Impaired Driving Laws too Far Reaching?

[phil98z24]

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

Interesting. Assuming your numbers are representative, why on earth do the police bother with checkstops then?

Because that isn't always representative of how many people are stopped/caught. It all depends where and when it's being done, and further to that, sometimes the deterrent effect alone is enough to justify it. I've heard our traffic guys set up a 5 or 6 man team in little out of the way backroad spot to catch the people trying to avoid the main roads, and they'll call in asking for a 24hr or an impaired every five minutes. Just like anything, every situation is different.

[JRSC00LUDE]

I've lived in my city since 1996 and only ever encountered one check stop. What I do know though is that when the police announce they are having one at a random location, most of my social media is abuzz with warnings for reminders to everyone to make sure you don't drink and drive tonight.

Just the public threat of there being check stops almost assuredly prevents some people from drinking and driving.

[J-hop]

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

I've lived in my city since 1996 and only ever encountered one check stop. What I do know though is that when the police announce they are having one at a random location, most of my social media is abuzz with warnings for reminders to everyone to make sure you don't drink and drive tonight.

Just the public threat of there being check stops almost assuredly prevents some people from drinking and driving.

Exactly.

[ExtraSlow]

Yeah, the big public checkstops are as much about deterrence as anything else. But they still catch people even when they are visible from miles away, or visible on various social media or navigation apps.

[killramos]

I’m way more afraid of getting a DUI for my cracked windshield considering the new laws and my record with never seeing a checkstop. Just like I’m more afraid of bears than Sasquatch.

[beyond_ban]

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

I’m way more afraid of getting a DUI for my cracked windshield considering the new laws and my record with never seeing a checkstop. Just like I’m more afraid of bears than Sasquatch.

You drunk?

[Misterman]

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

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.

I'm not disputing where your information comes from. But you seem to be under the guise that just because it was communicated to you in this manner, means that is how it will be handled by any and all others in your position. And as we know, this is most definitely not the case. Just because your superiors have communicated how this SHOULD be handled, does not mean that it cannot be handled in all the negative ways we are being warned about by legal professionals. Hence the discussion at hand.

If your ignorance and refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue some how paints me as a Toma or Gestalt, then maybe I'll just treat this place as an entertainment zone from now on. Be like the rest of the sheep and just not discuss anything serious with serious dialogue.

[Misterman]

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

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.

And this is the disconnect for the police making comments. Maybe it's a statement about their high level of character? But it's also their downfall, they assume that because they wouldn't abuse the law themselves, that no other law enforcement professional would do it either.

[Misterman]

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

You don't have to re-explain the logic to me, I get it.

I was just saying that I'd bet the percentage of traffic stops that actually result in impaired charges (lets stay on topic here, because I'm comparing with check stops) is probably super low.

And here is the other question. If you were re-assign these traffic enforcement officers to police work that is specifically designed to identify these randomly speeding criminals, would there be a better arrest record than they get with current methods?

[killramos]

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

You drunk?

I wish...

[HiTempguy1]

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

I'm not disputing where your information comes from. But you seem to be under the guise that just because it was communicated to you in this manner, means that is how it will be handled by any and all others in your position. And as we know, this is most definitely not the case. Just because your superiors have communicated how this SHOULD be handled, does not mean that it cannot be handled in all the negative ways we are being warned about by legal professionals. Hence the discussion at hand.

If your ignorance and refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue some how paints me as a Toma or Gestalt, then maybe I'll just treat this place as an entertainment zone from now on. Be like the rest of the sheep and just not discuss anything serious with serious dialogue.

A lot of people have been hating on you lately, but this is 100% true. phil suffers from assuming all of his colleagues are standup guys like him. They aren't. And I am firmly in the 100% support the police camp and even I can see this. Them confiscating guns in the flood was the perfect example.

[phil98z24]

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

I'm not disputing where your information comes from. But you seem to be under the guise that just because it was communicated to you in this manner, means that is how it will be handled by any and all others in your position. And as we know, this is most definitely not the case. Just because your superiors have communicated how this SHOULD be handled, does not mean that it cannot be handled in all the negative ways we are being warned about by legal professionals. Hence the discussion at hand.

If your ignorance and refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue some how paints me as a Toma or Gestalt, then maybe I'll just treat this place as an entertainment zone from now on. Be like the rest of the sheep and just not discuss anything serious with serious dialogue.

You're the one who came in here throwing around nonsense as if it's simple fact, and when called out, you act like you know better than those of us who work in this field and have real world experience with it. I've tried to explain to you how it isn't set up for abuse and why the law as it already stands doesn't allow us to just use this law in a manner that would amount to the boogeyman stuff being rustled up by those who have a vested interest in saying it will - but you want to ignore it. That's fine, but don't shit on me for that. Trying to turn this into a thing about me being ignorant and refusing to engage isn't exactly supported by this thread and what I've said, perhaps you should look back for yourself and you'll see that for yourself.

I've been more than clear on what I'm saying and gone back to correct anything that hasn't come across in it's intended way, and even engaged you despite you already holding a firm position based in what seems to be wilful ignorance of what you're being told. Say what you wish, that's not on me.

[Gman.45]

Pretty alarmist video below IMO, but is there any merit to this guy's video? I somehow doubt that current city L/E and the RCMP will be building a DNA database with the roadside saliva systems, this guy seems to be certain of it.

One thing I do want some LE input on is the saliva systems that will be testing for pretty much every prescribed narcotic out there. Canada is one of the largest consumers of painkillers in the world, you can be certain that a good 10 to 20 percent of every car you pass has someone on something that the roadside system will pick up, just based on the numbers or prescriptions per capita. The labels, pharmacies, and even doctors in many cases tell the patients "not to drive until you become accustomed to the medication", ie someone on percocets for a root canal will be bombed, but someone with a degenrating spine/whatever will not after a period of time, and just feel analgesia and pain relief, and not be impaired. I heard many doctors tell my mother this when she had cancer before she died and was still driving, 3 or 4 at least when she would bring it up. Now that the population will be being tested en masse on the roads for these drugs, what happens now?

[JRSC00LUDE]

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

Now that the population will be being tested en masse on the roads for these drugs, what happens now?

A clogged court system, ruined lives and countless legal challenges all under the heavy-handed and misdirected guise of "safety".

[Misterman]

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

A clogged court system, ruined lives and countless legal challenges all under the heavy-handed and misdirected guise of "safety".

Exactly what I have been going on about. That's why creating a standard for proving impairment is quite a bit more important than screening devices.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

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.

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

It may seem that way but it’s actually very precise. There is an entire section devoted to gathering samples having reasonable grounds to believe someone committed an impaired driving offence within a prior amount of time. That’s not new. That’s always been there. This is just a new version of it with more clarification.

We need reasonable grounds to demand any samples. Objective and subjective grounds forming a reasonable belief a criminal offence has been committed. Not just the word of angry ex who says you’re hammered, or a bit of swerving. It’s simply not how impaired driving laws work when it comes to dealing with it after the fact. To justify that level of intrusion into someone’s rights when they aren’t currently in the act of operating a conveyance is on a whole other level.

So it turns out the reality is that cops are more than happy to show up at someone's house hours after they had driven, use flowery language to convince people to let them into their home, and then breathalyze them based on no reasonable grounds that an offence occurred. If you are fortunate enough to have the time and money to fight the charges, you can eventually win, but of course you will never receive any compensation for the violation of your rights, or for the time and money spent fighting it.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5326941/n...-breathalyzer/


The general advice of "don't talk to cops and never let them into your home without a warrant" continues to remain sadly prescient.

[revelations]

Yea thats pretty much expected unfortunately. Give the police new, discretionary powers and some will ALWAYS abuse them. The members likely knew that this would not stand up in court, however the defendant has to spend thousands on legal fees in a BS case.


However, most of these stories have MUCH more going on than what is reported in the BS media. Dont always assume its black and white.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[FraserB]

I find it surprising that there are still people who would let the police in their home without a warrant or talk to one when it's not needed.

Bullshitting a family emergency to trick someone into meeting them underscores why never talking to the police unless compelled to is probably the best bet.

[Tik-Tok]

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

Makes you wonder if people will abuse this. Noisy neighbor that parties too much? Just drop an anonymous tip on his LP during a party. He might not have even driven at all that day, but apparently that doesn't matter.

Makes me wonder who called her in? How much did she tip the waitress at lunch?