Impaired Driving Laws too Far Reaching?

[phil98z24]

Fair enough, but what I’m saying is that isn’t enough and therefore isn’t as prone to abuse as you may think. There has to be more to gain the objective part of those grounds. We have to do more to verify that instead of taking someone’s word on face value. If we did that with everything, everyone would be a criminal.

Identity of the driver is absolutely critical when it comes to conducting impaired investigations post driving. It’s no different than any other criminal investigation. You need reasonable grounds to believe that specific person was involved in an offense, both in their identity and the information about the offense being committed.

I’m absolutely sure this part of the law isn’t as big of a thing as it’s being made out to be. It’s way more protected from abuse than people think, both in case law and the actual law itself. At least in my opinion, for whatever that’s worth, hah!

[ercchry]

So... cops come to door, implied invitation... they ask for a sample, you revoke the invitation... do you get a fail to prove sample charge... or do they have to leave?

EDIT:

Not sure if you’ve seen this Phil... but it’s part of the reason for the alarm from the public

[phil98z24]

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

So... cops come to door, implied invitation... they ask for a sample, you revoke the invitation... do you get a fail to prove sample charge... or do they have to leave?

I would say if they weren’t there in the first place solely to gather evidence and were there conducting an investigation that led to making a demand, and they made that demand before you told them to leave, then you have to comply. Here is a good case illustrating what I’m talking about when it comes to the limits of police authority. We have rules to abide by and should abide by, so I’m happy to illustrate the point to help prevent the public from worrying about this becoming a police state.

https://www.mackscriminallaw.com/law...g-or-searching

[ercchry]

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

I would say if they weren’t there in the first place solely to gather evidence and were there conducting an investigation that led to making a demand, and they made that demand before you told them to leave, then you have to comply.

So the only logical conclusion with keeping in mind what justice Canada themselves said is the law is to ignore the door

[phil98z24]

Yeah, no one is obligated to cooperate with the police in Canada unless they are under arrest or compelled by law to do so. It’s your house, you don’t have to answer for anyone.

[Mitsu3000gt]

So, it sounds like we're right back to where we started then - if you want to guarantee you never have an issue with this new law, never open the door for the police and never talk to the police unless legally required to do so. Nice and simple and nobody has to worry about the nuances of this law or the subjective interpretation of it. Putting things in place that directly incentivise the public not to cooperate with police sounds like it will just be worse for everyone overall.

[revelations]

The sheer amount of articulation required is just nuts.

Next, the Feds will require that LEO notes should contain what the member was thinking even before the moment the call came in.

Was the member biased already in taking a call due to a previously, similar event?

The thought police are policing the police!

[Buster]

So. Upside of talking to the police and permitting them to maintain implied consent: zero.

Downside risks of doing the same? Something more than zero.

Ergo: never speak to or cooperate with the police.

I wonder what the best way is to remove implied consent without interacting with them.

[ercchry]

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

So. Upside of talking to the police and permitting them to maintain implied consent: zero.

Downside risks of doing the same? Something more than zero.

Ergo: never speak to or cooperate with the police.

I wonder what the best way is to remove implied consent without interacting with them.

Never answer the door... “no trespassing” and “private property” along with a lock on the gate for the yard... never hangout on the front porch

[spikerS]

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

I wonder what the best way is to remove implied consent without interacting with them.

Sign on the door, "No Solicitors or Police"

[lilmira]

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

Sign on the door, "No Solicitors or Police"

coming soon at your Costco store as a family pack with "children at play" sign, best value.

[ExtraSlow]

To answer phils "what changed" question, I think many of us who drink occasionally might reasonably become intoxicated with 2 hours of being "presumed" to have been operating a motor vehicle. And what if the cops are wrong and its been 3 hours, or 4 hours, the presumption of innocence seems to have been removed even inside our own homes.

[adam c]

what if I've been home all day and having some drinks, but my (almost) 3 O's wife takes my car out and someone calls it in?

[ExtraSlow]

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

what if I've been home all day and having some drinks, but my (almost) 3 O's wife takes my car out and someone calls it in?

Or your neighbour who hates you, which seems common on beyond, calls it in when they know you are drunk. The appearance is that the cops have to just guess when you may have been driving.

[phil98z24]

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

To answer phils "what changed" question, I think many of us who drink occasionally might reasonably become intoxicated with 2 hours of being "presumed" to have been operating a motor vehicle. And what if the cops are wrong and its been 3 hours, or 4 hours, the presumption of innocence seems to have been removed even inside our own homes.

Ok, but why would the police suddenly show up and start poking around? There has to me more on the front end of that than just going on fishing trips for drunk not-drivers and seeing what sticks. There has to be reasonable grounds to believe an offense is being committed or has been committed. Period.

I keep maintaining that reasonable grounds are both objective (fact) and subjective (opinion) based and are what the police operate in. They cannot. I repeat, cannot, just show up and demand samples. It’s just not how it works. It’s not what happens in the protection of your property. It has been that way since forever, and this just happens to be an example of people worrying needlessly because they aren’t aware of the actual protections from the very thing they fear.

[phil98z24]

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

what if I've been home all day and having some drinks, but my (almost) 3 O's wife takes my car out and someone calls it in?

Just because you’re the registered owner doesn’t mean you were driving it. And if it’s a female driver, why would anyone investigate you?

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

Or your neighbour who hates you, which seems common on beyond, calls it in when they know you are drunk. The appearance is that the cops have to just guess when you may have been driving.

Guess at when someone is driving? They can’t guess. They have to have more than that.

Again, there has to be more than just guesses. There has to be reasonable grounds to believe that person being investigated was operating a conveyance. A neighbor saying so isn’t that. That’s not fact. It’s a person saying something and can be made up. Just like when people call in impaired drivers. We don’t stop them for impaired driving when we find them. We watch them, stop them for a traffic offense or other reasons after building our own grounds, and then if during that investigation they end up being impaired, we deal with it.

As with any new law or change thereof, there will be growing pains. Training varies from place to place, and I can say what I received from Alberta Justice is awesome. It’s very thorough and anyone who screws it up is not paying attention or willing to do unlawful things. It will be ironed out in time, but as I said earlier, the few cases we see in the media are also being given with one side, and there is mass confusion between mandatory screening, investigation after driving, the two hour law, etc. People are worrying and weighing in when they haven’t read the law, or don’t understand it, and are freaking out based on knee jerk reactions.

[Buster]

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

Just because you’re the registered owner doesn’t mean you were driving it. And if it’s a female driver, why would anyone investigate you?



Guess at when someone is driving? They can’t guess. They have to have more than that.

Again, there has to be more than just guesses. There has to be reasonable grounds to believe that person being investigated was operating a conveyance. A neighbor saying so isn’t that. That’s not fact. It’s a person saying something and can be made up. Just like when people call in impaired drivers. We don’t stop them for impaired driving when we find them. We watch them, stop them for a traffic offense or other reasons after building our own grounds, and then if during that investigation they end up being impaired, we deal with it.

It seems there might be two different conversations occurring. Your insights into the investigation process is very illuminating - thank you. However, I believe the other conversation is what "evidence" is required for there to be a conviction - or perhaps what circumstances might occur to give the Crown an ability to convict. I believe that that is the primary concern here. And Justice Canada seems to have concisely captured that concern in their tweet. I can't see how that ISN'T a legitimate concern.

The police response is reasonable: it's very difficult for us to investigate or prove the drive+2hrs thing - but that doesn't mean the risk of it doesn't exist.

[ExtraSlow]

Phil, I believe you and I have no reason to doubt you, but as a white middle aged male, I'm not likely to be a target of police anyway. We all know rules can be bent, shaded or broken by either bad situations or bad actors. It's reasonable for all of us to try and understand the ground rules.

[speedog]

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

Phil, I believe you and I have no reason to doubt you, but as a white middle aged male, I'm not likely to be a target of police anyway. We all know rules can be bent, shaded or broken by either bad situations or bad actors. It's reasonable for all of us to try and understand the ground rules.

There's no way you're 45 yet.

[ExtraSlow]

How dare you question me?!! I identify as middle aged.