Impaired Driving Laws too Far Reaching?

[Rat Fink]

.

[phil98z24]

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

@phil98z24 ...does that include your backyard or areas of your property outside your home?

Interestingly enough, there is a bit of case law that recently had some interesting dissent in the SCC regarding ‘implied invitation doctrine.’ Police still have that implied invitation to enter property for conducting investigations but not to specifically gather evidence, make arrests, or do a search. That said, if they are lawfully placed due to implied invitation and form lawful grounds while there from investigation and until invitation is specifically withdrawn, they can make arrests, seize plain view evidence, etc.

So, yes, but only in the right circumstances arising from being there lawfully in the first place. Otherwise, no. Clear as mud, yeah?

[Buster]

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

Interestingly enough, there is a bit of case law that recently had some interesting dissent in the SCC regarding ‘implied invitation doctrine.’ Police still have that implied invitation to enter property for conducting investigations but not to specifically gather evidence, make arrests, or do a search. That said, if they are lawfully placed due to implied invitation and form lawful grounds while there from investigation and until invitation is specifically withdrawn, they can make arrests, seize plain view evidence, etc.

So, yes, but only in the right circumstances arising from being there lawfully in the first place. Otherwise, no. Clear as mud, yeah?

So cops are like vampires? They might show up hoping for an invitation onto your premises? Lol

Then it's blow time.

[dirtsniffer]

They have an 'implied invitation'. so areas with free access like a backyard or a patio they can help themselves to. Maybe if your gate was locked that would stop them. It sounds like you can tell them to beat it.

[revelations]

Lets do an example case:

Police are called to a house due to 'suspicion' of DUI (could be called by a pissed off neighbour, ex GF, etc. ) and knock on the door - but no one comes to the door.

The Police observe that the house, being on the edge of the road, has people in the back yard and observe them drinking.

The Police ask WHO IS THE OWNER AND DRIVER OF THE WHITE CAR?

No one responds - pin drops.

Whats next?

[Misterman]

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

He's pointing out that you're quoting laws from another country and referencing them as if they apply to Alberta.
Tard.

Gee thanks tips.

[88CRX]

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

Interestingly enough, there is a bit of case law that recently had some interesting dissent in the SCC regarding ‘implied invitation doctrine.’ Police still have that implied invitation to enter property for conducting investigations but not to specifically gather evidence, make arrests, or do a search. That said, if they are lawfully placed due to implied invitation and form lawful grounds while there from investigation and until invitation is specifically withdrawn, they can make arrests, seize plain view evidence, etc.

So, yes, but only in the right circumstances arising from being there lawfully in the first place. Otherwise, no. Clear as mud, yeah?

Yes, clear as mud.

Can you converse with them through a closed door? Or is conversing with them in an degree an implied invitation?

Them spotting you through your door or a window, is that implied invitation?

Yes I realize this discussion is silly but this is nuts.

[spikerS]

What I have learned from this thread.

Don't answer the door for the cops if I have had a drink in the last 24 hours. Put a padlock on all the gates to my yard. Keep at least 20 feet distance and tell them they are not welcome or wanted and to leave the property.

Fuck, I am almost always pro police, but, now I am thinking on how to protect myself from them.

Should I ammend my "No Soliciting" sign to include "No Solicitors or Police"?

[Buster]

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

What I have learned from this thread.

Don't answer the door for the cops if I have had a drink in the last 24 hours. Put a padlock on all the gates to my yard. Keep at least 20 feet distance and tell them they are not welcome or wanted and to leave the property.

Fuck, I am almost always pro police, but, now I am thinking on how to protect myself from them.

Should I ammend my "No Soliciting" sign to include "No Solicitors or Police"?

Of all the people this new law should be annoying to - I would think it would annoy the police the most. It will seriously degrade the relationship the police have the public. I used to be very pro law enforcement...because I can't remember ever knowingly breaking a law. And yet, I will be the same. Maybe they are stopping by the house looking for a lost kid. Or puppy. Who knows? I certainly won't be answering the door for the cops ever.

[R-Audi]

I had my first exposure to this law this past friday.. got pulled over for speeding outside of Cochrane and was asked to blow immediately when the RCMP officer walked up. 1:00pm in the afternoon with the car loaded with the family and camping gear. It was a bit surprising, but if it caught a few afternoon drunks I guess its not a big deal.

[ercchry]

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

I had my first exposure to this law this past friday.. got pulled over for speeding outside of Cochrane and was asked to blow immediately when the RCMP officer walked up. 1:00pm in the afternoon with the car loaded with the family and camping gear. It was a bit surprising, but if it caught a few afternoon drunks I guess its not a big deal.

Till you’ve setup camp, and have had a few beers and they stop by and ask you to blow after establishing you checked in 1hr 45min earlier

[Mitsu3000gt]

Has anyone actually been fully convicted yet under the new law under a ridiculous scenario (i.e. blowing 1h45m after arriving home sober, but had a few drinks after getting home)? Wouldn't just one person have to win that fight to set precedent?

[phil98z24]

To be clear, implied invitation applies to everyone who may have business on or around your property. Postal workers, solicitors, police, etc, to come up and knock on your door for legitimate purposes that aren’t loitering, criminal activity, or the like. You always have the right to tell people to beat it, including the police.

As I said earlier in this thread, and as it has always been waaaaaay before this change in the law, the police need other authorities to enter property and gather evidence, do a search, or make an arrest. Being there through implied invitation to ask some questions, do an investigation, things of that nature are acceptable and necessary for the police to do their jobs. But, your right to privacy and intrusion against the state when in your home and your property is almost always first and foremost (emergencies, hot pursuit, public safety reasons, and a few others take precedence.)

There are mechanisms already in place to stop police from just wandering up to your place and demanding evidence. The Mounties in the case of that B.C. woman were conducting a lawful investigation and had a duty to do so, but they screwed it up badly. Whether it was malicious or just borne out of ignorance, it shouldn’t happen that way, and I would caution against calling it abuse of this law without knowing everything that happened.

Not sure why you guys are all of a sudden worried about this law and creating barriers between you and the police. Implied invitation doctrine has been around forever. You likely haven’t had the cops coming around creating havoc and trampling your rights around your home before, so what’s changed? I’m a bit confused with the reaction.

[phil98z24]

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

Yes, clear as mud.

Can you converse with them through a closed door? Or is conversing with them in an degree an implied invitation?

Them spotting you through your door or a window, is that implied invitation?

Yes I realize this discussion is silly but this is nuts.

Implied invitation applies to anyone who may have legitimate business on your property and wants to speak with you, but ends at the front door. It’s just something that exists, whether you’re seen, conversing, etc, or not. The police need it to do their jobs and make neighborhood inquiries, ask about suspicious people, look for lost children, question folks, etc. Postal workers need it for delivering mail. Newspaper delivery needs it for that. Door to door sales need it for their jobs. You get my point. But you can tell any of them to beat it. It’s your property and the implied invitation stops being implied when you say no.

[gwill]

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

I had my first exposure to this law this past friday.. got pulled over for speeding outside of Cochrane and was asked to blow immediately when the RCMP officer walked up. 1:00pm in the afternoon with the car loaded with the family and camping gear. It was a bit surprising, but if it caught a few afternoon drunks I guess its not a big deal.

This no big deal part really irks me the wrong way. If this isnt a big deal where does that same arguement stop? How about having the police demand a dna sample from every stop? We can solve some crimes and save some lives I'm sure.

We can save a lot of lives by giving up our liberties to many things. Why stop at road side breathalyzers.

[Mitsu3000gt]

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

You likely haven’t had the cops coming around creating havoc and trampling your rights around your home before, so what’s changed? I’m a bit confused with the reaction.

If I understand correctly, your disgruntled neighbor can see you come home, see that you're having a party, and call the police saying that you were driving drunk. Police arrive within 2 hours, person is unaware of their rights and answers the door, they fail a breathalyzer and get charged with a DUI. Seems like that is what people are worried about, or any similar scenario where you arrive sober, begin to drink, and end up having try and prove you weren't driving drunk. Not answering the door and avoiding police whenever possible seems to be the only protection against that, if I am understanding the previous posts correctly.

This will hurt other Police activities, such as canvassing for missing children. Nobody is going to open their doors to talk to them anymore if they have had a drink, and maybe that person has a camera that might solve the crime.

[phil98z24]

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

If I understand correctly, your disgruntled neighbor can see you come home, see that you're having a party, and call the police saying that you were driving drunk. Police arrive within 2 hours, person is unaware of their rights and answers the door, they fail a breathalyzer and get charged with a DUI. Seems like that is what people are worried about, or any similar scenario where you arrive sober, begin to drink, and end up having try and prove you weren't driving drunk. Not answering the door and avoiding police whenever possible seems to be the only protection against that, if I am understanding the previous posts correctly.

This will hurt other Police activities, such as canvassing for missing children. Nobody is going to open their doors to talk to them anymore if they have had a drink.

No. There has to be more than that to start making demands for samples. It simply doesn’t work that way. There needs to be more grounds than that. Besides, we can’t go on to a property with the specific purpose of gathering evidence so that entire charge would be tossed and pointless.

There is a little bit more background investigation that takes place before the scenario everyone is worried about will actually start to happen. It’s not that simple, and for good reason. The law specifically states a peace officer must have reasonable grounds to believe. Grounds, not suspicion. Subjective and objectively defensible grounds to believe that person was driving impaired, or had just driven and became over .08 within two hours afterwards while having a reasonable expectation they may have to provide a sample (who do you think the law is addressing here?) That takes a lot more than just someone saying someone else did it.

Also, there is an exception no one seems to talk about when it comes to this scary new law and specifically addresses who this is really aimed at (bolus drinking defense of people who were involved in a criminal driving offense):

320.14(5) No person commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if

A. they consumed alcohol after ceasing to operate the conveyance;

B. after ceasing to operate the conveyance, they had no reasonable expectation that they would be required to provide a sample of breath or blood; and

C. their alcohol consumption is consistent with their blood alcohol concentration as determined in accordance with subsection 320.31(1) or (2) and with their having had, at the time when they were operating the conveyance, a blood alcohol concentration that was less than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood.

Subsection b is the one everyone either is missing or doesn’t seem to know about. It’s very important. Critical, in fact. No one has a reasonable expectation to be required to provide a sample after operating a conveyance except..... maybe someone in a hit and run? Serious collision involving injury or death? Multiple reports of them being seen driving in an erratic and dangerous manner? I would say it’s reasonable that person could foresee the police show up and start asking some questions, and maybe formulating grounds during that investigation to demand a sample. I don’t think that’s at all unreasonable. That eliminates one of the lamest drunk driving defenses around.

Again, there needs to be more investigation before any demands are made. That said I’d really like to know the full story of some of these cases in the news to know if it’s an educational issue with the new law and those enforcing it, or malicious intent.

[Swank]

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

You likely haven’t had the cops coming around creating havoc and trampling your rights around your home before, so what’s changed? I’m a bit confused with the reaction.

I'd say because it's been in the media a lot lately. Unfortunately most of the information you have provided doesn't make it into the headlines, but is has been reassuring for me at least so thank you for that.

[88CRX]

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

What I have learned from this thread.

Don't answer the door for the cops if I have had a drink in the last 24 hours. Put a padlock on all the gates to my yard. Keep at least 20 feet distance and tell them they are not welcome or wanted and to leave the property.

Fuck, I am almost always pro police, but, now I am thinking on how to protect myself from them.

Should I ammend my "No Soliciting" sign to include "No Solicitors or Police"?

And record everything on your phone.

[Mitsu3000gt]

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

Also, there is an exception no one seems to talk about when it comes to this scary new law and specifically addresses who this is really aimed at (bolus drinking defense of people who were involved in a criminal driving offense):

320.14(5) No person commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if

A. they consumed alcohol after ceasing to operate the conveyance;

B. after ceasing to operate the conveyance, they had no reasonable expectation that they would be required to provide a sample of breath or blood; and

C. their alcohol consumption is consistent with their blood alcohol concentration as determined in accordance with subsection 320.31(1) or (2) and with their having had, at the time when they were operating the conveyance, a blood alcohol concentration that was less than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood.

Subsection b is the one everyone either is missing or doesn’t seem to know about. It’s very important. Critical, in fact. No one has a reasonable expectation to be required to provide a sample after operating a conveyance except..... maybe someone in a hit and run? Serious collision involving injury or death? Multiple reports of them being seen driving in an erratic and dangerous manner? I would say it’s reasonable that person could foresee the police show up and start asking some questions, and maybe formulating grounds during that investigation to demand a sample. I don’t think that’s at all unreasonable. That eliminates one of the lamest drunk driving defenses around.

Again, there needs to be more investigation before any demands are made. That said I’d really like to know the full story of some of these cases in the news to know if it’s an educational issue with the new law and those enforcing it, or malicious intent.

Looking at subsection B and your explanation thereof, where reports of erratic/dangerous driving would warrant a sample, I don't see how that isn't ripe for abuse. Neighbor calls, says they saw you drinking/driving erratically, dangerously, etc. Maybe they say they saw you hit something and keep driving. If that's enough to trigger a sample or void subsection B then you are SOL if you crack a beer when you get home.

If the officer has any discretion at all that could end up in a wrongful DUI charge, you would have to be an idiot to talk to the Police willingly, let alone open their door for them.