Impaired Driving Laws too Far Reaching?

[Misterman]

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

You are absolutely incorrect. Funny how you have this repeated opinion that the police are idiots and have limited knowledge of law, yet you come in here and trot out your flawed opinion as fact. You couldn’t be anymore offside. What “law” are you reading that changes all of this? Not the same one as the rest of us, I can tell you that.

I find it incredible how you can speak in absolutes and state things as if they’re simple fact when you’re wrong. Your opinion isn’t fact, and your assessment of how law enforcement and the law works is, judging by all I’ve read from you here, wrong. Every time.

Sure the reporting on this with insight from legal professionals could very well all be incorrect. I'm currently siding with them on this one. If you disagree I would suggest taking it up with the news sources we are all getting our information from on this, or perhaps posting something of relevance that shows how all the reporting on this is wrong.

My repeated opinion? The one you read in one post and think you have all figured out? Your opinion isn't fact either btw. Nobody's is, which is why we are having a discussion about it. If you'd like to participate in a useful contributing manner, please do.

[Buster]

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

This scenario they are using to try and scare people isn’t possible. The law isn’t written to allow this boogeyman scenario and the ability to get samples after driving has to be connected on reasonable grounds to an offence. That’s how it already was under the old sections and remains the same. The onus isn’t suddenly reversed. It’ll still be on the state to justify that demand and collection of samples. It isn’t just some loosey goosey catch all to get people. There was already a law under s.253 against the same thing but this has made it clearer in terms of presumptions and a few other things.. but most people didn’t know about it, and certain others are now trying to make a huge deal about it. This has ALWAYS existed as an offence.

Let me be clear: Our ability to demand a roadside sample without suspicion is just that: at the roadside. When someone is driving. That’s it. The law is clear on that. We cannot, without reasonable grounds, demand samples from anyone who is not operating a conveyance. That means no barging up to a bar or into someone’s house and telling them to blow. No way. At that point we need far more grounds and likely, warrants.

For certain it’ll be challenged and likely modified, but even in its current state it’s not a sudden erosion of liberties. I can assure you based on my training and knowledge with this new set of laws, our side of this just became more complicated in many ways (the demand within hours of driving, for example) and the only real “easy” interference with someone’s liberty comes at the roadside with no need for reasonable suspicion.

It’s complicated, and I think you may not be understanding it correctly. It was initially confusing for us too, haha. But it’s not what it’s being made out to be. There are some voices out there trying to prey upon people’s ignorance of pre existing laws prior to new ones being written that allowed for the same thing, but it’s just been clarified and also complicated in some ways.

Helpful? Probably not.

Legit question: if a police officer decides that, at your house or whatever, there is "reasonable ground" (feel free to correct my terminology), and makes an honest mistake and forces you to blow or test you or whatever...what is the disciplinarian action take for infringing on someone's rights in that manner?

[Buster]

phil, just put misterman on ignore...the rest of us have, lol

[JRSC00LUDE]

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

snip - The changes they have made give significantly more powers to the police - snip

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

snip - I can see how it would make a police officer's job easier now that they don't need to have reasonable suspicion before making the ASD demand. From a lawyer's perspective, of course I feel that the changes are a substantial infringement of everyone's constitutional rights. - snip

/thread at least for me. These are the key points I wanted clarity on and with all due respect to Phil as I always value his contribution I feel Lawyers who argue Law have a citizen's rights perspective far more front of mind when interpreting these matters. And no, I don't think I'm reaching for confirmation bias here. I'd rather shakalaka have told me I'm wrong lol

[gwill]

Our rcmp will correct our minister shannon Phillip's lies shared in the media but they wont fix the lies shared by the experts describing the new drunk driving laws??

If the article that was posted is wrong as well as the experts in that story why are we not seeing the police release a statement setting the facts straight??

Common sense would say the police could set the record straight with facts but I'm not seeing that in the media.

[Swank]

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

If they kept drinking as soon as they got home, or answered the door when the Police came with a drink in their hand, I think it would be nearly impossible to make a DUI charge stick because you could no longer prove how drunk the person was while driving. My friends who have worked for RCMP in smaller towns have pulled people over where they know they're busted so they start chugging a mickey as soon as they get pulled over. If I recall that caused a massive headache for them because there was no way to prove how drunk the person was while driving - he got in trouble obviously but I wonder if they were able to make the actual DUI charge stick.

I agree, but according to the article they no longer have to prove that "Now, the onus is on drivers to prove they weren’t impaired when they were on the road." I wouldn't even know where to start to try to prove that, I really hope this isn't the case.

[gwill]

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

I agree, but according to the article they no longer have to prove that "Now, the onus is on drivers to prove they weren’t impaired when they were on the road." I wouldn't even know where to start to try to prove that, I really hope this isn't the case.

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???

[Mitsu3000gt]

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

I agree, but according to the article they no longer have to prove that "Now, the onus is on drivers to prove they weren’t impaired when they were on the road." I wouldn't even know where to start to try to prove that, I really hope this isn't the case.

Personally, I highly doubt it will end up like that. I can't believe the burden of proof will suddenly switch in such a scenario and I suspect this will get dragged through the courts, but I could be wrong. Just imagine what kind of shit show that would become for the courts and everyone else. Stranger things have happened though I suppose.

[phil98z24]

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

Sure the reporting on this with insight from legal professionals could very well all be incorrect. I'm currently siding with them on this one. If you disagree I would suggest taking it up with the news sources we are all getting our information from on this, or perhaps posting something of relevance that shows how all the reporting on this is wrong.

My repeated opinion? The one you read in one post and think you have all figured out? Your opinion isn't fact either btw. Nobody's is, which is why we are having a discussion about it. If you'd like to participate in a useful contributing manner, please do.

I am contributing in a useful manner - my information comes from training and knowledge provided to us by the Crown, who has laid it all out with respect to enforcing this new set of laws. I'm not making this up and it's not my opinion. It's just the facts. I'm sure if someone doesn't want to hear the facts because they don't align with their preexisting bias regarding a given "thing", but sticking your fingers in your ears and saying something is wrong doesn't make it so. At least I've stepped up to the plate and clarified it, but you certainly aren't seeking out the facts.

FYI, I'm not talking about one post with your repeated opinion. That wouldn't be a repeated opinion. I'm talking the numerous posts in this forum, where you are quickly turning into another Toma or Gestalt. I'd suggest looking inward and seeing who is contributing useful discussion around here.

[phil98z24]

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

Legit question: if a police officer decides that, at your house or whatever, there is "reasonable ground" (feel free to correct my terminology), and makes an honest mistake and forces you to blow or test you or whatever...what is the disciplinarian action take for infringing on someone's rights in that manner?

There is a whole set of legal issues that arise from just showing up at a person's home to conduct a criminal investigation whether that be to gather evidence or arrest someone. Entering on to someone's property as an agent of the state in order to get evidence to be used against that person is a dicey affair due to justifiable and IMO, necessary protections afforded by the law.

An honest mistake is just that, honest. It has to be in good faith and one that if reviewed by a similar person in similar circumstances, they would have been likely to make too based on the information at hand. Honest mistakes are one thing, but out and out deception or complete negligence that essentially ends up being unlawful detention and forcing someone to compromise their bodily integrity, no matter how small, can be subject to very serious discipline, as it's using force to compromise a person's rights along with all the other professional (Police Act, etc) issues that arise from that. That discipline can range from negative paper all the way to dismissal, of course dependent on the case.

[phil98z24]

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

/thread at least for me. These are the key points I wanted clarity on and with all due respect to Phil as I always value his contribution I feel Lawyers who argue Law have a citizen's rights perspective far more front of mind when interpreting these matters. And no, I don't think I'm reaching for confirmation bias here. I'd rather shakalaka have told me I'm wrong lol

Totally fair, but I'd like to see him clarify exactly what he thinks those powers are. From what I know, the significant power it gives police that never existed before was ability to make a ROADSIDE demand without suspicion. A person must be operating a conveyance at the time and that's the only time that specific demand can be made. That is huge, and I agree a significant new power that we never had before. Also, I never said I agreed with these changes, lol. I am all for fairness when it comes to these things, and if I thought something was far reaching or I'd be the first to say it. I'm acknowledging the changes here and what I see as new/modified police powers. It's not in our interest to incorrectly interpret law, which is why we are provided training for these sorts of things. We have a complicated rulebook to follow that if we don't honestly abide by, can end up in a world of trouble for a member of the public and ourselves. I can say no one that I work around has any desire to just go out there and screw these things up, or lay charges when grounds don't exist. It's pointless and an awful thing to do.

That said, I'm not sure what the other issues are here. To prove someone was impaired by alcohol or a drug while operating a conveyance at a time within the preceding time frame is massively onerous upon the state, again, as it should be - but the powers to prove that aren't what they're being made out to be, we can't walk up and demand a sample from anyone based on nothing. I think where the issue is here and without clarification from legal experts who've chosen to weigh in on this, is that the police can't just fish for evidence in a public place, your home, etc. It's just not how the law works, nor is this new one written that way. In fact, the last changes to the CC from 2008 supposedly allowed for this very scenario the legal experts are weighing in on, and I'm curious as to why they haven't addressed that. This legislation hasn't seen significant changes to that outside of drug screening and presumptions for BAC.

Anytime outside of a roadside, there has to be reasonable grounds to believe an impaired driving offence has occurred, and the standard to gather evidence is raised further than a simple roadside demand. This hasn't changed. I am looking right now at an open source comparison of new and old legislation, and as far as I can see there are a few new things and some modifications to the old that don't really change a ton in terms of what the police are now allowed to do. Maybe I'm totally missing something here, but I've checked and double checked the information I have, and I don't see much having change in terms of making this "easier" or some insane intrusion into people's rights outside of what's happening at the roadside.

As always, I'm more than open to hearing another expert opinion on this outside of the news (who doesn't report everything in totality), as I've already received one from the SolGen and numerous others who know this stuff inside and out. I think it's a good discussion for everyone.

[gwill]

Why are no police departments speaking up against the wrong information that's out there? Why not clarify the misleading information being spread in the media?

[Sugarphreak]

...

[adam c]

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

. the significant power it gives police that never existed before was ability to make a ROADSIDE demand without suspicion.

...snip...

- but the powers to prove that aren't what they're being made out to be, we can't walk up and demand a sample from anyone based on nothing.

I'm interested in your side of the law but I have to ask about this, you're contradicting yourself

Pulling someone over without suspicion and then asking for a sobriety test IS essentially walking up and demanding a sample based on nothing else... is it not?

Based on the new laws, can an officer not pull someone over for an expired tag then demand they blow? There's no reason the officer pulled that person over for anything other than expired tags but now they are demanding a breathalyzer 'cause they can

[phil98z24]

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

I'm interested in your side of the law but I have to ask about this, you're contradicting yourself

Pulling someone over without suspicion and then asking for a sobriety test IS essentially walking up and demanding a sample based on nothing else... is it not?

Based on the new laws, can an officer not pull someone over for an expired tag then demand they blow? There's no reason the officer pulled that person over for anything other than expired tags but now they are demanding a breathalyzer 'cause they can

I don't think I wrote that sentence out very well, apologies. This what I said: To prove someone was impaired by alcohol or a drug while operating a conveyance at a time within the preceding time frame is massively onerous upon the state, again, as it should be - but the powers to prove that aren't what they're being made out to be, we can't walk up and demand a sample from anyone based on nothing.

I was talking about after the fact, not while someone is driving. I thought I was clear on that, my bad.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Thank you Phil, great further comments. On things like this, you and shakalaka have more informed insights than anyone else here and we're fortunate to have them.

[HiTempguy1]

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

Iwe can't walk up and demand a sample from anyone based on nothing.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/np-...d-driving-laws

You're really arguing semantics here. You can "drive up", pull someone over, and then "demand a sample from anyone based on nothing". There is no arguing against that, that is the law now.

[killramos]

I feel like any post now someone is going to say they weren’t driving and were “travelling” and the police have no business telling the individual/agent what to do.

[phil98z24]

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

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/np-...d-driving-laws

You're really arguing semantics here. You can "drive up", pull someone over, and then "demand a sample from anyone based on nothing". There is no arguing against that, that is the law now.

I’m not arguing semantics. You’re talking about the specific groundless demand when someone is driving. Yes we can do that, but that’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m taking about after the fact or when someone isn’t driving, as you earlier spoke about.

[arcticcat522]

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.