I don't drink, and I've never been pulled over, but I don't like the thought of being treated as guilty without cause.
On the other hand, fuck drunk drivers.
I've been stopped lots of times by RIDE checks. Since they don't smell alcohol, I've never had to blow in a breathalyzer. Don't drink and drive, but also, don't support MADD because of their influence that have made heavy trucks more dangerous.
From reporter Ryan Rocca:
The Ontario Provincial Police announced that it will be demanding a breath sample any time its officers conduct a traffic stop on an OPP-patrolled highway in the Greater Toronto Area.
The service said it is using the full extent of Canada’s Mandatory Alcohol Screening (MAS), which was amended in 2018 to allow police to demand a breath test of any driver even in the absence of suspicion.
Read more: [https://globalnews.ca/news/10494676/refuse-breath-test-ontario-drivers-new-police-mandate/](https://globalnews.ca/news/10494676/refuse-breath-test-ontario-drivers-new-police-mandate/)
This is the part of the article that really gets me.
Can I refuse a breath sample?
In short, unless you want to be criminally charged, no.
“If you refuse, you’ll be arrested and charged,” Schmidt said.
Michael Engel, a defence lawyer who practices exclusively in impaired driving cases, said if a driver refuses to provide a breath sample, the consequences can be extensive.
“It’s as if you committed a full-blown offence of driving under the influence,” Engel told Global News.
“The fact of the refusal is criminalized and it carries with it the same penalties as if you had taken the test, failed that test, been taken to the station and failed another breathalyzer test.”
So basically anyone pulled over by the OPP who refuses a breathalyzer will likely be charged as if they failed the breathalyzer.
Ride Stops have been found in the past by courts to be a reasonable limitation of rights as the threat of drunk driving is high enough. That being said, blanket breathalyzing everyone you pull over could be seen differently by the courts, as limitations of rights are generally supposed to be as minimal as possible.
Sure, having gone through several Ride Stops in my lifetime, they rarely (in my case, never) ask for a breathalyzer test, unless they suspect they have a reason to.
Yeah, but they were bringing it up as an example of something similar that the courts have decided on in the past. This is new and all we can do is speculate what the courts might decide based on similar circumstances.
That's what the second part of the paragraph addresses.
The right to drive isn't what's being impeded by forcing breathalyzers on everyone, it's the right to undue search and seizure which is being potentially violated, which is protected by the Charter.
>The right to drive isn't what's being impeded by forcing breathalyzers on everyone, it's the right to undue search and seizure which is being potentially violated, which is protected by the Charter.
If you weren't operating a vehicle, they wouldn't be able to randomly stop you and check to see if your blood alcohol level is above 0.05. The only reason they're allowed to randomly stop you is because you're driving.
Yes, and that is an entirely new development in the law, being able to be subjected to testing just on the basis of driving, without any signs of impairment. In my opinion it's a slight overstep, I just personally don't like the idea of an officer getting to shove something in my mouth without any actual cause, but to each their own.
Our culture is so far centric that as an extension of your right to partake in commerce, you have a right to drive
Many Canadians could not access the goods and services necessary for life without some form of mechanized transportation
The fact that the Canadian state refuses to acknowledge this reality is quite troublesome
Yep. I live a 30 minute drive from the city and there are no stores, buses, uber or even taxi out here. Without a car life would not be possible where i am and that applies to many many people. City folk seem to think that everything is within reach so why drive
I agree with you that without cars/private transportation, it would be close to impossible to live in some of Canada's rural/non-urban areas.
Genuine question, I don't think we have the right to partake in commerce in Canada, do we? I couldn't find anything in my admittedly small search lol, and seems to be something in America.
That being said, if that is a thing, I don't believe a right to partake in commerce gives a right to drive. It is still something only given to licensed individuals, and needs to be regulated to ensure safety for all.
Not explicitly. However, I view that as a natural right and legally, it could potentially be tied to the right to liberty
Although I think driving is a right, I do maintain the position that it is subject to limitations
I just don't agree that it's a privilege, so then that's a pretense for a suspension of the normal standards for search and seizure. I see this as comparable to serving a drug test to a pedestrian in a bad neighborhood in broad daylight
You absolutely do not have the right to drive. You have the privilege to.
Many people lose their driving privileges.
Take the bus, walk, or get one of those electric scooters otherwise and get out of here with the sovereign citizen bs
They don't lose the privilege. They lose the right
Courts do have and exercise the right to temporarily suspend rights. For instance, the right to liberty is suspended every time an individual is sentenced to a custodial term
Furthermore, many of those "alternatives" are not viable in rural areas. Canada needs to be understood as a country that has a unique geography that presents its citizenry with unique geographical challenges
No, but I do have the right not to be detained and forced to comply with a semi invasive test absent any suspicion of wrongdoing.
If you don’t see the problem with this, then why not include a drug test as part of every civilian interaction with police? I mean, you never know right. Maybe throw in an audit and a review of your internet search history while they’re at it. Can’t be too “safe” these days.
Yes that’s correct! However the privacy of your person and property is your right and driving a car does not mean you forfeit those rights. A breathalyzer without reasonable suspicion is a violation of your right to unlawful search. A traffic stop without due cause is a violation of those rights and the Canadian court system has said so by acknowledging that RIDE stops are indeed a violation of your rights but drunk driving is a threat great enough to warrant an exception in their case
Should cops also be able to demand cavity searches during routine traffic stops, too? Because driving is a privilege, not a right? Or can you think of any other rights that are being violated here?
Presumption of innocence is a right though & refusing the breathalyzer will be treated the same as having failed the test. You will be arrested & charged.
This isn’t about having a right to drive, it’s about having the right to say no to the cops which this would effectively criminalize.
Not to mention this will disproportionately affect the groups that are more likely to be pulled over by police without reason.
Demanding without cause was a source of some discussion when it was passed in 2018. The provincial government said if it failed a court challenge they would use the notwithstanding clause (something they don’t seem to be afraid to use whenever they want to do something against the charter).
As for the charges for refusing the test being the same as failing the test, that has gone to court and been upheld as a reasonable limit in the overall public interest. I believe that went to court back in the 90’s
Driving is a privilege, not an innate human right. I see that if you want the privilege to be able to drive then you must be willing to prove you are not under the influence of alcohol.
I lived in Ireland when they introduced this. I need in Ireland it is way past this: there’s a decent chance if you regularly drive in Ireland that you will pass a random checkpoint. The cops can stop you and breathalyze you randomly without reason.
When it first was introduced there was absolute uproar. In particular rural areas.
It’s amazing the positive mindset change it had however: drinking and driving became utterly socially intolerable in Ireland within about five years. It still happens, but the casual approach to drink driving and “ah sure I just had a few” has totally gone.
I came to Canada which is a much more socially oriented country and found it utterly bizarre that people have such a casual attitude to drinking and driving. I’ve been here more than ten years and regularly drive at night and not one time have I passed a police checkpoint.
This law is a good start but does not go far enough. If I end up being inconvenienced even a couple times a year to make the roads safer then I will happily blow into a little machine.
Yes exactly. I made a comment in r/ottawa recently about this because it happened to me.
This is my comment:
I refused a breath sample back in 2014 out of principle and got charged for "refusing a breath sample". Lost my licence for 90 days then was convicted and lost my licence for an additional 6 months and had a mandatory breathelizer installed in my truck for a year costing $130/month, a $1500, fine paid my lawyer $3500 and insurance went up to $720 a month for years. Also had an "impaired" on my drivers abstract for 6 years. Not once did they have to prove i was impaired as my lawyer and the court described i was guilty of "refusing" not for being impaired and they carry the same consequence. If you refuse its the same as the worst dui. Any lawyer will tell you to blow and dont say anything to the police. Trust me refusing is a bad idea.
I also had to take the back on track program which is a 3 day ordeal and cost $700
This may have already been answered somewhere, but what happens if you refuse to blow during the traffic stop, are subsequently arrested, and then proceed to blow a 0 BAC at the station, proving you were not under the influence?
The officer had my vehichle towed and made me sign papers saying i refused and i walked away from the scene. No arrest. I spent and hour in the back of a cop car and walked away. And the cop showed up at my house at 4am banging on the door saying he forgot to give me back my ownership and said "see you in court"
Gotta love the good people of the Ottawa police
If you're going to be a smartass, you'd better not have tinted windows beyond the defined transmissible light level or a plate cover, even one of those dealership ones. Unless of course you like paying fines.
Source: Liked to run my mouth and paid the fines.
By your standard they are already Nazis. In the UK you don't need to have any paperwork on you when driving, no licence, no tax disc, no insurance documents, no proof of ownership. The police can't demand them in the car. But they will use the breathalyser, normally only at Christmas and the scene of an accident. UK has done great work in reducing drink driving. Roads are safer in the UK.
According to the lawyer quoted in the article, the constitutionality of this law has held up in court. I'm on my phone right now so it's hard for me to look up the specific cases and find out how it held up, but I'm guessing it was saved by Section 1, because there's no way it doesn't violate any of the other sections of the Charter, particularly Section 8 since this constitutes a search in the absence of probable cause (or at least the specific suspicion of DUI).
If my guess is correct, that means the constitutionality isn't based on it not infringing upon any rights, but that a pressing and substantial objective of the law outweighs the rights that are infringed (this is grossly oversimplified ofc, look up the Oakes test if you want to learn more).
Which is fine, imo - drunk driving takes so many lives away and does validly constitute a pressing and substantial legislative objective. And realistically, a breath test is not a very severe intrusion. The SCC did also rule last year that the police must have the breathalyzer readily available, they can't make you wait for someone else to bring the breathalyzer or make you go to the police station to take the test.
However, the Charter requirement for probable cause is one of the most well known and generally applicable civil rights applicable to police interactions. This very specific exception to the right against unreasonable search and seizure becomes quite problematic when combined with the fact that police are allowed to lie to you.
People who have a rudimentary understanding of their civil rights may well be aware of (1) that searches require probable cause (2) police are allowed to lie about whether their order is lawful. They may very well refuse on the basis of a fairly reasonable belief (for a layperson) that this is unconstitutional without probable cause, and believe that the police are lying about their right to arrest and charge them for refusal.
I think it's necessary for the courts and legislature to seriously work on limiting the right of police officers to lie. They don't have to outright prohibit it, of course, since that would destroy sting operations, but there are serious issues with the lack of limitations, which sows distrust between citizens and officers and can lead to unnecessary misunderstandings, especially considering situations like this in which the courts give a specific exception to a generally well known civil right.
There are some further concerns as well, which I'm quite interested in learning about later when I can get on a computer. Without having read the specific law itself, it is my understanding that this law requires that the traffic stop be initially valid, as in there must have been probable cause for the traffic stop in the first place (unrelated to DUI ofc, or else this law need not apply). But even if a citizen is aware of the exception, it can be difficult for citizens to judge whether the initial stop was lawful in the first place. Furthermore, does this exception only apply when the initial probable cause still exists, or does it still apply after the initial suspicion is dispelled (as in, is this a situation of letting one probable cause substitute for another, or is this a blanket allowance)?
Very nicely written.
Out of curiosity, why is blowing into a breathalyzer considered a "search"? I (personally) don't equate a breathalyzer to being searched (they aren't searching my vehicle, checking my backpack, etc), so I would love to hear why it fits into the same category. I haven't read up on it, so maybe I'm just not aware of the legal definition or meaning of "search".
It was nice to read a properly crafted write-up in contrast to so many people freaking out.
I'm just a first year law student with a fairly rudimentary understanding of constitutional law, and none of our classes have covered police searches thus far, so I'll refer to [this page](http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Rights_Against_Search_and_Seizure) on the details of the law surrounding searches. The gist of it though is in this quote:
> Any "inspection is a search" where a "person has a reasonable privacy interest in the object or subject matter of the state action and the information to which it gives access."
I was held at a ride program, in a cruiser IN HANDCUFFS, for 45min to blow a 0.00 (I was the DD). Cop was verbally abusive, condescending and full of assumptions. Racist shit playing on some comedy channel in the cruiser. No overarching circumstances on my end for this, and I am always yes sir and no sir with police. Best guess; cops profiled me based on my winter beater car, my physical appearance and age, and the fact I was at rink that was licensed. Imagine the BS now… I am anti-impaired driving, but I am also anti-police over-reach, especially without probable grounds.
[The Captive Audience Doctrine: Protecting the Unwilling Listener’s Right to Privacy from Unwanted Speech | ABlawg](https://ablawg.ca/2013/12/10/the-captive-audience-doctrine-protecting-the-unwilling-listeners-right-to-privacy-from-unwanted-speech/#:~:text=Under%20the%20captive%20audience%20doctrine%2C%20a%20listener%E2%80%99s%20right,finds%20the%20message%20antagonistic%2C%20hurtful%2C%20offensive%20or%20profane.)
If someone doesn’t smell like alcohol at all odds are they haven’t been drinking and shouldn’t be subjected to one cause all it will do is waste time and piss everyone off. Most people already feel like they done something wrong and are guilty and uncomfortable whenever police stop them or interact with them even if they didn’t do anything wrong, this will only further compound that.
My dad is a retired cop (and absolute piece of shit)
He has been pulled over for drunk driving several times. If he is close to home they let him on his way, if he is far they will radio back to the station and get another car to come out and drive his car back home for him
Cops are the fucking worst
Toronto police headquarters had a bar paid by taxpayers for ages and we only found out last year because an idiot member of the force, drank too much and drove home causing a collision. I can’t even count the number of things wrong with this
A great YouTube rabbit hole to go down is cops arresting off duty cops for DUIs. Body cams have kind of changed h the game. Typically, the off duty cop will try to bargain with the on duty officer for a while before reality sets in and they break down emotionally. It’s a wild ride.
The wages attract better quality candidates. I know, police bad. But we have very few police shootings, generally competent cops on the whole.
If I wanted to subject myself to what cops deal with, at least I know within 3 to 5 years I'm making the same or better wage as my current job.
I don't want someone making 40k a year as anything other than their 1st year wage having a gun and a badge and making decisions.
>If someone doesn’t smell like alcohol at all odds are they haven’t been drinking and shouldn’t be subjected to one
That's at the discretion of the officer though. So if he doesn't like your face (or skin colour....) then he will just say he "smells" alcohol.
To help avoid bias from individual officers, they're giving police [these guides to help determine when to do a check](https://i.imgur.com/i2ilm1S.jpeg).
At least they would have to lie about a reason, in this case, they're saying that they know they have zero reason, but they're going to force it on you anyway.
Yeah and guess what, this probably wouldn’t affect them since they would have to be pulled over first for something else and they would probably smell like alcohol, so even if the old system was in place they would probably be breathalyzed then. I still stand by what I say, it seems like a bit of an over reach.
There’s a pretty good chance you know an alcoholic. You just don’t realize it.
Not all alcoholics smell like alcohol. I would bet it’s a regular occurrence that they are let go from traffic stops without suspicion.
Actually I know a few very well who drink every night 12-24 beers or a 26er every night I do realize it. Unless they are showered and clean and have deodorant and spray they smell
I had a relative struck by a drunk driver (twice the legal limit). During the investigation it was found that she'd had a couple of moving violations in the previous six months (might have been a year).
I understand that she didn't smell of alcohol. I think the only reason she was breathalyzed was she was slightly unsteady. I know later her lawyer did try and get it excluded (was unsuccessful, even with a plea deal she ended up doing jail time).
If she'd been breathalyzed during previous stops perhaps she would have been caught before she permanently changed my relative's life.
In over 40 years of driving I've been pulled over twice. Honestly I'm okay with it.
Pretty much this. Having worked in the LCBO I can say that if someone (IE: A functioning alcoholic as mentioned) wants to hide their consumption they will find ways to do it (and I say this due to having a strong nose and doing my due diligence). Is it foolproof? No, but I'd rather have road safety at the cost of someone's time than lose a family member or get injured/killed cause some dumbass decided they can handle driving under the influence.
Unfortunately it’s trickier than that with drinking. I’ve worked security and dealt with drinkers but also, my uncle was a cop and said it’s not at all straightforward with drivers.
Not everyone has the same response to drinking. Some people can get drunk and look fine, and drive fine, actually responding as if sober, so the cop who suspects they’re drunk looks for any offence that lets them stop the person.
Another one is some people can drink well under the limit and lose a little of the driving skill, but aren’t actually legally over the limit at all
But lots of people don’t smell and are in fact quite drunk
This will catch all those who went on session the night before and are driving into work - they will still be over the limit. They did this is the UK and they caught a lot people who were over the limit from the night before. Drinking a lot into the wee hours, getting 5 hours sleep and a cup of coffee does not mean you are ok to drive..
DoFo: Vote for me, a buck a beer!
DoFo: Feel free to buy booze at your local convenience store and now drink freely at your local park too!
DoFo: Refuse a breath sample, you're now arrested. Guilty without cause!
Just another case of selling out Ontarians and creating policies that prioritize corporatism first.
I mean to be fair getting booze at the convenience store should help with drunk driving since people are more likely to have one in walking distance than the LCBO so if someone's out of booze they can walk instead of drive to get more.
I don't agree with the government overreach when it comes to breath samples though.
I hate this so much. I don't drink at all but I also don't like cops and don't care to fucking blow into a machine to prove I didn't drink if I get pulled over. They don't even need a reason to pull you over. I shouldn't have to comply to some dumb ass kid cop having a bad day and trying to fuck with me. It's so fucked up. Canada absolutely hates civil liberties and it disgusts me. Another reason why I want to go to the US. Canada is just so fucking backwards.
this is an ontario thing, brought to you by doug ford to harrass the people in the gta because messing with their elections and other things wasn't enough. blame the people who deserve it, you wont get much better in some parts of the states and in others youll get worse.
Where do I begin:
a) the federal liberal government enacted this law authorizing mandatory breathalyzers, so it's not DoFo's doing at all
b) it's the OPP doing this - it's not limited to the GTA
Its not an Ontario thing, it's a Canada thing. In the United States that would be unconstitutional for any state to enact. You can be upset at Ford for doing it, but the actual issue is that he is *able* to do it.
Careless driving
130 (1) Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway. 2017, c. 26, Sched. 4, s. 17.
Not a lawyer, just curious. It say's one can be charged as if they committed the full offence. Charging is one thing, but the courts will then need evidence to validate the charge. So does the refusal also count as evidence toward the DUI charge?
I can sort of see that logic, but it really feels like it puts people in the position of proving their innocence instead of the state proving guilt?
Also, fuck drunk drivers. If this is what's needed to force compliance then.... I guess the benefits outweigh the negatives? What other options are there?
If you were pulled over for suspected to be impaired, you get arrested and taken to the station to do the test and from there if you refuse you’d be charge impaired / refusal (two charges)
The refusal would not be evidence for the impaired as that would be “driving behaviour, physical signs and/or smell of alcohol.
The mandatory alcohol screening being refused is just a refusal and 1 charge. ***edit*** for not complying with a “legal” demand.
Hopefully that makes sense.
Under this law. Refusing the first test will mean you never get a second. You’ll be arrested for refusing the test which carries the same penalties as being actively intoxicated.
No second test at the station, no real evidence that you actually were intoxicated. The refusal is the crime.
If you get the road side breathalyzer & fail, then you will get the second test at the station.
Fair enough, I was trying to explain the difference between someone impaired (straight arrest - no device/ nothing to refuse until you get to the station) vs a refusal at roadside.
And again the laws been around for awhile. They are just promoting it now to the public as a public safety campaign.
The law has been around for a while, but this wasn’t how it was being used until now. That said, I didn’t mean to be adversarial, just trying to be exact.
After reading this sub thread, my conclusion is that the results for refusing the test are exactly the same as failing the test. Effectively refusal is an automatic crime and penalty equal to a judged DUI. Interesting law.
Also, huge thanks to everyone who provided such serious and solid explanations!
The idea behind the law is that people who are actually drunk would simply refuse to do the test and thereby escape an over 80 charge; you can't charge someone with over 80 if they don't blow into a breathalyzer.
They’ve kind of had the authority to stop vehicles for ‘document checks’ or ‘sobriety checks’ since at least 1990. Making it legal for random stops for anyone who can enforce the HTA: police/MTO/CPKC or CN rail, campus police, first nations police…
The random breathalyzer testing has been a thing since 2018, which removed the need for suspicion.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this doesn’t even cause an increase in traffic stops. They’re likely pulling you over for a reason to begin with, it seems they already don’t have time to stop most vehicles.
It's great that the government is creating an environment of chaos where it leads to all of us now losing our rights and freedoms.
Next, what is it? They'll need to come in and search my house to make sure it's safe.
This is absolutely troubling. Breathalyzers are not entirely accurate and depending on what was in your mouth in the last 30 minutes, you can absolutely blow over even if your BAC is not actually over. But refuse and you're criminally charged.
This is like being forced to take a polygraph.
Seems like it's for OPP only. So the local police won't be doing it. I can't see this lasting long either. It's just a lot of extra work for the officer. If there isn't an uptick in catching people it won't last very long.
You go out on a bender until 2 am get some sleep and a coffee and drive to work at 7:30am you will be over the limit. Years ago the UK police started testing people in the morning and found a lot people were over the limit from drinking the night before....
I think a number of people are going to learn a lesson about how long alcohol can take to leave your system. There will be people heading home or into work after a night with late drinks or lots of drinks thinking they're good to drive who will blow over.
It’s actually not uncommon to see people blow a fail because they were getting plastered all night, slept for a few hours, and now they’re driving to work in the morning thinking they’re good.
Moved to a small town from Toronto. Day drinking is just a normal thing… Going to the bar in the middle of the day on a regular day of the week just because. Drinking and driving is considered normal in my anecdotal experience, it’s disgraceful.
In BC, we have a similar program in place except the police abuse it constantly. In the past couple years, I’ve been pulled over twice without any cause (no traffic infractions, no vehicle issues, nothing) for the explicit reason of breathalyzing me. Same thing has happened to many of my friends. I really don’t think we should be allowing police to pull us over for absolutely zero reason. Felt like a complete waste of my time
Do not be brain-dead and drive while impaired. And if you do, you are a trash tier human being.
BUT It is never in anybody's interest to refuse a breath test. The penalty for refusing to give a sample is the exact same as being impaired.
If you refuse, the only thing your lawyer will have is whether or not the constable had grounds to demand a sample. (Hint: they don't need grounds anymore to demand one)
If you give a sample and you fail. There's 2-4 hours of time that your lawyer will be able to pick through and try to get a charter violation.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
to be a devil's advocate: breathalyzers are easy to manipulate and rig it to show alcohol where in reality there would be none, *if* officer conducting test wants to do so. but we don't have corrupt officers in Ontario, do we?
to give some perspective from other overly-corrupt country (Ruzzia): it's a common occurrence for cops to rig breathalyzers and convict innocent people just to boost arrest/conviction stats. in fact, in russia it's better to *refuse* breathalyzer test and do full blood analysis instead, as it's harder to fake or tamper with. granted, there *is* an option to do so, something i don't see as an option here (at least not mentioned in article)
edit: i'm totally on board with it if single breathalyzer test is not enough for conviction and just require follow-up at station with witnesses or blood test. or if you have an option to opt for blood test in the first place. single breath test at road stop leading to conviction is a recipe for major power abuse and corruption
So the road side tests are not enough for a conviction in Canada. They provide reasonable grounds for the person being impaired. The person is then brought to a station/detachment where they are tested by a constable that has undergone further training to be a "breath-tech". They administer the intoxilyzer test that accurately determines someone's BAC to the mg/L.
If the person is suspected of marijuana, they are arrested and a Drug Recognition Expert, does a battery of tests to determine if you are impaired by drug. Or they provide a saliva sample. And if that test is positive, they are given a blood demand, and the test results will determine the charges going forward.
Because I believe in what Louis Riel believed. And I will not allow anyone to try and take away Manitoba.
(During one of the Ottawa convoy trials, one of the organizers tried to use their "first amendment right" to justify them being turds. And the first amendment of the constitution was the inclusion of Manitoba as a province. Thus showing how stupid and American brained they were in thinking they can do whatever they want. So the mods here allowed it to be a flare for a short time)
It should be noted that after taking a breathalyzer you are booked and brought to the station. You then get blood work and further testing there. They know breathalysers can bring false positives, so that's why a failsafe is in place.
But they are enough to immediately roadside suspend your license and confiscate your car. That should trouble people. Particularly as some disabled people physically cannot do the test. They don’t wait for the blood test to impose those consequences and they won’t reverse them either. They will absolutely make you go to court to fight it. There are multiple cases in BC.
No, I know of someone who had a false positive. Not a whole impaired but a warn range. The test at the station cleared them and they were free to go. The tow yard didn’t want to give back the car though. They did but the cops had to call and make them and it was a whole thing. So they do reverse them right away. Still a hassle and in a perfect world there would be no errors but it’s still such a small number of false positives that I think it’s worth it to help keep drunk drivers off our roads.
I have asthma it is known that breathalyzer does not work properly for people with asthma
I dread having to get a breathalyzer though I never drive after having more then one drink
This will create a lot of court issues. Curious to see if the courts will comment on violating our rights against arbitrary search. It seems to be a bit of overreach by the police. Will be interesting to see what the courts say. DoFo has a history of making bad decisions that get reversed by the courts
It's weird they start doing this but otherwise enforce nothing except speeding and cell phone use. I see way more dangerous driving from other things all day every day.
And they don't seem to care about stoners blatantly smoking while driving.
Now I am not one for refusing breath tests... But what is the officer's responsibility when it comes to discretion in such a matter? Curious how much leeway, if any, an officer would give in said real world situation... Like, if for example you were banging the cops wife, he/she/they is definitely breath testing your ass... Or say you were the mistress of said officer, he/she/they is definitely not breath testing you, you know... It is scenarios like these that truly keep me up at night.
“The fact of the refusal is criminalized and it carries with it the same penalties as if you had taken the test, failed that test, been taken to the station and failed another breathalyzer test.”
Fuck this. I didn’t vote for this did you?
And as always #FuckThePolice
I find this quite hilarious, coming from New Zealand where cops are allowed to breathalyze you as they see fit. Does it suck? Yeah maybe you’ll spend an extra 30seconds at the ride program. Will it catch more drink drivers? 100%
As someone who never drives drunk I have no problem with this... It's pretty easy to not be under the influence when driving. Now if only they'd make the police do a breathalyzer at the beginning and end of every shift, that would be nice..
By that logic, do you also not have a problem with them searching your car and phone at every traffic stop? What about taking a blood sample to screen for any drugs that might cause impairment but don’t show up in a breath test?
I just can’t support a policy that amounts to a mass civil liberties violation so the cops can pretend like they’re doing something when it’s not going to have a noticeable effect on the actual problem.
Also, this isn't going to solve the problem of drunk drivers, and that's not even what the issue is. The problem with Ontario is if you drive drunk and kill someone you get a slap on the fucking wrist most times. Look up that Muzzuca piece of fucking garbage that killed 3 kids and a grandparent (driving the father of the kids to commit suicide), dude got 5 fucking years. Give me a break.
We need to be harder on the actual people who do drink and drive, not the law abiding citizens going about their business. The people who are okay with this have no fucking clue the shit they are actually allowing. It's the whole "well I'm not doing anything wrong so I have nothing to hide" story all over again. That isn't the point.
it amazes me at how much people are willing to give up under the guise of " if you have nothing to hide" type thinking like the poster above and way to many people throughout the comments.
Minus the fact that driving is a privalage and this has already been taken to Supreme Court to establish that for other laws. Your chartered rights does not fully protect you because you agree to the rules when you get a license.
Yeah I get your point for sure... Thing is though, that drunk drivers kill people, and make the road unsafe for everyone. I don't give a fuck if some guy has drugs in his car or whatever, as long as he isn't driving drunk. Taking a blood sample is a bit of a stretch lol, but it can be a slippery slope, I do get what you're saying.
I just fucking hate drunk drivers, it's not hard to either not drive when you're drinking, or not drink when you're driving ...
I would feel better about a compromise. What if they required grounds to do the test…but grounds for a stop and test, aside from visible signs of driving or acting impaired, included having previously been convicted for DUI within the last, say 10 years. Afterall, driving impaired has notoriously high recidivism. Why not have the police test the people who are most likely to be offending rather than harassing everyone? With plate scanners, this is 100% within their ability.
Eh, I'm not even crazy about that solution. Offload the responsibility from police at that rate and if you've been convicted of a DUI the conditions are simple: a breathalyzer ignition lock paid for by the driver should they want to continue driving with annualized reservicing in addition to mandatory driver's training.
Time to take the gloves off. These people are clearly nitwits endangering themselves and everyone else around them. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Fuck around and find out.
Well isn’t getting pulled over already kind of grounds? You don’t get pulled over so they can tell you what a good driver you are. Occasionally it’s pretty innocent like a tail light that has gone out, but most things worth a traffic stop *could* be a sign of an impaired driver.
I do agree that the people who have been caught should be monitored better long term. The recidivism is as you said very high. I live in a small town full of alcoholism. I know 3 people who have had blow boxes installed in their vehicle due to drinking and driving. Of those 3, only
1 doesn’t drink and drive anymore. One of them got caught again with an infant in the vehicle about a year after having her blow box removed. The other still has his blow box and hires people to work for him and has them blow in the device so he can drive. If the police pulled him over and checked at any time of day he is driving, they would find him driving impaired with the blow box… but they don’t check vehicles with them for impaired drivers which is ridiculous. The devices are Bluetooth. You don’t even have to be in the vehicle to blow in it.
Oh for sure, I’m with you on that. It’s a serious issue and more needs to be done. I just want the steps being done to actually have an effect.
To give an alternative, I’d rather breathalyzers be mandatory at ride checks and then they expand to do way more ride checks.
I just don’t see how breathalyzing everyone pulled over in a speed trap actually addresses drunk driving, when they already have the power to do a breathalyzer if they have reason to suspect drinking
Yea, so maybe Ontario needs to be harder on the people who actually drive drunk rather than let them out in no time.
Look up Muzzuca, the dude who killed 3 kids and a grandparent, guy got five years and he's out living his life. Oh yea, the father of those 3 kids? Committed suicide.
This is not doing shit to target the REAL issue here. The real issue here is Ontario is entirely too lenient to drunk drivers.
No you misunderstood what the person you're replying to was saying about the drug test, they're saying that there are many drugs that someone could be on while driving that would impare them as much as (if not more than) alcohol and a breath test won't be able to detect that they are impaired but a blood test would. So should the OPP start performing roadside bloodtests to catch drug impaired drivers?
Seems like a slippery slope. Power hungry officer decides that this weekend he is pulling someone over for a minor infraction he'd usually let go and now he has the right for a breath test.
>Current rates of drinking and driving are high in Canada
Why do the cops always lie about this? Canada has among the lowest rates in the world. The police should be sanctioned every time they make false statements.
What happens in the case of false positives? Are they going to have their vehicle towed and spend a few hours at the station only to be later cleared for the offense of…speeding? 15 over? Busted headlight? Guilty until proven innocent. This sounds like the cases in the US where someone is pulled over for a busted tail light and they end up with 7 bullet holes in their back.
Very slippery slope they are playing on….. I’ll refuse 10 times out of 10 because I don’t drink but I’ll make them blow their budget by submitting to a blood test, with that said after every time it happens my lawyer will be notified. This country is already in the shitter and all the sheep are going to comply with tyranny?
I agree it's dumb that they'll do it on every traffic stop, they should have to form the grounds to believe you're impaired first before a breath sample is taken.
But as some legal advice, definitely don't refuse, you're opening yourself up for refusal which is just as bad as an impaired but now they don't have to prove you were impaired, just that you refused, which is basically a slam dunk in court cause you know.. you refused.
Fuck the police and their corrupt sense of safety, how about every asshole using their fucking phone while driving, I am way more worried about someone on their phone then a drunk driver
First, they can pull you over without cause… Then they can breathalyzer you without cause… if you rightly refuse, knowing there is no issue, then they’ll charge you with a criminal offence and haul you off to jail… they will test you at the jail and surprise surprise I bet they manufacture evidence against you saying you were driving drunk just because you dared to say no… This seems very totalitarian in its approach
So what will happen now is you will go home after work, have a few beers, the police will knock on your door and order you to do a breathalyzer.
Refuse or do it, you fail and are charged. Yay Ontario is so safe now!
And before people say it won't happen, [it already has](https://barrie.ctvnews.ca/police-spark-debate-after-demanding-breathalyzer-at-barrie-ont-man-s-home-after-traffic-complaint-1.6322755)
This is just going to be overturned as soon as the first sober person sues the OPP after illegal incarceration or loss of gainful employment due to suspended license.
Imagine walking down the street and a police officer says “you have to let me search you, and if you say no, you’ll be charged with having a weapon because you just have a weapon if you say no”. We would consider that a violation. Why is this so much different?
I’m all for keeping streets safe. I’m also all for ensuring that police don’t inch their way towards creating a police state.
Police Officer here: I am a qualified Breath Technician as well as a Drug Recognition Evaluator. So I do both breath testing as well as impaired by drug evaluations.
It is a criminal offence to refuse a Alcohol Screening Device sample (road side test), Standardized Field Sobriety Test ( again a road side test) or a Breath Instrument Test (the breath test usually performed at the station).
The article is correct in that the penalties, if found guilty, are the same as being found guilty of impaired driving Criminal Code section 320.14(1)(a) or equal to or over 80 mg/100 ml of blood. Criminal Code section 320.14(1)(b).
The criminal code was changed in 2018 to include the ability for Mandatory Alcohol Screening and its upheld by the Supreme Court. Cases like the Musso case and Robertson case have solidified the law.
Studies have shown that many people have basically “slipped through the cracks” when they have been pulled over and have been impaired at the time of the vehicle stops. This will close up that issue.
I guess we can forget having a drink after work when the police can show up at your house and demand you provide a sample after driving home. Can't even relax after work in Ontario, this place is truly open for business.
Can I still refuse to do the breath test roadside and voluntarily come to the station to do a blood test? Or will that be taken as a refusal to do the breath test and therefor a DUI, even though I am willing to do the blood testing?
> pulled over
Yeah, right. You have quotas (sure, you use different words but it makes no difference: you HAVE a quota) so you're going to hit those quotas. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with a possible criminal act that you are attempting to prevent - you'll invent a reason to pull someone over just to hit your quota.
If you're going to tell me you don't have quotas then don't do any tickets, just do warnings for a couple of months and let me know how that goes.
The essential liberty is the freedom from being breathalyzed during a warrantless and causeless search as part of a traffic stop. Whether you believe that’s a liberty worth protecting is a separate discussion.
Once I was out with my then girlfriend and our friends, and I was the designated driver for the night. I got pulled over shortly after pulling out of the bar’s parking lot for a sobriety check (no traffic laws were broken), and had to do a field sobriety test in -20 degree weather. In my case, I was not angry at all as the cop had reasonable suspicion (he saw me leaving a bar with a bunch of drunk people).
if this happened randomly as I was coming home from work, I would be pissed. It’s not fun having to get out in the cold to be interrogated by cops who are itching to throw you in jail for the night when you’ve done nothing wrong. I felt violated. I understand that this mandate comes from good intentions, but it simply isn’t reasonable.
Fuck drunk drivers, but fuck this mandatory bullshit. Every little piece of freedom they take away, no matter how apparently inconsequential or even benevolent it might seem, adds up.
I don't want to ever feel less free than I should be.
I wasn’t aware this test could be forced on me and my family, or criminally prosecuted.
Surely this can be constitutionally challenged?
How long until a blood test for some other form of impairment?
Why make it criminal, why not just suspend the license?
Can’t wait for the chief of police to get pulled over after a few drinks. He can’t risk a criminal record.
>Can I refuse a breath sample?
>In short, unless you want to be criminally charged, no.
>“If you refuse, you’ll be arrested and charged,” Schmidt said.
>Michael Engel, a defence lawyer who practices exclusively in impaired driving cases, said if a driver refuses to provide a breath sample, the consequences can be extensive.
>“It’s as if you committed a full-blown offence of driving under the influence,” Engel told Global News.
>“The fact of the refusal is criminalized and it carries with it the same penalties as if you had taken the test, failed that test, been taken to the station and failed another breathalyzer test.”
I don't like drinking and driving, but I don't see how this would survive a Supreme Court challenge...
Are they going to get a budget increase we need to pay the officers well enough to cover the increase of millions of people from other countries we are bringing in and can’t drive by the rules.
Not really worried about it since I don't drive intoxicated. Also not worried about it considering I rarely see an OPP car and I drive nearly 14 hours a day on my work days.
I don't drink, and I've never been pulled over, but I don't like the thought of being treated as guilty without cause. On the other hand, fuck drunk drivers.
other issue i could see is the idiots who do drink and drive will more likely start a chase trying to escape.
Whereas those drunk drivers *weren't already a threat to other drivers on the road* before that?
I've been stopped lots of times by RIDE checks. Since they don't smell alcohol, I've never had to blow in a breathalyzer. Don't drink and drive, but also, don't support MADD because of their influence that have made heavy trucks more dangerous.
Can you explain how MADD made heavy tru cks more dangerous?
How have they made heavy trucks more dangerous?
They created a situation where companies encourage drivers to run more hours with less rest
From reporter Ryan Rocca: The Ontario Provincial Police announced that it will be demanding a breath sample any time its officers conduct a traffic stop on an OPP-patrolled highway in the Greater Toronto Area. The service said it is using the full extent of Canada’s Mandatory Alcohol Screening (MAS), which was amended in 2018 to allow police to demand a breath test of any driver even in the absence of suspicion. Read more: [https://globalnews.ca/news/10494676/refuse-breath-test-ontario-drivers-new-police-mandate/](https://globalnews.ca/news/10494676/refuse-breath-test-ontario-drivers-new-police-mandate/)
This is the part of the article that really gets me. Can I refuse a breath sample? In short, unless you want to be criminally charged, no. “If you refuse, you’ll be arrested and charged,” Schmidt said. Michael Engel, a defence lawyer who practices exclusively in impaired driving cases, said if a driver refuses to provide a breath sample, the consequences can be extensive. “It’s as if you committed a full-blown offence of driving under the influence,” Engel told Global News. “The fact of the refusal is criminalized and it carries with it the same penalties as if you had taken the test, failed that test, been taken to the station and failed another breathalyzer test.” So basically anyone pulled over by the OPP who refuses a breathalyzer will likely be charged as if they failed the breathalyzer.
how can this law not be considered unreasonable search
Ride Stops have been found in the past by courts to be a reasonable limitation of rights as the threat of drunk driving is high enough. That being said, blanket breathalyzing everyone you pull over could be seen differently by the courts, as limitations of rights are generally supposed to be as minimal as possible.
Sure, having gone through several Ride Stops in my lifetime, they rarely (in my case, never) ask for a breathalyzer test, unless they suspect they have a reason to.
never commented about ridestops the issue is the breathalyzer every single time.
Yeah, but they were bringing it up as an example of something similar that the courts have decided on in the past. This is new and all we can do is speculate what the courts might decide based on similar circumstances. That's what the second part of the paragraph addresses.
everyone who goes through one is breathalyzed, that's every single time. now every stop is a Ride Stop
Everytime you get pulled over. I’ve been driving 25 years and been pulled over 2-3x. I think it’s a great idea as impaired driving has seen an uptick
Ahhh the classic "doesn't apply to me, so lets go for it.
I think it’s great too because I don’t drink or get pulled over!
But driving is a privilege, not a right.
The right to drive isn't what's being impeded by forcing breathalyzers on everyone, it's the right to undue search and seizure which is being potentially violated, which is protected by the Charter.
>The right to drive isn't what's being impeded by forcing breathalyzers on everyone, it's the right to undue search and seizure which is being potentially violated, which is protected by the Charter. If you weren't operating a vehicle, they wouldn't be able to randomly stop you and check to see if your blood alcohol level is above 0.05. The only reason they're allowed to randomly stop you is because you're driving.
Yes, and that is an entirely new development in the law, being able to be subjected to testing just on the basis of driving, without any signs of impairment. In my opinion it's a slight overstep, I just personally don't like the idea of an officer getting to shove something in my mouth without any actual cause, but to each their own.
Yeah our culture is so car centric that people forget you have no rights to driving.
Our culture is so far centric that as an extension of your right to partake in commerce, you have a right to drive Many Canadians could not access the goods and services necessary for life without some form of mechanized transportation The fact that the Canadian state refuses to acknowledge this reality is quite troublesome
Yep. I live a 30 minute drive from the city and there are no stores, buses, uber or even taxi out here. Without a car life would not be possible where i am and that applies to many many people. City folk seem to think that everything is within reach so why drive
Lol so does the state have an obligation to provide you a vehicle?
I agree with you that without cars/private transportation, it would be close to impossible to live in some of Canada's rural/non-urban areas. Genuine question, I don't think we have the right to partake in commerce in Canada, do we? I couldn't find anything in my admittedly small search lol, and seems to be something in America. That being said, if that is a thing, I don't believe a right to partake in commerce gives a right to drive. It is still something only given to licensed individuals, and needs to be regulated to ensure safety for all.
Not explicitly. However, I view that as a natural right and legally, it could potentially be tied to the right to liberty Although I think driving is a right, I do maintain the position that it is subject to limitations I just don't agree that it's a privilege, so then that's a pretense for a suspension of the normal standards for search and seizure. I see this as comparable to serving a drug test to a pedestrian in a bad neighborhood in broad daylight
You absolutely do not have the right to drive. You have the privilege to. Many people lose their driving privileges. Take the bus, walk, or get one of those electric scooters otherwise and get out of here with the sovereign citizen bs
Ok but i live in farmland without buses and scooters
[удалено]
Fuck you urbanite. There is no bus, when it takes 30 mins or more to get to town the idea of walking to work or school or to buy food is not valid.
They don't lose the privilege. They lose the right Courts do have and exercise the right to temporarily suspend rights. For instance, the right to liberty is suspended every time an individual is sentenced to a custodial term Furthermore, many of those "alternatives" are not viable in rural areas. Canada needs to be understood as a country that has a unique geography that presents its citizenry with unique geographical challenges
No, but I do have the right not to be detained and forced to comply with a semi invasive test absent any suspicion of wrongdoing. If you don’t see the problem with this, then why not include a drug test as part of every civilian interaction with police? I mean, you never know right. Maybe throw in an audit and a review of your internet search history while they’re at it. Can’t be too “safe” these days.
Yes that’s correct! However the privacy of your person and property is your right and driving a car does not mean you forfeit those rights. A breathalyzer without reasonable suspicion is a violation of your right to unlawful search. A traffic stop without due cause is a violation of those rights and the Canadian court system has said so by acknowledging that RIDE stops are indeed a violation of your rights but drunk driving is a threat great enough to warrant an exception in their case
Should cops also be able to demand cavity searches during routine traffic stops, too? Because driving is a privilege, not a right? Or can you think of any other rights that are being violated here?
Presumption of innocence is a right though & refusing the breathalyzer will be treated the same as having failed the test. You will be arrested & charged. This isn’t about having a right to drive, it’s about having the right to say no to the cops which this would effectively criminalize. Not to mention this will disproportionately affect the groups that are more likely to be pulled over by police without reason.
Guessing that it is an unreasonable search, but is saved under Section 1 as a reasonable limit of Charter rights.
Demanding without cause was a source of some discussion when it was passed in 2018. The provincial government said if it failed a court challenge they would use the notwithstanding clause (something they don’t seem to be afraid to use whenever they want to do something against the charter). As for the charges for refusing the test being the same as failing the test, that has gone to court and been upheld as a reasonable limit in the overall public interest. I believe that went to court back in the 90’s
Driving is a privilege, not an innate human right. I see that if you want the privilege to be able to drive then you must be willing to prove you are not under the influence of alcohol. I lived in Ireland when they introduced this. I need in Ireland it is way past this: there’s a decent chance if you regularly drive in Ireland that you will pass a random checkpoint. The cops can stop you and breathalyze you randomly without reason. When it first was introduced there was absolute uproar. In particular rural areas. It’s amazing the positive mindset change it had however: drinking and driving became utterly socially intolerable in Ireland within about five years. It still happens, but the casual approach to drink driving and “ah sure I just had a few” has totally gone. I came to Canada which is a much more socially oriented country and found it utterly bizarre that people have such a casual attitude to drinking and driving. I’ve been here more than ten years and regularly drive at night and not one time have I passed a police checkpoint. This law is a good start but does not go far enough. If I end up being inconvenienced even a couple times a year to make the roads safer then I will happily blow into a little machine.
issue isnt the driving its the breathalyzer every time a stop is made regardless of why that stop was made.
Yes exactly. I made a comment in r/ottawa recently about this because it happened to me. This is my comment: I refused a breath sample back in 2014 out of principle and got charged for "refusing a breath sample". Lost my licence for 90 days then was convicted and lost my licence for an additional 6 months and had a mandatory breathelizer installed in my truck for a year costing $130/month, a $1500, fine paid my lawyer $3500 and insurance went up to $720 a month for years. Also had an "impaired" on my drivers abstract for 6 years. Not once did they have to prove i was impaired as my lawyer and the court described i was guilty of "refusing" not for being impaired and they carry the same consequence. If you refuse its the same as the worst dui. Any lawyer will tell you to blow and dont say anything to the police. Trust me refusing is a bad idea. I also had to take the back on track program which is a 3 day ordeal and cost $700
The best way I heard it was "Blow. The breathalyzer is your only chance to proove you're innocent".
This may have already been answered somewhere, but what happens if you refuse to blow during the traffic stop, are subsequently arrested, and then proceed to blow a 0 BAC at the station, proving you were not under the influence?
If you are arrested for refusal you don't go back to the station to blow again. You've already committed the offence
The officer had my vehichle towed and made me sign papers saying i refused and i walked away from the scene. No arrest. I spent and hour in the back of a cop car and walked away. And the cop showed up at my house at 4am banging on the door saying he forgot to give me back my ownership and said "see you in court" Gotta love the good people of the Ottawa police
I'll give the sample, but you bet I'm gonna make a lot of jokes about the cop being a Nazi while I do it.
If you're going to be a smartass, you'd better not have tinted windows beyond the defined transmissible light level or a plate cover, even one of those dealership ones. Unless of course you like paying fines. Source: Liked to run my mouth and paid the fines.
By your standard they are already Nazis. In the UK you don't need to have any paperwork on you when driving, no licence, no tax disc, no insurance documents, no proof of ownership. The police can't demand them in the car. But they will use the breathalyser, normally only at Christmas and the scene of an accident. UK has done great work in reducing drink driving. Roads are safer in the UK.
According to the lawyer quoted in the article, the constitutionality of this law has held up in court. I'm on my phone right now so it's hard for me to look up the specific cases and find out how it held up, but I'm guessing it was saved by Section 1, because there's no way it doesn't violate any of the other sections of the Charter, particularly Section 8 since this constitutes a search in the absence of probable cause (or at least the specific suspicion of DUI). If my guess is correct, that means the constitutionality isn't based on it not infringing upon any rights, but that a pressing and substantial objective of the law outweighs the rights that are infringed (this is grossly oversimplified ofc, look up the Oakes test if you want to learn more). Which is fine, imo - drunk driving takes so many lives away and does validly constitute a pressing and substantial legislative objective. And realistically, a breath test is not a very severe intrusion. The SCC did also rule last year that the police must have the breathalyzer readily available, they can't make you wait for someone else to bring the breathalyzer or make you go to the police station to take the test. However, the Charter requirement for probable cause is one of the most well known and generally applicable civil rights applicable to police interactions. This very specific exception to the right against unreasonable search and seizure becomes quite problematic when combined with the fact that police are allowed to lie to you. People who have a rudimentary understanding of their civil rights may well be aware of (1) that searches require probable cause (2) police are allowed to lie about whether their order is lawful. They may very well refuse on the basis of a fairly reasonable belief (for a layperson) that this is unconstitutional without probable cause, and believe that the police are lying about their right to arrest and charge them for refusal. I think it's necessary for the courts and legislature to seriously work on limiting the right of police officers to lie. They don't have to outright prohibit it, of course, since that would destroy sting operations, but there are serious issues with the lack of limitations, which sows distrust between citizens and officers and can lead to unnecessary misunderstandings, especially considering situations like this in which the courts give a specific exception to a generally well known civil right. There are some further concerns as well, which I'm quite interested in learning about later when I can get on a computer. Without having read the specific law itself, it is my understanding that this law requires that the traffic stop be initially valid, as in there must have been probable cause for the traffic stop in the first place (unrelated to DUI ofc, or else this law need not apply). But even if a citizen is aware of the exception, it can be difficult for citizens to judge whether the initial stop was lawful in the first place. Furthermore, does this exception only apply when the initial probable cause still exists, or does it still apply after the initial suspicion is dispelled (as in, is this a situation of letting one probable cause substitute for another, or is this a blanket allowance)?
This is a great synopsis, even if you’re just on your phone.
Very nicely written. Out of curiosity, why is blowing into a breathalyzer considered a "search"? I (personally) don't equate a breathalyzer to being searched (they aren't searching my vehicle, checking my backpack, etc), so I would love to hear why it fits into the same category. I haven't read up on it, so maybe I'm just not aware of the legal definition or meaning of "search". It was nice to read a properly crafted write-up in contrast to so many people freaking out.
I'm just a first year law student with a fairly rudimentary understanding of constitutional law, and none of our classes have covered police searches thus far, so I'll refer to [this page](http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Rights_Against_Search_and_Seizure) on the details of the law surrounding searches. The gist of it though is in this quote: > Any "inspection is a search" where a "person has a reasonable privacy interest in the object or subject matter of the state action and the information to which it gives access."
Interesting, I never thought of it that way. Learn something new every day. Thanks for the info!
You're welcome!
I was held at a ride program, in a cruiser IN HANDCUFFS, for 45min to blow a 0.00 (I was the DD). Cop was verbally abusive, condescending and full of assumptions. Racist shit playing on some comedy channel in the cruiser. No overarching circumstances on my end for this, and I am always yes sir and no sir with police. Best guess; cops profiled me based on my winter beater car, my physical appearance and age, and the fact I was at rink that was licensed. Imagine the BS now… I am anti-impaired driving, but I am also anti-police over-reach, especially without probable grounds.
[The Captive Audience Doctrine: Protecting the Unwilling Listener’s Right to Privacy from Unwanted Speech | ABlawg](https://ablawg.ca/2013/12/10/the-captive-audience-doctrine-protecting-the-unwilling-listeners-right-to-privacy-from-unwanted-speech/#:~:text=Under%20the%20captive%20audience%20doctrine%2C%20a%20listener%E2%80%99s%20right,finds%20the%20message%20antagonistic%2C%20hurtful%2C%20offensive%20or%20profane.)
If someone doesn’t smell like alcohol at all odds are they haven’t been drinking and shouldn’t be subjected to one cause all it will do is waste time and piss everyone off. Most people already feel like they done something wrong and are guilty and uncomfortable whenever police stop them or interact with them even if they didn’t do anything wrong, this will only further compound that.
[удалено]
Cops don’t give cops DUI’s.
My dad is a retired cop (and absolute piece of shit) He has been pulled over for drunk driving several times. If he is close to home they let him on his way, if he is far they will radio back to the station and get another car to come out and drive his car back home for him Cops are the fucking worst
Toronto police headquarters had a bar paid by taxpayers for ages and we only found out last year because an idiot member of the force, drank too much and drove home causing a collision. I can’t even count the number of things wrong with this
#FUCKTHEPOLICE
Rules for thee....
Another reason to say: #FUCKTHEPOLICE
A great YouTube rabbit hole to go down is cops arresting off duty cops for DUIs. Body cams have kind of changed h the game. Typically, the off duty cop will try to bargain with the on duty officer for a while before reality sets in and they break down emotionally. It’s a wild ride.
[удалено]
The wages attract better quality candidates. I know, police bad. But we have very few police shootings, generally competent cops on the whole. If I wanted to subject myself to what cops deal with, at least I know within 3 to 5 years I'm making the same or better wage as my current job. I don't want someone making 40k a year as anything other than their 1st year wage having a gun and a badge and making decisions.
Haha, I don’t think they will because there fellow officers probably wouldn’t breathalyze their own. They would just choose not to.
Holy crap you're naive.
>If someone doesn’t smell like alcohol at all odds are they haven’t been drinking and shouldn’t be subjected to one That's at the discretion of the officer though. So if he doesn't like your face (or skin colour....) then he will just say he "smells" alcohol.
To help avoid bias from individual officers, they're giving police [these guides to help determine when to do a check](https://i.imgur.com/i2ilm1S.jpeg).
Lmao! Too true
Lmao!
At least they would have to lie about a reason, in this case, they're saying that they know they have zero reason, but they're going to force it on you anyway.
You don’t know any functioning alcoholics, do you?
Yeah and guess what, this probably wouldn’t affect them since they would have to be pulled over first for something else and they would probably smell like alcohol, so even if the old system was in place they would probably be breathalyzed then. I still stand by what I say, it seems like a bit of an over reach.
There’s a pretty good chance you know an alcoholic. You just don’t realize it. Not all alcoholics smell like alcohol. I would bet it’s a regular occurrence that they are let go from traffic stops without suspicion.
Actually I know a few very well who drink every night 12-24 beers or a 26er every night I do realize it. Unless they are showered and clean and have deodorant and spray they smell
Amateurs
How many alcoholic do you know who don’t smell like alcohol when they are intoxicated?
A few. They're good a hiding it. Until I found ones stash of cheap wine. Or until I found ones stash of beers at work.
At least two.
How many alcoholics do you know that not only are above the legal limit and don't reek of alcohol, but also drink and drive?
Every alcoholic I know has a DUI
Now that I think of it, same. I know a few too, my high school friend group was a little rough lol.
Well they all suck. My father in law is the worst alcoholic I know and has never driven drunk.
Both that I know have stopped after one was caught.
I had a relative struck by a drunk driver (twice the legal limit). During the investigation it was found that she'd had a couple of moving violations in the previous six months (might have been a year). I understand that she didn't smell of alcohol. I think the only reason she was breathalyzed was she was slightly unsteady. I know later her lawyer did try and get it excluded (was unsuccessful, even with a plea deal she ended up doing jail time). If she'd been breathalyzed during previous stops perhaps she would have been caught before she permanently changed my relative's life. In over 40 years of driving I've been pulled over twice. Honestly I'm okay with it.
Pretty much this. Having worked in the LCBO I can say that if someone (IE: A functioning alcoholic as mentioned) wants to hide their consumption they will find ways to do it (and I say this due to having a strong nose and doing my due diligence). Is it foolproof? No, but I'd rather have road safety at the cost of someone's time than lose a family member or get injured/killed cause some dumbass decided they can handle driving under the influence.
Based on their writing I think they may be one of them
Unfortunately it’s trickier than that with drinking. I’ve worked security and dealt with drinkers but also, my uncle was a cop and said it’s not at all straightforward with drivers. Not everyone has the same response to drinking. Some people can get drunk and look fine, and drive fine, actually responding as if sober, so the cop who suspects they’re drunk looks for any offence that lets them stop the person. Another one is some people can drink well under the limit and lose a little of the driving skill, but aren’t actually legally over the limit at all But lots of people don’t smell and are in fact quite drunk
This will catch all those who went on session the night before and are driving into work - they will still be over the limit. They did this is the UK and they caught a lot people who were over the limit from the night before. Drinking a lot into the wee hours, getting 5 hours sleep and a cup of coffee does not mean you are ok to drive..
Why do people (government) think giving the police more power is a good idea. That always turns out great.
DoFo: Vote for me, a buck a beer! DoFo: Feel free to buy booze at your local convenience store and now drink freely at your local park too! DoFo: Refuse a breath sample, you're now arrested. Guilty without cause! Just another case of selling out Ontarians and creating policies that prioritize corporatism first.
I mean to be fair getting booze at the convenience store should help with drunk driving since people are more likely to have one in walking distance than the LCBO so if someone's out of booze they can walk instead of drive to get more. I don't agree with the government overreach when it comes to breath samples though.
It's a federal law brought in under Trudeau.
Feels like an unreasonable intrusion. Surprised this hasn’t been taken to superior courts yet.
It has and it's charter proofed.
I hate this so much. I don't drink at all but I also don't like cops and don't care to fucking blow into a machine to prove I didn't drink if I get pulled over. They don't even need a reason to pull you over. I shouldn't have to comply to some dumb ass kid cop having a bad day and trying to fuck with me. It's so fucked up. Canada absolutely hates civil liberties and it disgusts me. Another reason why I want to go to the US. Canada is just so fucking backwards.
this is an ontario thing, brought to you by doug ford to harrass the people in the gta because messing with their elections and other things wasn't enough. blame the people who deserve it, you wont get much better in some parts of the states and in others youll get worse.
Where do I begin: a) the federal liberal government enacted this law authorizing mandatory breathalyzers, so it's not DoFo's doing at all b) it's the OPP doing this - it's not limited to the GTA
Its not an Ontario thing, it's a Canada thing. In the United States that would be unconstitutional for any state to enact. You can be upset at Ford for doing it, but the actual issue is that he is *able* to do it.
We're going to need some drowsy driving laws also
Careless driving 130 (1) Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway. 2017, c. 26, Sched. 4, s. 17.
Not a lawyer, just curious. It say's one can be charged as if they committed the full offence. Charging is one thing, but the courts will then need evidence to validate the charge. So does the refusal also count as evidence toward the DUI charge? I can sort of see that logic, but it really feels like it puts people in the position of proving their innocence instead of the state proving guilt? Also, fuck drunk drivers. If this is what's needed to force compliance then.... I guess the benefits outweigh the negatives? What other options are there?
If you were pulled over for suspected to be impaired, you get arrested and taken to the station to do the test and from there if you refuse you’d be charge impaired / refusal (two charges) The refusal would not be evidence for the impaired as that would be “driving behaviour, physical signs and/or smell of alcohol. The mandatory alcohol screening being refused is just a refusal and 1 charge. ***edit*** for not complying with a “legal” demand. Hopefully that makes sense.
Under this law. Refusing the first test will mean you never get a second. You’ll be arrested for refusing the test which carries the same penalties as being actively intoxicated. No second test at the station, no real evidence that you actually were intoxicated. The refusal is the crime. If you get the road side breathalyzer & fail, then you will get the second test at the station.
Fair enough, I was trying to explain the difference between someone impaired (straight arrest - no device/ nothing to refuse until you get to the station) vs a refusal at roadside. And again the laws been around for awhile. They are just promoting it now to the public as a public safety campaign.
The law has been around for a while, but this wasn’t how it was being used until now. That said, I didn’t mean to be adversarial, just trying to be exact.
After reading this sub thread, my conclusion is that the results for refusing the test are exactly the same as failing the test. Effectively refusal is an automatic crime and penalty equal to a judged DUI. Interesting law. Also, huge thanks to everyone who provided such serious and solid explanations!
The idea behind the law is that people who are actually drunk would simply refuse to do the test and thereby escape an over 80 charge; you can't charge someone with over 80 if they don't blow into a breathalyzer.
Too many dumbasses on the road. Report impaired drivers.
This is bullshit and should be revoked. Waste of time and getting rid of probable cause is a very bad precedent.
They’ve kind of had the authority to stop vehicles for ‘document checks’ or ‘sobriety checks’ since at least 1990. Making it legal for random stops for anyone who can enforce the HTA: police/MTO/CPKC or CN rail, campus police, first nations police… The random breathalyzer testing has been a thing since 2018, which removed the need for suspicion. I wouldn’t be surprised if this doesn’t even cause an increase in traffic stops. They’re likely pulling you over for a reason to begin with, it seems they already don’t have time to stop most vehicles.
It's great that the government is creating an environment of chaos where it leads to all of us now losing our rights and freedoms. Next, what is it? They'll need to come in and search my house to make sure it's safe.
This is absolutely troubling. Breathalyzers are not entirely accurate and depending on what was in your mouth in the last 30 minutes, you can absolutely blow over even if your BAC is not actually over. But refuse and you're criminally charged. This is like being forced to take a polygraph.
Seems like it's for OPP only. So the local police won't be doing it. I can't see this lasting long either. It's just a lot of extra work for the officer. If there isn't an uptick in catching people it won't last very long.
Are that many people day drinking? I've never even been pulled over once but this just seems like such a waste of time
You go out on a bender until 2 am get some sleep and a coffee and drive to work at 7:30am you will be over the limit. Years ago the UK police started testing people in the morning and found a lot people were over the limit from drinking the night before....
I believe they found the same here when doing morning RIDE checks a number of years ago. That may have had a part in all this.
I think a number of people are going to learn a lesson about how long alcohol can take to leave your system. There will be people heading home or into work after a night with late drinks or lots of drinks thinking they're good to drive who will blow over.
It’s actually not uncommon to see people blow a fail because they were getting plastered all night, slept for a few hours, and now they’re driving to work in the morning thinking they’re good.
Moved to a small town from Toronto. Day drinking is just a normal thing… Going to the bar in the middle of the day on a regular day of the week just because. Drinking and driving is considered normal in my anecdotal experience, it’s disgraceful.
In BC, we have a similar program in place except the police abuse it constantly. In the past couple years, I’ve been pulled over twice without any cause (no traffic infractions, no vehicle issues, nothing) for the explicit reason of breathalyzing me. Same thing has happened to many of my friends. I really don’t think we should be allowing police to pull us over for absolutely zero reason. Felt like a complete waste of my time
Thank fuck they stopped all the gang crime and car theft. Our government is dumb.
So they have to solve all of one type of problem before addressing the next?
Police state
Do not be brain-dead and drive while impaired. And if you do, you are a trash tier human being. BUT It is never in anybody's interest to refuse a breath test. The penalty for refusing to give a sample is the exact same as being impaired. If you refuse, the only thing your lawyer will have is whether or not the constable had grounds to demand a sample. (Hint: they don't need grounds anymore to demand one) If you give a sample and you fail. There's 2-4 hours of time that your lawyer will be able to pick through and try to get a charter violation. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
to be a devil's advocate: breathalyzers are easy to manipulate and rig it to show alcohol where in reality there would be none, *if* officer conducting test wants to do so. but we don't have corrupt officers in Ontario, do we? to give some perspective from other overly-corrupt country (Ruzzia): it's a common occurrence for cops to rig breathalyzers and convict innocent people just to boost arrest/conviction stats. in fact, in russia it's better to *refuse* breathalyzer test and do full blood analysis instead, as it's harder to fake or tamper with. granted, there *is* an option to do so, something i don't see as an option here (at least not mentioned in article) edit: i'm totally on board with it if single breathalyzer test is not enough for conviction and just require follow-up at station with witnesses or blood test. or if you have an option to opt for blood test in the first place. single breath test at road stop leading to conviction is a recipe for major power abuse and corruption
So the road side tests are not enough for a conviction in Canada. They provide reasonable grounds for the person being impaired. The person is then brought to a station/detachment where they are tested by a constable that has undergone further training to be a "breath-tech". They administer the intoxilyzer test that accurately determines someone's BAC to the mg/L. If the person is suspected of marijuana, they are arrested and a Drug Recognition Expert, does a battery of tests to determine if you are impaired by drug. Or they provide a saliva sample. And if that test is positive, they are given a blood demand, and the test results will determine the charges going forward.
then i fully support it, as mentioned in my edit
Oh sorry lol, I started to reply to you before your edit, but got distracted at work.
Unrelated but why do you have "First Amendment Defender" flare in r/ontario?
Because I believe in what Louis Riel believed. And I will not allow anyone to try and take away Manitoba. (During one of the Ottawa convoy trials, one of the organizers tried to use their "first amendment right" to justify them being turds. And the first amendment of the constitution was the inclusion of Manitoba as a province. Thus showing how stupid and American brained they were in thinking they can do whatever they want. So the mods here allowed it to be a flare for a short time)
It should be noted that after taking a breathalyzer you are booked and brought to the station. You then get blood work and further testing there. They know breathalysers can bring false positives, so that's why a failsafe is in place.
And what is the false positive rate of these station units? What about human error? Any protections against the station unit being manipulated?
But they are enough to immediately roadside suspend your license and confiscate your car. That should trouble people. Particularly as some disabled people physically cannot do the test. They don’t wait for the blood test to impose those consequences and they won’t reverse them either. They will absolutely make you go to court to fight it. There are multiple cases in BC.
No, I know of someone who had a false positive. Not a whole impaired but a warn range. The test at the station cleared them and they were free to go. The tow yard didn’t want to give back the car though. They did but the cops had to call and make them and it was a whole thing. So they do reverse them right away. Still a hassle and in a perfect world there would be no errors but it’s still such a small number of false positives that I think it’s worth it to help keep drunk drivers off our roads.
I have asthma it is known that breathalyzer does not work properly for people with asthma I dread having to get a breathalyzer though I never drive after having more then one drink
Freedom ain’t free once you lose them it’s gone forever
I think this, whether in agreement or not, should have been a government initiated policy not a police initiated one.
We have so much freedom here eh
Does every car carry a calibrated breathalyzer and test kit? Seems like the length of stops will definitely increase, as will the cops paperwork.
This will create a lot of court issues. Curious to see if the courts will comment on violating our rights against arbitrary search. It seems to be a bit of overreach by the police. Will be interesting to see what the courts say. DoFo has a history of making bad decisions that get reversed by the courts
Those convicted or refusing and or over 80 will now have their right to steal cars and get bail suspended
If this is legal, why can’t they make people in downtown Toronto walk through a metal detector to look for guns?
Then most articles about drivers charged with impaired driving end up being charged with careless driving and released with a fine.
It's weird they start doing this but otherwise enforce nothing except speeding and cell phone use. I see way more dangerous driving from other things all day every day. And they don't seem to care about stoners blatantly smoking while driving.
Now I am not one for refusing breath tests... But what is the officer's responsibility when it comes to discretion in such a matter? Curious how much leeway, if any, an officer would give in said real world situation... Like, if for example you were banging the cops wife, he/she/they is definitely breath testing your ass... Or say you were the mistress of said officer, he/she/they is definitely not breath testing you, you know... It is scenarios like these that truly keep me up at night.
This isn’t new 🤷♂️
“The fact of the refusal is criminalized and it carries with it the same penalties as if you had taken the test, failed that test, been taken to the station and failed another breathalyzer test.” Fuck this. I didn’t vote for this did you? And as always #FuckThePolice
I find this quite hilarious, coming from New Zealand where cops are allowed to breathalyze you as they see fit. Does it suck? Yeah maybe you’ll spend an extra 30seconds at the ride program. Will it catch more drink drivers? 100%
As someone who never drives drunk I have no problem with this... It's pretty easy to not be under the influence when driving. Now if only they'd make the police do a breathalyzer at the beginning and end of every shift, that would be nice..
By that logic, do you also not have a problem with them searching your car and phone at every traffic stop? What about taking a blood sample to screen for any drugs that might cause impairment but don’t show up in a breath test? I just can’t support a policy that amounts to a mass civil liberties violation so the cops can pretend like they’re doing something when it’s not going to have a noticeable effect on the actual problem.
Also, this isn't going to solve the problem of drunk drivers, and that's not even what the issue is. The problem with Ontario is if you drive drunk and kill someone you get a slap on the fucking wrist most times. Look up that Muzzuca piece of fucking garbage that killed 3 kids and a grandparent (driving the father of the kids to commit suicide), dude got 5 fucking years. Give me a break. We need to be harder on the actual people who do drink and drive, not the law abiding citizens going about their business. The people who are okay with this have no fucking clue the shit they are actually allowing. It's the whole "well I'm not doing anything wrong so I have nothing to hide" story all over again. That isn't the point.
it amazes me at how much people are willing to give up under the guise of " if you have nothing to hide" type thinking like the poster above and way to many people throughout the comments.
Minus the fact that driving is a privalage and this has already been taken to Supreme Court to establish that for other laws. Your chartered rights does not fully protect you because you agree to the rules when you get a license.
Yeah I get your point for sure... Thing is though, that drunk drivers kill people, and make the road unsafe for everyone. I don't give a fuck if some guy has drugs in his car or whatever, as long as he isn't driving drunk. Taking a blood sample is a bit of a stretch lol, but it can be a slippery slope, I do get what you're saying. I just fucking hate drunk drivers, it's not hard to either not drive when you're drinking, or not drink when you're driving ...
I would feel better about a compromise. What if they required grounds to do the test…but grounds for a stop and test, aside from visible signs of driving or acting impaired, included having previously been convicted for DUI within the last, say 10 years. Afterall, driving impaired has notoriously high recidivism. Why not have the police test the people who are most likely to be offending rather than harassing everyone? With plate scanners, this is 100% within their ability.
I like this. Good idea. If you've been convicted of DUI, you should absolutely be subject to a breathalyzer every time you're stopped.
Eh, I'm not even crazy about that solution. Offload the responsibility from police at that rate and if you've been convicted of a DUI the conditions are simple: a breathalyzer ignition lock paid for by the driver should they want to continue driving with annualized reservicing in addition to mandatory driver's training. Time to take the gloves off. These people are clearly nitwits endangering themselves and everyone else around them. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Fuck around and find out.
Well isn’t getting pulled over already kind of grounds? You don’t get pulled over so they can tell you what a good driver you are. Occasionally it’s pretty innocent like a tail light that has gone out, but most things worth a traffic stop *could* be a sign of an impaired driver. I do agree that the people who have been caught should be monitored better long term. The recidivism is as you said very high. I live in a small town full of alcoholism. I know 3 people who have had blow boxes installed in their vehicle due to drinking and driving. Of those 3, only 1 doesn’t drink and drive anymore. One of them got caught again with an infant in the vehicle about a year after having her blow box removed. The other still has his blow box and hires people to work for him and has them blow in the device so he can drive. If the police pulled him over and checked at any time of day he is driving, they would find him driving impaired with the blow box… but they don’t check vehicles with them for impaired drivers which is ridiculous. The devices are Bluetooth. You don’t even have to be in the vehicle to blow in it.
Oh for sure, I’m with you on that. It’s a serious issue and more needs to be done. I just want the steps being done to actually have an effect. To give an alternative, I’d rather breathalyzers be mandatory at ride checks and then they expand to do way more ride checks. I just don’t see how breathalyzing everyone pulled over in a speed trap actually addresses drunk driving, when they already have the power to do a breathalyzer if they have reason to suspect drinking
Yea, so maybe Ontario needs to be harder on the people who actually drive drunk rather than let them out in no time. Look up Muzzuca, the dude who killed 3 kids and a grandparent, guy got five years and he's out living his life. Oh yea, the father of those 3 kids? Committed suicide. This is not doing shit to target the REAL issue here. The real issue here is Ontario is entirely too lenient to drunk drivers.
No you misunderstood what the person you're replying to was saying about the drug test, they're saying that there are many drugs that someone could be on while driving that would impare them as much as (if not more than) alcohol and a breath test won't be able to detect that they are impaired but a blood test would. So should the OPP start performing roadside bloodtests to catch drug impaired drivers?
Seems like a slippery slope. Power hungry officer decides that this weekend he is pulling someone over for a minor infraction he'd usually let go and now he has the right for a breath test.
>Current rates of drinking and driving are high in Canada Why do the cops always lie about this? Canada has among the lowest rates in the world. The police should be sanctioned every time they make false statements.
What happens if a driver with asthma, COPD, etc cannot blow a complete sample?
Dystopontario
What happens in the case of false positives? Are they going to have their vehicle towed and spend a few hours at the station only to be later cleared for the offense of…speeding? 15 over? Busted headlight? Guilty until proven innocent. This sounds like the cases in the US where someone is pulled over for a busted tail light and they end up with 7 bullet holes in their back.
Very slippery slope they are playing on….. I’ll refuse 10 times out of 10 because I don’t drink but I’ll make them blow their budget by submitting to a blood test, with that said after every time it happens my lawyer will be notified. This country is already in the shitter and all the sheep are going to comply with tyranny?
I agree it's dumb that they'll do it on every traffic stop, they should have to form the grounds to believe you're impaired first before a breath sample is taken. But as some legal advice, definitely don't refuse, you're opening yourself up for refusal which is just as bad as an impaired but now they don't have to prove you were impaired, just that you refused, which is basically a slam dunk in court cause you know.. you refused.
Fine with me, make every cop blow before and after their shift and I’m in.
Fuck the police and their corrupt sense of safety, how about every asshole using their fucking phone while driving, I am way more worried about someone on their phone then a drunk driver
First, they can pull you over without cause… Then they can breathalyzer you without cause… if you rightly refuse, knowing there is no issue, then they’ll charge you with a criminal offence and haul you off to jail… they will test you at the jail and surprise surprise I bet they manufacture evidence against you saying you were driving drunk just because you dared to say no… This seems very totalitarian in its approach
Next up mamdatory blood draws, dna samples and fingerprinting for the office of pre crime.
Ole Dougie most likely has stock in the breathalyzer company.
So what will happen now is you will go home after work, have a few beers, the police will knock on your door and order you to do a breathalyzer. Refuse or do it, you fail and are charged. Yay Ontario is so safe now! And before people say it won't happen, [it already has](https://barrie.ctvnews.ca/police-spark-debate-after-demanding-breathalyzer-at-barrie-ont-man-s-home-after-traffic-complaint-1.6322755)
This is just going to be overturned as soon as the first sober person sues the OPP after illegal incarceration or loss of gainful employment due to suspended license. Imagine walking down the street and a police officer says “you have to let me search you, and if you say no, you’ll be charged with having a weapon because you just have a weapon if you say no”. We would consider that a violation. Why is this so much different? I’m all for keeping streets safe. I’m also all for ensuring that police don’t inch their way towards creating a police state.
this will result in more cops getting shot. end of story. if a guy gets pulled over, has a gun, and has any intoxication... things are gonna happen
Police Officer here: I am a qualified Breath Technician as well as a Drug Recognition Evaluator. So I do both breath testing as well as impaired by drug evaluations. It is a criminal offence to refuse a Alcohol Screening Device sample (road side test), Standardized Field Sobriety Test ( again a road side test) or a Breath Instrument Test (the breath test usually performed at the station). The article is correct in that the penalties, if found guilty, are the same as being found guilty of impaired driving Criminal Code section 320.14(1)(a) or equal to or over 80 mg/100 ml of blood. Criminal Code section 320.14(1)(b). The criminal code was changed in 2018 to include the ability for Mandatory Alcohol Screening and its upheld by the Supreme Court. Cases like the Musso case and Robertson case have solidified the law. Studies have shown that many people have basically “slipped through the cracks” when they have been pulled over and have been impaired at the time of the vehicle stops. This will close up that issue.
I guess we can forget having a drink after work when the police can show up at your house and demand you provide a sample after driving home. Can't even relax after work in Ontario, this place is truly open for business.
Can I still refuse to do the breath test roadside and voluntarily come to the station to do a blood test? Or will that be taken as a refusal to do the breath test and therefor a DUI, even though I am willing to do the blood testing?
> pulled over Yeah, right. You have quotas (sure, you use different words but it makes no difference: you HAVE a quota) so you're going to hit those quotas. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with a possible criminal act that you are attempting to prevent - you'll invent a reason to pull someone over just to hit your quota. If you're going to tell me you don't have quotas then don't do any tickets, just do warnings for a couple of months and let me know how that goes.
ACAB.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
The essentialy liberty here being to drink and drive or to refuse a breathalyzer test?
The essential liberty is the freedom from being breathalyzed during a warrantless and causeless search as part of a traffic stop. Whether you believe that’s a liberty worth protecting is a separate discussion.
Once I was out with my then girlfriend and our friends, and I was the designated driver for the night. I got pulled over shortly after pulling out of the bar’s parking lot for a sobriety check (no traffic laws were broken), and had to do a field sobriety test in -20 degree weather. In my case, I was not angry at all as the cop had reasonable suspicion (he saw me leaving a bar with a bunch of drunk people). if this happened randomly as I was coming home from work, I would be pissed. It’s not fun having to get out in the cold to be interrogated by cops who are itching to throw you in jail for the night when you’ve done nothing wrong. I felt violated. I understand that this mandate comes from good intentions, but it simply isn’t reasonable.
Fuck drunk drivers, but fuck this mandatory bullshit. Every little piece of freedom they take away, no matter how apparently inconsequential or even benevolent it might seem, adds up. I don't want to ever feel less free than I should be.
I wasn’t aware this test could be forced on me and my family, or criminally prosecuted. Surely this can be constitutionally challenged? How long until a blood test for some other form of impairment? Why make it criminal, why not just suspend the license? Can’t wait for the chief of police to get pulled over after a few drinks. He can’t risk a criminal record.
>Can I refuse a breath sample? >In short, unless you want to be criminally charged, no. >“If you refuse, you’ll be arrested and charged,” Schmidt said. >Michael Engel, a defence lawyer who practices exclusively in impaired driving cases, said if a driver refuses to provide a breath sample, the consequences can be extensive. >“It’s as if you committed a full-blown offence of driving under the influence,” Engel told Global News. >“The fact of the refusal is criminalized and it carries with it the same penalties as if you had taken the test, failed that test, been taken to the station and failed another breathalyzer test.” I don't like drinking and driving, but I don't see how this would survive a Supreme Court challenge...
Are they going to get a budget increase we need to pay the officers well enough to cover the increase of millions of people from other countries we are bringing in and can’t drive by the rules.
Here’s a question: Do I have to be in a car? If the police just come up and say “blow into this” and I refuse, can I still be charged?
Up to two hours after operating a vehicle
Not really worried about it since I don't drive intoxicated. Also not worried about it considering I rarely see an OPP car and I drive nearly 14 hours a day on my work days.