up??

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    92
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    read the laws for ourselves is the solution to the media shit storm on this topic???

    How about the police use the media relationships they use on a DAILY basis and call out their BS? What am I missing that this yes yet to happen since December when the stories first started popping up??
    I didn’t say it was a solution, I just made a recommendation. The CC is a public document, why wouldn’t you want to read the laws for yourself and cut out the middlemen on this?

    This whole media storm just happened within the last week, when the laws have only been in force for a few weeks themselves. What exactly are you expecting on this? They came into effect mid December and we are barely mid January. Me thinks you’re expecting a bit too much here. I also fail to see how the CPS media guy making a statement on this isn’t good enough for you.
    Last edited by phil98z24; 01-12-2019 at 03:19 PM.
    ---------------------------------------------------

    Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    92
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adam c View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I mainly posted it as some others have been asking why CPS hasn't made any public posts/comments regarding this, aside from you here on beyond

    I feel the article basically states you cannot get drunk in your own home until 2 hours after you get home, again relating to some people who have vindictive Ex's who love to terrorize their former spouse.

    How would the police actually verify 2 hours though? If someone were to call in because they knew their ex was at home drunk, do you wait 2 hours before proceeding to the house?


    - - - - -

    Different scenario question, what if someone had borrowed my vehicle and had an incident where they were called in, and I'm at home drinking? And that person denied using the vehicle?
    Thatís why we have to investigate. That can look like a lot of things, but as Cst. Smith stated, itís usually witness statements, video, etc. Actual hard, objective evidence. We have a duty and legal obligation to verify information both inculpatory and exculpatory, and as identification is a critical part of any criminal matter, anyone else driving would be investigated thoroughly.

    Quote Originally Posted by beyond_ban View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I was piggy backing off of the story posted by the other officer, where John Doe had committed an offence.
    Oh, gotcha. Thatís different. Thatís what warrants are for.
    ---------------------------------------------------

    Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    Ford F150
    Posts
    426
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I think the biggest gap here is that CPS members are posting about what "would" and "should" happen, where as the media is talking about what "could" happen.

    There is room for this new two hour window law to be abused.

    And this is Alberta, where police can arrest you and charge you with a crime, only for the crown to drop charges afterwards if they feel it's a low chance of prosecution. No criminal brecord, but you will have an arrest record.

    Angry step parent calls the police, tells them they saw rage2 driving drunk. Rage2 is at home drinking. Police "should" investigate, and perhaps "should" have a warrant, but they "can" just knock on the door and ask for a breath sample. He fails that test, they "can" arrest him and charge him, even if the charges get dropped for lack of evidence.

    Aside from that, roadside testing I have no real issue with. Especially at checkstops. Roadside tests are fast. Skip the banter and questions, get every one in a check stop to blow and go.
    Web developer - Hot wing eater - Beer drinker - YYC Deals addict.

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Jun 1987
    Location
    SK
    My Ride
    Fit Dugan Signature (2016)
    Posts
    2,873
    Rep Power
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rage2 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Before the change, you wouldn’t even need to leave the scene of the accident. Pop open the trunk, pop a few beers, good to go.

    I mean I get what they’re trying to accomplish. But if I have an asshole parent in my life that’s willing to post about me being dead as a joke, what’s stopping him from calling me in for suspicious drunk driving with a child when picking up the kid and getting fucked over this at home watching a hockey game?
    Exactly. And I'm sorry to all the apologists here but if lawyers who argue these things for a living are saying it CAN happen, it's likely going to at some point. And even just once is too many times if you actually care about rights in society.
    Originally posted by SJW
    Once again another useless post by JRSCOOLDUDE.
    Originally posted by snowcat
    Don't let the e-thugs and faggots get to you when they quote your posts and write stupid shit.

Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New driving laws and changes laws coming into force in Onterrible

    By killramos in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 56
    Latest Threads: 06-05-2015, 04:48 PM
  2. Coupon sites: How far is too far?

    By Isaiah in forum General
    Replies: 9
    Latest Threads: 03-13-2013, 05:20 PM
  3. Impaired Driving, Dangerous Driving.

    By iloveit in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 46
    Latest Threads: 08-19-2008, 03:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •