Impaired Driving Laws too Far Reaching?

[NewLextasy]

This law is retarded and totally takes away your rights. I got pulled over at 7am in my McLaren 5min after leaving my house to go to a car event . Only reason was that he said the new law allows him to stop anyone and use the breathalyzer with out cause.

Totally insane. Obviously I blew 0.000 and then drove away. But blew my mind he did this

[Sugarphreak]

...

[ThePenIsMightier]

I just want to say that I really appreciate the officer member's contribution to this thread.
From their contributions, I think we should all realize that the NEW LAWS don't actually pertain to the primary concern most folks are venting about. From what I'm reading, the thing that everyone is scared about has ALWAYS been a law, already. The #NewLaw is actually all about the roadside device being stuck in your face 24/7 when that didn't used to be a thing
Still, it's #beyond so we have to realize the sharp turn this thread has taken.
Although the thread title isn't about this, I and others find it pretty repugnant that a person can be demanded to give a breathalyzer when they're at their HOME and haven't necessarily driven in >1 hr. That's really some fucked up shit.
If the legal system worked better I'd be more comfortable with it, but when you see someone with multiple CONVICTIONS still driving with barely any consequence, it na asked me hate this NOT NEW rule.

[Misterman]

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.

There is actually a really good talk about this on youtube from some law professor. It's based in the states and around their laws, but all the reasoning around the matter applies to us here as well. If anyone is interested in the subject and has 45min to spare, it's a good listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&t=1891s

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

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.

The subjectiveness of "reasonable Grounds" is what a lot of people's issue is.

Seems like anything can spark an investigation, an annoying neighbor calling in was an example given. And even though that might not be reasonable grounds to demand sample, when the fuzz shows up at your door and can immediately tell you've been drinking. The fact you never left your house is irrelevant, they have a phone complaint of you driving drunk, and now confirmed your alleged intoxication. Suddenly they have reasonable grounds to demand breath sample.

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

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.

On the other side of the coin, there is police officers that are expected to enforce this law, that have also clearly not read the law or understand it. And because of that, some people are justifiably freaking out.

[Mitsu3000gt]

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

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

What then, other than a clear video of the person driving erratically/dangerously with their face also clearly visible, would be anything other than a guess?

And if that was the standard, then nobody would have anything to worry about because there would be no room for ambiguity. I have a hard time believing the standard is nearly that high though.

[adam c]

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?

There’s a lot of non mentally stable people in today’s society, perhaps she accidentally cut someone off in traffic and it was that persons last straw and they snapped, calling in a drunk driver but not seeing the actual driver. I’m pretty confident that police dispatch wouldn’t tell that person to drive beside the car and get a driver description

The story that popped up a few days ago about the lady being banned from coop then returning and putting pins and shit into food just proves what kind of mental issues are in our society

[rage2]

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

The subjectiveness of "reasonable Grounds" is what a lot of people's issue is.

Seems like anything can spark an investigation, an annoying neighbor calling in was an example given. And even though that might not be reasonable grounds to demand sample, when the fuzz shows up at your door and can immediately tell you've been drinking. The fact you never left your house is irrelevant, they have a phone complaint of you driving drunk, and now confirmed your alleged intoxication. Suddenly they have reasonable grounds to demand breath sample.

On the other side of the coin, there is police officers that are expected to enforce this law, that have also clearly not read the law or understand it. And because of that, some people are justifiably freaking out.

If everyone was like phil98z24, we'd have nothing to worry about. But not everyone is like phil98z24, and that subjectiveness is open to interpretation. Sure it might not stand the test in a court of law, but DUI laws are funny that you're guilty and punished first before you step foot in court. Roadside suspension, impound and legal fees aren't cheap based on some asshole's subjectiveness even if it's completely incorrect. You can appeal it after the fact, but that gives you fuck all for reimbursements.

So yea, it's better to understand the potential implications and rather be safe than sorry.

[Misterman]

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

There’s a lot of non mentally stable people in today’s society, perhaps she accidentally cut someone off in traffic and it was that persons last straw and they snapped, calling in a drunk driver but not seeing the actual driver. I’m pretty confident that police dispatch wouldn’t tell that person to drive beside the car and get a driver description

The story that popped up a few days ago about the lady being banned from coop then returning and putting pins and shit into food just proves what kind of mental issues are in our society

Or some dickbag neighbor that sees you having drinks on your balcony, and phones in saying he saw you pull into your driveway and stumble out of your car. You wouldn't even have to have been out in a car.

And here is another related story. https://globalnews.ca/news/5481958/s...edown-weapons/

Impossible confirm any details. But the guy has a live FB video discussing what happened. They charged his brother with failure to provide a breath sample. He claims they never even requested one since they knew he wasn't drinking, they just wanted something to charge him with. Again, that's just this guys story, no way to confirm the details. But also according to this David Dewolfe, his dogs are bread to protect livestock, and his neighbors dogs were harassing the livestock, so his dogs did their job and mauled the neighbors dog a few days prior to this whole ordeal.

TLDR; angry neighbor called the cops, one guy ends up charged with failure to provide breath sample.

[Mitsu3000gt]

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

There’s a lot of non mentally stable people in today’s society, perhaps she accidentally cut someone off in traffic and it was that persons last straw and they snapped, calling in a drunk driver but not seeing the actual driver. I’m pretty confident that police dispatch wouldn’t tell that person to drive beside the car and get a driver description

The story that popped up a few days ago about the lady being banned from coop then returning and putting pins and shit into food just proves what kind of mental issues are in our society

I called 911 before on a drunk driver and they told me to stay far away from the car, so you are correct they do not want you to try and do any sort of investigating yourself. I followed the car anyway (safely and from a distance) and relayed the location to the dispatcher to make sure the guy was caught. But yeah, they aren't going to get you to try get a photo of the guy or whatever - I don't see how there isn't guess work involved that could lead to a BS charge.

[Misterman]

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

If everyone was like phil98z24, we'd have nothing to worry about. But not everyone is like phil98z24, and that subjectiveness is open to interpretation. Sure it might not stand the test in a court of law, but DUI laws are funny that you're guilty and punished first before you step foot in court. Roadside suspension, impound and legal fees aren't cheap based on some asshole's subjectiveness even if it's completely incorrect. You can appeal it after the fact, but that gives you fuck all for reimbursements.

So yea, it's better to understand the potential implications and rather be safe than sorry.

Absolutely. I'll say I also appreciate Phils input, seems like a level headed and knowledgeable officer. I wish they were all like that.

[JRSC00LUDE]

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

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.

People are willingly handing their DNA over to the Government every day through Ancestry, 23 and me, etc. I read another story today where a guy in the states was nailed for a murder over 40 years ago because the company that takes those samples hands them over to LEA's for use. People are idiots.

[revelations]

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

There is actually a really good talk about this on youtube from some law professor. It's based in the states and around their laws, but all the reasoning around the matter applies to us here as well. If anyone is interested in the subject and has 45min to spare, it's a good listen.

Ive watched that before and while we don't have the 5th amendment - we do have the right to silence in most circumstances. There is generally no compulsion to talk to the police. You can do the talking instead in Traffic court or regular court.

[gwill]

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

People are willingly handing their DNA over to the Government every day through Ancestry, 23 and me, etc. I read another story today where a guy in the states was nailed for a murder over 40 years ago because the company that takes those samples hands them over to LEA's for use. People are idiots.

that's hilarious. It still irks me the wrong way when I read people dismissing the law that can demand a breathalyzer from anyone anytime because it "will save lives".

We can save a lot of lives by removing a lot of out rights... so why stop there?? Let's make a big difference and save even more lives.

[rage2]

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

People are willingly handing their DNA over to the Government every day through Ancestry, 23 and me, etc. I read another story today where a guy in the states was nailed for a murder over 40 years ago because the company that takes those samples hands them over to LEA's for use. People are idiots.

You don’t even have to use dna ancestry services. Your relatives can and it’s enough info to pinpoint you.

[JRSC00LUDE]

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

You don’t even have to use dna ancestry services. Your relatives can and it’s enough info to pinpoint you.

Yeah it's a real good racket they've got going.

[g-m]

I don't have anything to add other than that I also appreciate Phil and his posts

[msommers]

Regarding this horrible neighbour that everyone has....

If they phone in, say they saw you driving erratically on X&Y street, but you've been home all day and so has your car... Do the police collect a statement from them officially at all? In other words, if the police try to verify said shitty neighbour's bogus call only to find out they lied because the cameras can't find your car, what happens to shitty neighbour?

[Tik-Tok]

I'm more scared of the shitty server that didn't like their tip.

[ExtraSlow]

relevant update to this topic.
All traffic stops by CPS will include a roadside screening for alcohol now.
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...calgary-police

[Disoblige]

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

relevant update to this topic.
All traffic stops by CPS will include a roadside screening for alcohol now.
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...calgary-police

This will potentially cause issues to those on GDL and they happen to have one beer or something minuscule and then blow more than 0.
One would argue that those on GDL shouldn't be drinking anything anyways, but realistically I don't think that is the case.