Impaired Driving Laws too Far Reaching?

[Mitsu3000gt]

If they show up to your house at 1h59m after your drive and demand a sample, can't you just answer the door with a beer in hand and say you came home and started pounding beers? They could charge you but there is no way it would stick.

[ThePenIsMightier]

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

If they show up to your house at 1h59m after your drive and demand a sample, can't you just answer the door with a beer in hand and say you came home and started pounding beers? They could charge you but there is no way it would stick.

Right, but you still get to spend $3k defending yourself and missing work.

- - - Updated - - -

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

The USA. I know that in Canada rights don't mean shit, and we just blindly convict people for things with no burden of proof. What conjecture are you in parroting today?

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

[Mitsu3000gt]

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

Right, but you still get to spend $3k defending yourself and missing work.

- - - Updated - - -

Would it even get to court though? Why would you even need a defense if they can't prove you were drunk before you started drinking at home?

My friends in CPS/RCMP tell me the cost to buy yourself out of an actual legit DUI is around $15K after lawyer fees and a BAL expert who will say anything you want them to say.

[rage2]

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

Would it even get to court though? Why would you even need a defense if they can't prove you were drunk before you started drinking at home?

The purpose of the new law is to close this exact loophole. It makes it illegal to be drunk 2 hours after driving, with the promise of only using this law for actual DUIs such as leaving scene of accident, or witness statements of erratic driving. The problem is that promise isn't met, and people not involved in accidents or actual suspicion of DUI are getting charged for DUI.

Going further, the law places a reverse onus on you to prove you weren't above .05 or .08 while you were driving, so in theory you could walk around with a breathalyzer and video yourself before and after driving, if you plan on drinking right after you stop driving.

[Mitsu3000gt]

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

The purpose of the new law is to close this exact loophole. It makes it illegal to be drunk 2 hours after driving, with the promise of only using this law for actual DUIs such as leaving scene of accident, or witness statements of erratic driving. The problem is that promise isn't met, and people not involved in accidents or actual suspicion of DUI are getting charged for DUI.

Going further, the law places a reverse onus on you to prove you weren't above .05 or .08 while you were driving, so in theory you could walk around with a breathalyzer and video yourself before and after driving, if you plan on drinking right after you stop driving.

I see - thanks for the explanation. That is worst than I thought...

[ercchry]

I think best practice is to just never answer the door... nothing good ever comes to the door uninvited. Guess you’d have to refrain from ordering SkipTheDishes though

[rage2]

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

I see - thanks for the explanation. That is worst than I thought...

Yup. Google up Bill C-46 and enjoy your day haha.

[Buster]

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

I see - thanks for the explanation. That is worst than I thought...

It's legitimately counter to one of the foundational principles of any liberal democracy: innocence until proven guilty.

It's a law that can result in innocent people being convicted. This can happen with all laws - but not by design as in this case.

[88CRX]

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

I think best practice is to just never answer the door... nothing good ever comes to the door uninvited. Guess you’d have to refrain from ordering SkipTheDishes though

I asked this a few pages back (dont think anyone responded) but if you open the door and don't invite them in are you hooped? Only talk to them through the door? Are they allowed to come into your backyard to 'catch' you on your patio?

Basically at what point are you legally allowed to tell them to beat it?

Too many crazy crime Netflix series about abuse of power.

[rage2]

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

I asked this a few pages back (dont think anyone responded) but if you open the door and don't invite them in are you hooped? Only talk to them through the door? Are they allowed to come into your backyard to 'catch' you on your patio?

Basically at what point are you legally allowed to tell them to beat it?

Too many crazy crime Netflix series about abuse of power.

AFAIK, you can't. If they demand a sample, and you refuse to blow, you get charged for refuse to blow, which has equal ramifications as a full blown DUI charge. You can defend a DUI charge, it's impossible to defend a refuse to blow charge.

[88CRX]

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

AFAIK, you can't. If they demand a sample, and you refuse to blow, you get charged for refuse to blow, which has equal ramifications as a full blown DUI charge. You can defend a DUI charge, it's impossible to defend a refuse to blow charge.

Yea if you allow them into your house and they request you need to blow, I get that.

But what about not answering the door. Can you tell them through the door to beat it? Can they come into your backyard without being invited? Probably doesn't matter as we never answer our door anyways.

[Swank]

^One step further, can't you just pretend you're not home or are they allowed to break your doors down?

[rage2]

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

Yea if you allow them into your house and they request you need to blow, I get that.

But what about not answering the door. Can you tell them through the door to beat it? Can they come into your backyard without being invited? Probably doesn't matter as we never answer our door anyways.

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

^One step further, can't you just pretend you're not home or are they allowed to break your doors down?

That I don't know, maybe @phil98z24 can clarify. From my understanding, they can't break your door down and hunt you down without a warrant, so if you don't answer your door in theory you're good to go. The BC case was because she answered the door and thus a demand can be made.

Hold up while I buy stock in doorbell cam companies.

[ercchry]

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

^One step further, can't you just pretend you're not home or are they allowed to break your doors down?

American media really does skew what we think is law... but I would hope in Canada they would need a warrant issued by a judge. Which would take way longer than 2hrs due to needing to actually have a case and proof that a crime occurred?

Really all you have to do is wait out that 2hr window and then they have nothing

[Mitsu3000gt]

Who would answer the door for an unexpected visitor? There is no reason to ever answer the door unless:

A) You are expecting someone
B) Someone needs help or there is an emergency, in which case they will be screaming and beating on your door like crazy, so if that isn't happening you know it's not an actual emergency.

Also, most people either have a doorbell cam or other cam now these days anyway for further 'screening'.

[JRSC00LUDE]

There is no defense for this law, it's an abuse of power and an abuse of rights and if left unchallenged it will set precedent for further erosion of rights. And THAT is no crazier than my first comments questioning how this was allowed to happen that got laughed at by some and yet here we are - it's being abused. You simply cannot give that kind of power to the Police, it WILL be abused and if left unchecked it will only get worse.

[Buster]

I expect that if the cops believe they have the right to enter your home without your consent, they will move from asking nicely to just doing it in short order.

So there is no benefit to you (other than maybe a door replacement?) to answer the door for the cops.

[phil98z24]

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

That I don't know, maybe @phil98z24 can clarify. From my understanding, they can't break your door down and hunt you down without a warrant, so if you don't answer your door in theory you're good to go. The BC case was because she answered the door and thus a demand can be made.

Hold up while I buy stock in doorbell cam companies.

Oh look, I’ve been @ed! Haha! I wouldn’t have even seen this, cool feature.

Anyways. No, absolutely not. There are rare times when police can make warrantless entry, and this isn’t one.

[Buster]

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

Oh look, I’ve been @ed! Haha! I wouldn’t have even seen this, cool feature.

Anyways. No, absolutely not. There are rare times when police can make warrantless entry, and this isn’t one.

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

[phil98z24]

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

I expect that if the cops believe they have the right to enter your home without your consent, they will move from asking nicely to just doing it in short order.

So there is no benefit to you (other than maybe a door replacement?) to answer the door for the cops.

Thankfully in this case, they can’t. So non issue. There is not even a question about whether there is a belief in forcing warrantless entry for an impaired driving investigation. Full stop. It’s not an option unless there is some incredibly emergent circumstance like loss of evidence in a criminal driving death or something of that sort.