Impaired Driving Laws too Far Reaching?

[killramos]

Quell Suprise...

Shitty law comes with shitty results

[Sugarphreak]

...

[revelations]

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

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.

Probably 90% of citizens feel an 'obligation' when it comes to the police - in that they should be done as they ask. Very few question police - unless they have experience.

[gwill]

It's funny because the police forces would refuse to say on record that they wouldnt go into someone's home to force a breathalyzer and now we have the police doing just that.

The law goes too far yet we have people blindly supporting it.

[firebane]

This really has nothing to do with the law at all. This has more to do with a couple of cops seeing if they can bend some rules and get away with it... which they didn't. If this was more to do with the law it would be much more involved.

They thought they could find a loop hole and it failed.

[gwill]

The law didnt fail. This has everything to do with the new law as it gives cops the discretion to lay the charges.

It cost the ladies thousands of dollars to fight this ridiculous charge. That's not okay.

[Tik-Tok]

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

The law didnt fail. This has everything to do with the new law as it gives cops the discretion to lay the charges.

It cost the ladies thousands of dollars to fight this ridiculous charge. That's not okay.

Unless they actually were plastered when they left the pub. Which is also entirely possible in this scenario. She might have been gooned when she left the pub, and then only had 3 beers at the house. The charges she got off of were from her inability to provide a breathalyzer test due to her condition, not because she proved she wasn't drunk while driving.

It's a terrible law with the good intention of closing a loophole that people have abused for decades. "The way to hell" and all that though.

[Brent.ff]

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

Unless they actually were plastered when they left the pub. Which is also entirely possible in this scenario. She might have been gooned when she left the pub, and then only had 3 beers at the house. The charges she got off of were from her inability to provide a breathalyzer test due to her condition, not because she proved she wasn't drunk while driving.

You're putting the multiple stories in the article together. She was charged for failing the test, not from not performing. Thats others.

[JRSC00LUDE]

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

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.

But I was crazy to suggest this is exactly what could/would happen.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

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

Unless they actually were plastered when they left the pub. Which is also entirely possible in this scenario. She might have been gooned when she left the pub, and then only had 3 beers at the house. The charges she got off of were from her inability to provide a breathalyzer test due to her condition, not because she proved she wasn't drunk while driving.

I think you need to give the article a re-read. It talks about two separate occasions, one with the pub lunch and breathalyzer at home, and a completely separate case where a lady was convicted for refusing to blow.

[Misterman]

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

This really has nothing to do with the law at all. This has more to do with a couple of cops seeing if they can bend some rules and get away with it... which they didn't. If this was more to do with the law it would be much more involved.

They thought they could find a loop hole and it failed.

Or did they get away with it? You don't know what their intentions were. Maybe this lady had a run in with them at some point that they have bad blood over. Doesn't matter if what they did was legal or not, they costed this woman 3500$ in expenses and fucked up her day pretty good. That very well might've been their motive to begin with. That's the problem with these over reaching laws that are open to all this grey area. There is no recourse for the officers that ruined someones bank account, reputation, life, etc.

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

But I was crazy to suggest this is exactly what could/would happen.

Waiting for a reply from the ignorant officers in this thread claiming we were all fucking retarded for even insinuating something like this was possible.

[JRSC00LUDE]

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

Waiting for a reply from the ignorant officers in this thread claiming we were all fucking retarded for even insinuating something like this was possible.

I'm not, I'm waiting for replies from the other members. We get great and insightful perspectives from the likes of Phil and we're fortunate to have that conduit imo.

[phil98z24]

I would say there is more to this story than what we’re being told. She stopped for a drink at a pub, and someone called in with concerns. Depending on what’s been said, that may give rise to RPG to believe she may be committing a criminal offense and the police are duty bound to investigate. Again, as I’ve said over and over, this power existed under old legislation and this is only making news because people think it’s new and by the sounds of it, the Mounties fucked up something they were lawfully in place to do and duty bound to investigate. I’d love to read the decision to get the ENTIRE story, as this may not have been an issue of the law, but the way the investigation was conducted.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Or did they get away with it? You don't know what their intentions were. Maybe this lady had a run in with them at some point that they have bad blood over. Doesn't matter if what they did was legal or not, they costed this woman 3500$ in expenses and fucked up her day pretty good. That very well might've been their motive to begin with. That's the problem with these over reaching laws that are open to all this grey area. There is no recourse for the officers that ruined someones bank account, reputation, life, etc.





Waiting for a reply from the ignorant officers in this thread claiming we were all fucking retarded for even insinuating something like this was possible.

Were those the words used? I thought we are all being pretty professional and addressing your concerns through our knowledge and experience, specifically saying this issue existed under old legislation before and could have happened prior to this new change of language in the CC. Seems you’re not paying attention?

[phil98z24]

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

It's funny because the police forces would refuse to say on record that they wouldnt go into someone's home to force a breathalyzer and now we have the police doing just that.

The law goes too far yet we have people blindly supporting it.

They said at random. Not that they wouldn’t continue to investigate using the authorities given to them, which can include demands made within three hours of operating a conveyance that are specifically connected to suspicion of an offense being committed. Big difference.

[gwill]

you would think the media would be pulling the transcripts from the ruling. I agree it would be an interesting one to read. Regardless the police tricked the lady to chat with them and used the new law to lay charges hours after the fact.

[Rat Fink]

.

[gwill]

^If this lady was sitting pool side when this happened she probably got charged fairly recently which makes you wonder how she had the charges thrown out so quickly.

Most would assume the evidence was lacking for that to happen.

[Rat Fink]

.

[Sugarphreak]

....

[Rat Fink]

.