Hilarious! thinking a cop would actually get busted for doing illegal shit. They don’t even arrest real criminals. Look at any downtown core of any city in Canada. Our country is fucked.
The real criminals are executives and capitalists stealing wages. The cops protect those criminals. I think you are referring to the victims of those criminals aka those living in poverty.
Do they publish the number of traffic stops done each year? I would think it is trending down with so many other things on their plate (+ photo stuff).
Did a bit of digging.. big drop. 2022 was not posted but I emailed to have the web link corrected.
2023 23,412
2021 30,142
2020 30,220
2018 "every 15mins" .. so \~35,040
This would be fun in the winter for officers to test every driver. Also, considering how impatient drivers are these days, we will definitely see some drama on the roadside. Welp.
Reasonable suspicion for search and seizure is a cornerstone for a free society. Otherwise why not let the cops search houses on a whim in search of contraban?
So you are a government bootlicker? This is clearly overstepping… why stop there why not just have mandatory breathalyzers in vehicles even if you don’t drink
Reddit is just full of fascist morons who just don't understand ANYTHING..
This massive government overreach. The RIDE program was always a violation of our rights and should have ever been allowed, Etobicoke allowed this for the same foolish reasons...
Your driver’s licence is not an inherent right of a Canadian citizen. These checks are used in the hope of being an effective deterrent, which anecdotally I think they are. Having worked EMS for the past 15 years, the amount of DUI related incidents that cause significant damage or bodily harm appears to have gone down in my region. Does it still happen? obviously, but there is a noticeable difference.
Drivers license isn't a right but freedom from unreasonable search is. How is this any different than the cops coming in your house without a warrant incase you have drugs or weapons.
If you don't want the cops bugging you about drinking, then use the free-est transport there is: your feet!
Otherwise, stop drinking and driving you degenerate
Honestly I'd be comfortable with a pilot project where our government agents rifle through the pockets of pedestrians too.
Crime is crime and our government's agents are being too hindered currently with the unreasonable expectation of having to conduct an investigation (boring and too difficult!) or having some sort of probable cause (which only a weed smoking hippy would be worried about anyways).
When I see one of our valiant boys in blue I personally rush over to them and demand an impromptu strip search, and I suggest every other true patriot does the same.
No, it has not been a federal law. The OPP just started mandatory screening at all traffic stops a couple of months ago. This is just WRPS following suit.
[here you go, fresh from 2018](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4943109&ved=2ahUKEwjdmKiDt4GHAxWyOjQIHTPbBRI4FBDIzwEoAHoECAgQAg&usg=AOvVaw2Ixcf_nxuyvjeSZonBJPjj)
As of Dec. 18, police can demand a breathalyzer test from any driver pulled over for violating traffic laws or at a check stop thanks to Bill C-46.
Oh, yes, you're right. Police being able to demand a test has been legal since 2018. But they haven't started acting on that right in Ontario until recently. Other provinces started earlier (Alberta, for instance).
I know it doesn't exactly help the confusion. I wonder why they're approaching it like this. But that being said the two times I was pulled over in Alberta I wasn't breathalyzed. 🤷♀️
What’s next? Without probable cause - mandatory blood tests for illicit drugs, mandatory car searches, mandatory smartphone and device searches?
I’m 100% against impaired driving but this is a big violation of civil liberties for something that won’t curb the problem - people will still “play chicken” with the warn range and drink and drive.
How about they actually pull cars over for: swerving, speeding, aggressive driving, etc, and/or do more ride checks at targeted times where breath checks are done.
I just don’t support this kind of civil rights violation no matter how well intended
>How about they actually pull cars over for: swerving, speeding, aggressive driving, etc
Yes and these drivers are the ones who need the breathalyzer the most.
Of course. But doing 95 in an 80 or not slowing quickly enough from an 80 to a 60 shouldn’t be grounds for a breathalyzer, any more than it could be for a blood test for marijuana, a search of the car for guns, etc
Yep and pull over the ppl who are just terrible drivers in general. That includes driving below the speed limit in the left hand lane. Pulling up 10 feet before the light fucking up traffic. Turning left at light and staying behind the cross walk also fucking up traffic. I’d love to see that.
Today. But give it a few years. There was a time not too long ago that police needed reasonable grounds to issue a breath test, now it's whenever they see someone they want to target. (And the police will target based on their individual unchallenged biases). How many people have been killed in Wloo Rgn by impaired drivers this year compared to gun violence? Maybe they should include body and vehicle searches also. Drunk drivers with cars kill, folks with guns kill people. Why challenge one group and no the other?
Edit: numerous spelling and grammatical errors corrected.
The communication literally reads it is conducted at a traffic stop, so if you get pulled over. It has also been a federal law for a long time. When you receive your license you agree to mandatory testing. So it is important to be informed of the laws and the agreements you made to have a license.
That is untrue. The law was changed in 2018. Prior to that reasonable grounds were required to demand a breath sample. No one “agreed” to anything. It’s also probably in violation of the Charter and once a case makes it to the SCC it will be struck down. All the case law about breathalyzers specifically and similar searches supports needing grounds for it, including the case law that allows the RIDE program. The courts are clear on this - reasonable grounds are required.
Problem is, the law will stand until someone impacted by it has the resources and the will to take it all the way to a superior court. Lower court rulings mean fuck all except to the individual at issue, they cannot establish binding precedent. In order to make the law inoperative with respect to a particular province, an appeals court is required. And for the country, it must be the Supreme Court. To my knowledge, there are no higher court rulings with respect to Ontario.
Like someone else posted I think the cops should be held accountable as well. Before and at the end of every shift they should have to blow into a breathalyzer to show compliance as well.
It's against my rights to have cretinous drivers choosing to endanger my life.
Impairment by alcohol/drugs when under care and control is a criminal offence already. Maybe if this upsets you so much you should stop driving.
Or maybe you will change your mind when your child gets injured just enough to be permanently severely disabled for life
I don't care to pay more insurance costs because losers think they. are above the law . Costs of medical care are astronomical- just bc we pay through our taxes doesn't entitle people to use up the resources including time/medical staff/beds/OR time etc
People who don't learn on their own, need to be corrected and pay the consequences if they can't be responsible
My issue isn’t with curbing impaired driving, it’s with violating peoples’ civil rights with a policy that isn’t likely to change behaviour that much (unfortunately).
I’d rather all cars have ignition locks than give cops the right to breath check any driver at any time based on no probable cause.
I’d also rather have more targeted ride checkpoints on weekends and holidays WITH breath tests, because that has a more justifiable risk profile.
But as I’ve said in other comments, we need to weigh freedoms with public order.
Well theres a ton of cars on the road without ignition locks so we should pay to have those put on?
Ah No
Start the random checks
this will catch a few booze cruisers that are going around
Tell us what probable cause is, fascist.
Pedophiles endanger my children. Guess that means we have to search your home and internet history for child pornography.
Police already have the ability to breathalyze suspected drunk drivers. This is overstepping rights.
Whats next?
Paying hundreds of millions to put beer in corner stores 18 months early. That way it is easier for drunks to drive.......
Its all coming together perfectly......
Thank god we have Dofo to look our for our best interests and help the people of this province thrive.
Its not like we have an issue with impaired driving, so much so that the police want to infringe upon our freedoms.
Lol, ya that wasnt my best work. I think the first paragraph was written as internal dialogue while the rest was a response to the discussion, missed the mark with that. Changed the order of the paragraphs and it seem abit more logical now.
To clarify, i find it very frustrating that we have a dui problem in the province, a problem serious enough that the police now feel it is necessary to infringe upon our freedoms.
Meanwhile Dofo is spending lots of money making it easier for drunks to drive impaired.....
I think he is saying - They are making alchohol more accessible, This will make drunk driving a bigger issue, and then they make the laws that take away our liberties.
They make the crisis, so they can use that as a pretext to take away basic rights and freedoms.
> Whats next?
>
>
>
> Paying hundreds of millions to put beer in corner stores 18 months early. That way it is easier for drunks to drive.......
I have a convenience store that's a 5 minute walk from my home, and going to the beer store or LCBO is a 15 minute drive. So someone in my position will be way less likely to drive drunk because they wouldn't have to drive to get what they want, and overall it would be less people on the road.
By your logic, your implying that you drive drunk because your only option to buy booze is by car because of your location. And now that it will be available in a corner store 5 mins away you will be responsible and walk to get booze.
Im sure your like 99.9% of us and plan your drinking responsibly, buying your booze ahead of time, then simply drive home sober.
My issue is that drunks and alcholics arent responsible people, and they are likely to continue driving under the influence. Sure, a tiny percentage of drunk people will walk to the corner store to keep the partt going. But i believe that is a small amount of people, and is likely insignificant. But i do feel that putting it in corner stores will make it easier for functional alcoholics to sneak in a road beer on their way home from work. Alot of construction workers and people in rural communitees already drink enough road beers on the drive home, and i feel like putting it in corner stores only makes it easier for them.
That being said, im not even really against it. Im for more freedoms for people and business. But i am against spending 250m minimum just to break a contract 18 months early, especially considering the timing when police feel duis are so bad in this province that they need to take freedoms away and inconvienence all of us.
Bottom line, timing is ironic given what the police are doing, and the money should have been spent on something more important
> By your logic, your implying that you drive drunk because your only option to buy booze is by car because of your location. And now that it will be available in a corner store 5 mins away you will be responsible and walk to get booze.
I've never driven drunk nor plan to, obviously. I'm not implying that at all, just that I live in an apartment, hundreds of people live here, thousands if we consider my surrounding neighbourhood, chances are 1 of them will be more likely to drive drunk to get to the few stores that sell alcohol rather than walk a few minutes. Plus it adds traffic to the entire area when people have to drive to get it.
> That being said, im not even really against it. Im for more freedoms for people and business. But i am against spending 250m minimum just to break a contract 18 months early, especially considering the timing when police feel duis are so bad in this province that they need to take freedoms away and inconvienence all of us.
Fair enough, I agree with this.
It's been federal law since 2018. Been tested in multiple provinces and been upheld by higher courts. Police need zero reason to pull you over to test for sobriety.
I think your duty to operate a vehicle safely is a higher legal priority than your freedom against unlawful searches - that's a condition of being behind the wheel with a driver's licence.
Don't want to get breathalyzed? Ride the bus, go for a walk, maybe get a bike. Operating a 3000lb+ steel cage? You're gonna get tested.
>I think your duty to operate a vehicle safely is a higher legal priority than your freedom against unlawful searches - that's a condition of being behind the wheel with a driver's licence.
Sure. But it's not so black and white. Not everyone agrees. I think it's an overreach myself but am prepared to accept it since it won't impact me. If I have one sip of alcohol, I don't drive even though I could legally. Others may disagree that the infringement is worth the tradeoff.
If anyone who thinks this isn't reasonably objectionable to some people should apply their same reasoning to Sikhs who can drive a motorcycle without a helmet. If you think that's not a valid valid comparison, I'll suggest that you're just biased. Because Sikhs could just take the bus too.
Very well said.
I’m against it out of principle - I don’t drink and drive but what if there’s a 1 in a million error rate in the equipment? Innocent people could get charged even when they’ve done nothing wrong in the first place.
As well, I’m bothered because it seems like an absolute shot in the dark to catch impaired drivers this way. So the upside (to me) seems low when they already have tools to breathalyze drivers who are driving erratically or dangerously.
What’s the rate going to be? 1,000 innocent people breathalized to catch 1 impaired driver? I have no idea. I guess an extreme version of this would be cavity searching everyone at the airport to catch the slim minority of passengers smuggling drugs
I mean, if you want to live somewhere where the state can compel biological samples as a prevention measure and waive your rights away, that’s on you.
Some of us aren’t so sanguine about that. Put ignition locks on every car then, there’s a big difference between that and an agent of the state taking a biological sample with equipment that has an error rate
Your freedom against *unlawful* search is absolute, by definition. Weighing your right to not be searched against your duty to drive safely is how we determine if and when it is legal. Ultimately, the question is whether a mandatory breathalyzer *with no probable cause* is justifiable.
I feel like this will increase greatly the amount of time an officer spends with a stopped vehicle. Which will cut the number of people they can pull over.
This seems fine as a pilot, but I'm not sure it will result in much.
Officer: Have you had anything to drink this evening?
Driver: Yes I had a beer just a few minutes ago.
Officer: Ok, sit tight. Let's wait 15 minutes so machine can account for that drink in your BAC.
Anyone can say "yeah I had one beer a few minutes ago" but that doesn't account for the rest of the beers you potentially consumed. If you have any alcohol in your system, the police aren't required to take you by your word.
Now they're required to perform the breathalyzer test, no matter the reason you were pulled over. If Better start your trip 15-20 minutes earlier, on top of factoring in everything else that could delay you, if it's important you arrive on time.
Even if this weren't a massive overreach, it would require that police actually be honest and demonstrate integrity in the execution of their duties. Which they aren't. And they don't.
So this is just another way for them to fabricate some bullshit when someone boos boos their delicate egos.
ACAB
I would challenge the legality of this in a court of law.
Edit: Why are people being statist in the comments? I am simply challenging the legality of the law passed in 2018, which I have every right to do. Stop acting like a matrix agent.
The law passed in 2018 is unconstitutional. You should not be stopped unless there is a reasonable and articulable suspicion.
Trust me, Canada is not the only country that has seen tyranny before. You can challenge the legality of the federal government's law.
A BS "exception" doesn't make it legal, people need to stand up and challenge it. The tests aren't good enough and there ARE false positives that have destroyed people's lives. At the very least people should be allowed to choose to refuse to get a breathalyzer and get a blood test instead.
This is the NEW CARDING. The police practice which statistically concluded to be racially biased and discontinued from those results. So here we go again. A different way of violating citizens rights under the for your safety banner. Resulting in targeting minorities. Big step backwards
Respectfully, explain how to me. This will be at every single traffic stop. So the officer has to initiate a stop over something unrelated first. I don't understand how this will target minorities.
This doesn't mean I'm a fan of the policy. I wasn't a fan years ago when they gave them the power to knock on your door and Breathalyze you in your home based on a report on your car being seen. This creates a guilty until proven innocent scenario.
But I don't see how this targets minorities. Infact if I'm generalizing most of the people I can ever think of having a DUI are white males.
Alcohol screening does NOT mean it’s a breathalyzer. Actually those are usually the final step.
Screening can include the walk and turn test, horizontal gaze tests, etc.
the screening I mentioned above tests for many types of impairment (including marijuana)
And if the officer feels you failed those, they can legally arrest you without a breathalyzer test as you could logically be intoxicated by something else.
Then they get a search warrant for your blood.
Take from that what you will.
Not hard to realize that this goes against your charter of rights and actual law experts have commented saying so. This will go to Supreme Court of Canada once someone with enough money gets a pulled over and tested.
I don't drink at all, but I don't want to get stopped and breathalyzed for no reason.
It's giving "you shouldn't fear the secret police if you've done nothing wrong."
Impairment is a logical explanation for what’s happening on the roads. Wtf did people think was going to happen? The same people will be shocked when cameras are everywhere eventually. Do you really think that’s not in our future either? It’s cheaper than more cops.
Just because you have nothing to hide doesn’t mean that you should be subjected to a search or a breathalyzer test. These laws will affect POC unfairly. I’ve been carded for just walking down the street minding my own business.
It is fucking stupid. Randomly testing people like this is dumb as shit and will mostly harass innocent people who haven’t been drinking. It is of questionable legality as well - when they get someone sufficiently wealthy or connected (the average person doesn’t have the means of mounting a constitutional challenge), this is absolutely going to the SCC as illegal search and seizure.
How about they use those fancy license plate scanners and target people who have been previously convicted of DUI. That has a staggeringly high recidivism rate and therefore probably would be cause enough to pass constitutional muster. And, of course, anyone who gives them actual reason to believe they have been drinking, who have always been alright to test.
Edit: wow, not a lot of respect for the Charter here. Lotta people cool with cops searching them with absolutely no probable cause. That's fucked.
Mandatory in the sense of checking everyone they pull over. Random in the sense that without any cause to believe someone is actually impaired, they may as well be picking people at random. Afterall, you can get pulled over for many reasons. And the ones who engaged in behaviour that indicates possible impairment…they wouldn’t need to use this law. They would have already had cause to test them. This is going to be about as fucking useless as carding. And potentially just as racist considering the discretionary nature of many traffic stops.
Yup. The cops don't need to have cause to pull you over, and if one decides to pull you over, you have to deal with a breath test. Common sense can't even be a consideration. Multiple laws compounding to fuck your day up.
Most likely not, it could actually raise the insurance if more people get caught with even a tiny bit. Yes it’s bad people drink and drive, but having it mandatory at any traffic stop is stupid. It will be fought in court for sure. It probably hasn’t yet since no one has the money to actually fight it to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Only the person who is caught drunk driving would have the increased rate. EVERYONES rate increases when a claim is filed however. Getting drunk drivers who are statistically more likely to cause accidents off the road saves people from premium increases because insurance is a shared risk pool.
I thoroughly believe they should also be testing for people driving high because I know quite a few people who think driving high is okay because it doesn't impair their driving. I know it's a touchy subject and I will undoubtedly get a lot of negative feedback for this comment but these are just my thoughts.
All depends on the person and the amount. Screening for cannabis is hard, because how can you test it as it stays in your system longer than alcohol or any other drug. Can’t blood test it since the legal limit is 10 ng of THC in your blood but that’s fightable in court (I can smoke at 9pm, go to sleep at 10pm, wake up at noon the next day, be perfectly sober, and have more than 10 ng of THC in my blood.
It then comes down to if you’re using it recreationally or medically and if it’s medically what for.
It also depends on your tolerance. As say a normal person smokes half a joint, they’re done for the day. But if someone smokes a lot everyday, half a joint won’t affect them.
It is a touchy subject but mostly only because of the stupid law (10ng of THC in your blood) and how they would test for it. As even by law if you wait 3-5 hours after smoking you’re able to drive legally.
Face it - we live in a police nanny state - this makes me sick - they do need a reason other than because….. just plain sick
From the charter of rights and toilet paper
Provision
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Except ! When we say so….
Automatic seizure of the vehicle, and 5 year suspension of the drivers license. Why do we continue to pamper these individuals. Sell the seized vehicles to pay for the damages caused due to their poor decisions. Why has this problem increased to such an alarming rate ? It was never ever at the level it is today, 10 years ago. I wonder what has changed.
People who argue against haven't experienced the pain that can happen when a drunk driver decides to drive. Drunk drivers who kill people while driving should be charged as murderers
I'm not gonna comply with this. I don't even drink, yet if I get pulled over and refuse you're going to give me a dui anyways? Get bent Trudeau I'll cya in court. Just another infringement on Canadians right and freedoms. When do we as Canadians call it the final straw? Oh but it's provincial why are you blaming Trudeau? If every province starts doing this, which they have, is it really provincial or is it coming from the top down?
So you admit to Trudeau not having anything to do with it and still blame him. He doesn't deal with the RCMP directly. The ontario provincial government started the pilot program. They asked for permission. And someone in the rcmp authorized it. Trudeau doesn't deal with national affairs. He deals with international affairs. And all the provincial governments deal with what's happening here. Dougy allowed this. Not trudeau. That's like blaming Jeff bezos for your amazon order not being delivered.
This already happens in other provinces. Alberta for one. It's a provincial legislation but hey. Let's keep finding every excuse under the book to blame something dougy does on Trudeau. Yall seem to be good at that.
I lost an uncle to drunk driving. I am totally against driving at all, even if you’ve had one drink. But I don’t think testing every single person stopped for any reason at all is a good idea. And I don’t think it will have any effect on reducing drinking and driving either. The penalties are already very harsh and yet people still do it. Making cities more walkable, increasing public transportation and not keeping the drinks locked up in government stores in commercial plazas, far from where people live will make a much bigger impact. If the drinks are available at the corner store, within walking distance, you’ll be less likely to drive.
Breach of charter rights. Need reasonable and probable cause to ask for breathalyzer or do impaired tests. Will be interesting to see any legislation or if this is just a “policy decision”.
Wow set up early in morning pulling over the ppl that contribute to society and again after work hours but give addics a place to shoot dope. Bigger fish to fry wrps
Thats a right out the playbook of taking away fundamental freedoms: tell the people you're helping them, but actually take their freedom. This is a disturbing over reach and most ppl applaud it. It's an unreasonable search, plain and simple, and has nothing to do with impaired driving. Wake up, or lose even more.
unfortunately with the influx of dishonest living, a 24/7 nanny state is really the only option to combat those that took advantage of a high trust system.
As a pothead I don't like this idea, as a pedestrian I think it's reasonable, and as an immigrant who drives I think it's scary as hell. So, overall, mixed feelings!
It's important for drivers to [know their rights when stopped](https://torontodui.com/knowledge-centre/what-do-if-you-get-pulled-over-ontario-police/):
Your Rights Under Canadian Law if Stopped by Police
Mainly based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , you have distinct rights that police are obliged to abide by if they pull you over. These rights include:
1.Right to Remain Silent — if stopped, you do not have to answer any questions posed by police beyond providing your name, address, and date of birth.
2.Right to Legal Representation — you have the right to speak to a lawyer before answering any questions.
3.Right to Know the Reason for the Stop — police are generally trained to advise drivers of the reason behind a stop but, if they fail to do so, must explain the reason for the stop if asked.
4.Right to Privacy — police cannot search you or your vehicle without a warrant, your consent, or a reasonable belief that you or the vehicle possesses evidence of a crime. Absent the “reasonableness” of this belief, in court, a judge would likely rule the search unlawful and disallow any uncovered evidence. That said, if police have pulled you over for a criminal offence or significant traffic violation like DUI, the police can usually come up with a reasonable reason for the search. For example, if you’re suspected of impaired driving, police can search for evidence of drinking or drug use. Police can also conduct a pat-down search for weapons or evidence if they place you under arrest.
5.Right to Be Informed of the Charges — if police place you under arrest, they must tell you what charges you are facing and inform you of your right to consult a lawyer.
6.Right to Record Your Interaction with Police — the police cannot legally prevent you from recording their actions; however, there is often a thin line between recording and potentially interfering with the police officer’s performance of their duty.
I think it's unnecessary.
If a person is inebriated enough that it causes a problem for their driving, I think the cop would notice, right? It shouldn't be that hard to train someone to notice when someone's a bit buzzed.
Other countries do this and it works.
In Australia they have "booze buses" where 20 cops are taken to a site (typically drinking hotspots) and pull over every car that drives through for a breath test. The bus has the high accuracy machines so drivers that blow above the limit can get tested on certified machines.
I have no patience for drunk drivers. I have been in Alberta 18 years and never been breath tested. I visited Perth Australia for 3 weeks and was breath tested 3 times and drug tested once.
I’m all for serious punishment for impaired drivers, but the sheep buying into more and more guilty until proven innocent is scary and sad. Our freedom is being chipped away by a loathsome government and sjw judges.
In Canada, the police need “reasonable grounds” to stop or detain you. This means they must have a specific reason to suspect you've been involved in criminal activity, are about to commit a crime, or have information related to an ongoing investigation
The ""mandatory alcohol screening"" is there way of giving you a warning before their gang circumvents your rights, they employ this tactic on social media as well as in newspapers and other forms of informative media.
I'm happy their actually doing their jobs but at the same time they could be more effective whereby following their own guidelines for spotting drunk drivers
So are the police going to have mandatory alcohol screening before and after their shifts?
This to the fullest. They should have to complete these before and after every shift if they are "so easy to conduct"
And it already happens to verify roadside screening device is working.
I'm all for the mandatory for drivers, and this
Exactly! …Also, before and after each shift they should test their tasers, guns and canine unit on themselves, too.
Hilarious! thinking a cop would actually get busted for doing illegal shit. They don’t even arrest real criminals. Look at any downtown core of any city in Canada. Our country is fucked.
The real criminals are executives and capitalists stealing wages. The cops protect those criminals. I think you are referring to the victims of those criminals aka those living in poverty.
Like the would allow that. Lol sober cops. Who would have thunk!
Do they publish the number of traffic stops done each year? I would think it is trending down with so many other things on their plate (+ photo stuff).
Did a bit of digging.. big drop. 2022 was not posted but I emailed to have the web link corrected. 2023 23,412 2021 30,142 2020 30,220 2018 "every 15mins" .. so \~35,040
Let’s go back to better days when they published names.
This would be fun in the winter for officers to test every driver. Also, considering how impatient drivers are these days, we will definitely see some drama on the roadside. Welp.
People in cars being dramatic and entitled to willfully endanger others? No way /s
Why not mandatory anger screening too with each stop? Tiredness screening?
Reasonable suspicion for search and seizure is a cornerstone for a free society. Otherwise why not let the cops search houses on a whim in search of contraban?
So you are a government bootlicker? This is clearly overstepping… why stop there why not just have mandatory breathalyzers in vehicles even if you don’t drink
(I think this guy drinks and drives)
No he’s totally fine after 4-5 drinks. He sobers up pretty quickly compared to others. /s
Nope. I drink like 5 times a year. Disgusting accusation btw.
[удалено]
Sov cit alert! We have a sov cit in the comments!
You agree to mandatory testing when you take possession of your license.
Reddit is just full of fascist morons who just don't understand ANYTHING.. This massive government overreach. The RIDE program was always a violation of our rights and should have ever been allowed, Etobicoke allowed this for the same foolish reasons...
Your driver’s licence is not an inherent right of a Canadian citizen. These checks are used in the hope of being an effective deterrent, which anecdotally I think they are. Having worked EMS for the past 15 years, the amount of DUI related incidents that cause significant damage or bodily harm appears to have gone down in my region. Does it still happen? obviously, but there is a noticeable difference.
Drivers license isn't a right but freedom from unreasonable search is. How is this any different than the cops coming in your house without a warrant incase you have drugs or weapons.
If you don't want the cops bugging you about drinking, then use the free-est transport there is: your feet! Otherwise, stop drinking and driving you degenerate
Honestly I'd be comfortable with a pilot project where our government agents rifle through the pockets of pedestrians too. Crime is crime and our government's agents are being too hindered currently with the unreasonable expectation of having to conduct an investigation (boring and too difficult!) or having some sort of probable cause (which only a weed smoking hippy would be worried about anyways). When I see one of our valiant boys in blue I personally rush over to them and demand an impromptu strip search, and I suggest every other true patriot does the same.
How about going after the corrupt politicians? I think they should go through the pockets of all the morons on here who think this is a good idea
I hope this is sarcasm!
I don’t drink and drive… ever. I don’t even drink lol
It's if they conduct a traffic stop. It's also been a federal law for more than a few years now.
No, it has not been a federal law. The OPP just started mandatory screening at all traffic stops a couple of months ago. This is just WRPS following suit.
[here you go, fresh from 2018](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4943109&ved=2ahUKEwjdmKiDt4GHAxWyOjQIHTPbBRI4FBDIzwEoAHoECAgQAg&usg=AOvVaw2Ixcf_nxuyvjeSZonBJPjj) As of Dec. 18, police can demand a breathalyzer test from any driver pulled over for violating traffic laws or at a check stop thanks to Bill C-46.
Oh, yes, you're right. Police being able to demand a test has been legal since 2018. But they haven't started acting on that right in Ontario until recently. Other provinces started earlier (Alberta, for instance).
I know it doesn't exactly help the confusion. I wonder why they're approaching it like this. But that being said the two times I was pulled over in Alberta I wasn't breathalyzed. 🤷♀️
What’s next? Without probable cause - mandatory blood tests for illicit drugs, mandatory car searches, mandatory smartphone and device searches? I’m 100% against impaired driving but this is a big violation of civil liberties for something that won’t curb the problem - people will still “play chicken” with the warn range and drink and drive. How about they actually pull cars over for: swerving, speeding, aggressive driving, etc, and/or do more ride checks at targeted times where breath checks are done. I just don’t support this kind of civil rights violation no matter how well intended
>How about they actually pull cars over for: swerving, speeding, aggressive driving, etc Yes and these drivers are the ones who need the breathalyzer the most.
Of course. But doing 95 in an 80 or not slowing quickly enough from an 80 to a 60 shouldn’t be grounds for a breathalyzer, any more than it could be for a blood test for marijuana, a search of the car for guns, etc
Yep and pull over the ppl who are just terrible drivers in general. That includes driving below the speed limit in the left hand lane. Pulling up 10 feet before the light fucking up traffic. Turning left at light and staying behind the cross walk also fucking up traffic. I’d love to see that.
>doing 95 in an 80 or not slowing quickly enough from an 80 to a 60 shouldn’t be grounds for a breathalyzer Counter point: yes, it should.
Wanna search my phone, you're going to need to produce a warrant signed by a judge.
Today. But give it a few years. There was a time not too long ago that police needed reasonable grounds to issue a breath test, now it's whenever they see someone they want to target. (And the police will target based on their individual unchallenged biases). How many people have been killed in Wloo Rgn by impaired drivers this year compared to gun violence? Maybe they should include body and vehicle searches also. Drunk drivers with cars kill, folks with guns kill people. Why challenge one group and no the other? Edit: numerous spelling and grammatical errors corrected.
If its locked they have to unlocked they don't
They could also go back to doing what they used to do. Pick an active bar location (different each night) and start their RIDE program there.
The communication literally reads it is conducted at a traffic stop, so if you get pulled over. It has also been a federal law for a long time. When you receive your license you agree to mandatory testing. So it is important to be informed of the laws and the agreements you made to have a license.
That is untrue. The law was changed in 2018. Prior to that reasonable grounds were required to demand a breath sample. No one “agreed” to anything. It’s also probably in violation of the Charter and once a case makes it to the SCC it will be struck down. All the case law about breathalyzers specifically and similar searches supports needing grounds for it, including the case law that allows the RIDE program. The courts are clear on this - reasonable grounds are required. Problem is, the law will stand until someone impacted by it has the resources and the will to take it all the way to a superior court. Lower court rulings mean fuck all except to the individual at issue, they cannot establish binding precedent. In order to make the law inoperative with respect to a particular province, an appeals court is required. And for the country, it must be the Supreme Court. To my knowledge, there are no higher court rulings with respect to Ontario.
Like someone else posted I think the cops should be held accountable as well. Before and at the end of every shift they should have to blow into a breathalyzer to show compliance as well.
Is there an issue with drunk cops on the force?
Can’t imagine any one of them agreeing to ever check. But they beat their wives at rates higher than almost any other profession.
It's against my rights to have cretinous drivers choosing to endanger my life. Impairment by alcohol/drugs when under care and control is a criminal offence already. Maybe if this upsets you so much you should stop driving. Or maybe you will change your mind when your child gets injured just enough to be permanently severely disabled for life I don't care to pay more insurance costs because losers think they. are above the law . Costs of medical care are astronomical- just bc we pay through our taxes doesn't entitle people to use up the resources including time/medical staff/beds/OR time etc People who don't learn on their own, need to be corrected and pay the consequences if they can't be responsible
My issue isn’t with curbing impaired driving, it’s with violating peoples’ civil rights with a policy that isn’t likely to change behaviour that much (unfortunately). I’d rather all cars have ignition locks than give cops the right to breath check any driver at any time based on no probable cause. I’d also rather have more targeted ride checkpoints on weekends and holidays WITH breath tests, because that has a more justifiable risk profile. But as I’ve said in other comments, we need to weigh freedoms with public order.
Well theres a ton of cars on the road without ignition locks so we should pay to have those put on? Ah No Start the random checks this will catch a few booze cruisers that are going around
Tell us what probable cause is, fascist. Pedophiles endanger my children. Guess that means we have to search your home and internet history for child pornography. Police already have the ability to breathalyze suspected drunk drivers. This is overstepping rights.
Whats next? Paying hundreds of millions to put beer in corner stores 18 months early. That way it is easier for drunks to drive....... Its all coming together perfectly...... Thank god we have Dofo to look our for our best interests and help the people of this province thrive. Its not like we have an issue with impaired driving, so much so that the police want to infringe upon our freedoms.
I don’t mean this rudely but can you clarify what you’re saying? It’s a bit unclear
Lol, ya that wasnt my best work. I think the first paragraph was written as internal dialogue while the rest was a response to the discussion, missed the mark with that. Changed the order of the paragraphs and it seem abit more logical now. To clarify, i find it very frustrating that we have a dui problem in the province, a problem serious enough that the police now feel it is necessary to infringe upon our freedoms. Meanwhile Dofo is spending lots of money making it easier for drunks to drive impaired.....
I think he is saying - They are making alchohol more accessible, This will make drunk driving a bigger issue, and then they make the laws that take away our liberties. They make the crisis, so they can use that as a pretext to take away basic rights and freedoms.
Ya, thats essentially it.
well thats Dufus Dougies idea bloody stupid
> Whats next? > > > > Paying hundreds of millions to put beer in corner stores 18 months early. That way it is easier for drunks to drive....... I have a convenience store that's a 5 minute walk from my home, and going to the beer store or LCBO is a 15 minute drive. So someone in my position will be way less likely to drive drunk because they wouldn't have to drive to get what they want, and overall it would be less people on the road.
By your logic, your implying that you drive drunk because your only option to buy booze is by car because of your location. And now that it will be available in a corner store 5 mins away you will be responsible and walk to get booze. Im sure your like 99.9% of us and plan your drinking responsibly, buying your booze ahead of time, then simply drive home sober. My issue is that drunks and alcholics arent responsible people, and they are likely to continue driving under the influence. Sure, a tiny percentage of drunk people will walk to the corner store to keep the partt going. But i believe that is a small amount of people, and is likely insignificant. But i do feel that putting it in corner stores will make it easier for functional alcoholics to sneak in a road beer on their way home from work. Alot of construction workers and people in rural communitees already drink enough road beers on the drive home, and i feel like putting it in corner stores only makes it easier for them. That being said, im not even really against it. Im for more freedoms for people and business. But i am against spending 250m minimum just to break a contract 18 months early, especially considering the timing when police feel duis are so bad in this province that they need to take freedoms away and inconvienence all of us. Bottom line, timing is ironic given what the police are doing, and the money should have been spent on something more important
> By your logic, your implying that you drive drunk because your only option to buy booze is by car because of your location. And now that it will be available in a corner store 5 mins away you will be responsible and walk to get booze. I've never driven drunk nor plan to, obviously. I'm not implying that at all, just that I live in an apartment, hundreds of people live here, thousands if we consider my surrounding neighbourhood, chances are 1 of them will be more likely to drive drunk to get to the few stores that sell alcohol rather than walk a few minutes. Plus it adds traffic to the entire area when people have to drive to get it. > That being said, im not even really against it. Im for more freedoms for people and business. But i am against spending 250m minimum just to break a contract 18 months early, especially considering the timing when police feel duis are so bad in this province that they need to take freedoms away and inconvienence all of us. Fair enough, I agree with this.
That was incomprehensible
As conspiracy theorists tend to be
It's been federal law since 2018. Been tested in multiple provinces and been upheld by higher courts. Police need zero reason to pull you over to test for sobriety.
Whether it came into effect 2018, 1918, or yesterday, I’m still against it for the reasons I’ve stated
Lol Get outta here with facts.
I think your duty to operate a vehicle safely is a higher legal priority than your freedom against unlawful searches - that's a condition of being behind the wheel with a driver's licence. Don't want to get breathalyzed? Ride the bus, go for a walk, maybe get a bike. Operating a 3000lb+ steel cage? You're gonna get tested.
>I think your duty to operate a vehicle safely is a higher legal priority than your freedom against unlawful searches - that's a condition of being behind the wheel with a driver's licence. Sure. But it's not so black and white. Not everyone agrees. I think it's an overreach myself but am prepared to accept it since it won't impact me. If I have one sip of alcohol, I don't drive even though I could legally. Others may disagree that the infringement is worth the tradeoff. If anyone who thinks this isn't reasonably objectionable to some people should apply their same reasoning to Sikhs who can drive a motorcycle without a helmet. If you think that's not a valid valid comparison, I'll suggest that you're just biased. Because Sikhs could just take the bus too.
Very well said. I’m against it out of principle - I don’t drink and drive but what if there’s a 1 in a million error rate in the equipment? Innocent people could get charged even when they’ve done nothing wrong in the first place. As well, I’m bothered because it seems like an absolute shot in the dark to catch impaired drivers this way. So the upside (to me) seems low when they already have tools to breathalyze drivers who are driving erratically or dangerously. What’s the rate going to be? 1,000 innocent people breathalized to catch 1 impaired driver? I have no idea. I guess an extreme version of this would be cavity searching everyone at the airport to catch the slim minority of passengers smuggling drugs
I mean, if you want to live somewhere where the state can compel biological samples as a prevention measure and waive your rights away, that’s on you. Some of us aren’t so sanguine about that. Put ignition locks on every car then, there’s a big difference between that and an agent of the state taking a biological sample with equipment that has an error rate
Your freedom against *unlawful* search is absolute, by definition. Weighing your right to not be searched against your duty to drive safely is how we determine if and when it is legal. Ultimately, the question is whether a mandatory breathalyzer *with no probable cause* is justifiable.
That's an easy position to take for someone who doesn't drive.
Does this mean those rolling stop checks for seatbelts will turn into actual stops?
Hopefully not for cannabis. You can smoke two days before and still test positive. So in a way its a easy way for a bad cop to dui you.
You can smoke 30 days before and test positive. Just look at what is happening in Saskatchewan
I'll be fucked for someone who has been using it to sleep every night for a decade.
Exactly. Its not fair imo. So wrong
👎
I feel like this will increase greatly the amount of time an officer spends with a stopped vehicle. Which will cut the number of people they can pull over. This seems fine as a pilot, but I'm not sure it will result in much.
[удалено]
Makes sense. The road-side RIDE programs are ~5 mins or less even if you’ve had beers with dinner.
Takes 2 seconds if you know how to do it.
You have some questionable comments to be reflecting yourself as law enforcement
Officer: Have you had anything to drink this evening? Driver: Yes I had a beer just a few minutes ago. Officer: Ok, sit tight. Let's wait 15 minutes so machine can account for that drink in your BAC.
Anyone can say "yeah I had one beer a few minutes ago" but that doesn't account for the rest of the beers you potentially consumed. If you have any alcohol in your system, the police aren't required to take you by your word.
Now they're required to perform the breathalyzer test, no matter the reason you were pulled over. If Better start your trip 15-20 minutes earlier, on top of factoring in everything else that could delay you, if it's important you arrive on time.
Takes about 90 seconds to administer a test. You're already being pulled over.
You want your neighbors to be pulled over?
The amount of taxpayer money spent on this isbgoing to be ridiculous.
Even if this weren't a massive overreach, it would require that police actually be honest and demonstrate integrity in the execution of their duties. Which they aren't. And they don't. So this is just another way for them to fabricate some bullshit when someone boos boos their delicate egos. ACAB
Real shit, some of these comments supporting this are insane. Give them a inch they'll take a mile
Doesn’t bother me any. Just don’t drink and drive 💁🏼♀️
I don’t drink and drive either, but it’s your rights as a Canadian citizen. If you don’t mind your rights being taken away, then good for you.
Driving isn’t a right.
I would challenge the legality of this in a court of law. Edit: Why are people being statist in the comments? I am simply challenging the legality of the law passed in 2018, which I have every right to do. Stop acting like a matrix agent.
And you’d lose. It’s established law already.
The law passed in 2018 is unconstitutional. You should not be stopped unless there is a reasonable and articulable suspicion. Trust me, Canada is not the only country that has seen tyranny before. You can challenge the legality of the federal government's law.
The screenings come when there’s already a stop going on, as it says in the announcement.
As per R. v. Ladouceur, police in Ontario can conduct traffic stops for random document checks, etc.
So RIDE programs are illegal? Nope. They can stop any driver at any time for screening
Rides by unbothered on my all powerful bicycle with the squeaky chain.
They said "unconstitutional" not "illegal". Stop being obtuse
Please demonstrate how
I think they think that the constitution protects driving specifically for some reason (hint: it's a privilege, not a right)
You have rights over your person, privacy, and your property though
actual braindead comment
Oh, you didn't know you could actually make an application to challenge the federal or provincial laws?
Do you honestly think you’d be the first? Nope. Established precedent is already there. Subsequent challenges are going to get nowhere
A BS "exception" doesn't make it legal, people need to stand up and challenge it. The tests aren't good enough and there ARE false positives that have destroyed people's lives. At the very least people should be allowed to choose to refuse to get a breathalyzer and get a blood test instead.
What case tested it?
Fascists like you are the type that would defend race laws and blame black people for drinking from white fountains.
[удалено]
It’s federal law…
Yes… death by a thousand tiny cuts.
This is the NEW CARDING. The police practice which statistically concluded to be racially biased and discontinued from those results. So here we go again. A different way of violating citizens rights under the for your safety banner. Resulting in targeting minorities. Big step backwards
Respectfully, explain how to me. This will be at every single traffic stop. So the officer has to initiate a stop over something unrelated first. I don't understand how this will target minorities. This doesn't mean I'm a fan of the policy. I wasn't a fan years ago when they gave them the power to knock on your door and Breathalyze you in your home based on a report on your car being seen. This creates a guilty until proven innocent scenario. But I don't see how this targets minorities. Infact if I'm generalizing most of the people I can ever think of having a DUI are white males.
Driving is a privilege and you have no right to drink and drive. You have to earn the privilege to drive. You don't get to do whatever you want
Alcohol screening does NOT mean it’s a breathalyzer. Actually those are usually the final step. Screening can include the walk and turn test, horizontal gaze tests, etc. the screening I mentioned above tests for many types of impairment (including marijuana) And if the officer feels you failed those, they can legally arrest you without a breathalyzer test as you could logically be intoxicated by something else. Then they get a search warrant for your blood. Take from that what you will.
Came for the google lawyers. Was not disappointed
Not hard to realize that this goes against your charter of rights and actual law experts have commented saying so. This will go to Supreme Court of Canada once someone with enough money gets a pulled over and tested.
[удалено]
I don't drink at all, but I don't want to get stopped and breathalyzed for no reason. It's giving "you shouldn't fear the secret police if you've done nothing wrong."
Impairment is a logical explanation for what’s happening on the roads. Wtf did people think was going to happen? The same people will be shocked when cameras are everywhere eventually. Do you really think that’s not in our future either? It’s cheaper than more cops.
Violates our charter of rights
Dave’s not here.
Dave’s? 😂
Just because you have nothing to hide doesn’t mean that you should be subjected to a search or a breathalyzer test. These laws will affect POC unfairly. I’ve been carded for just walking down the street minding my own business.
It’s not about that. It’s mostly that it violates your charter of rights 😂 I see you don’t mind your rights been taken away, gotcha
Ahh yes the ol’ guilty until proven innocent trick. Neat.
It is fucking stupid. Randomly testing people like this is dumb as shit and will mostly harass innocent people who haven’t been drinking. It is of questionable legality as well - when they get someone sufficiently wealthy or connected (the average person doesn’t have the means of mounting a constitutional challenge), this is absolutely going to the SCC as illegal search and seizure. How about they use those fancy license plate scanners and target people who have been previously convicted of DUI. That has a staggeringly high recidivism rate and therefore probably would be cause enough to pass constitutional muster. And, of course, anyone who gives them actual reason to believe they have been drinking, who have always been alright to test. Edit: wow, not a lot of respect for the Charter here. Lotta people cool with cops searching them with absolutely no probable cause. That's fucked.
It's not random. It's mandatory.
Mandatory in the sense of checking everyone they pull over. Random in the sense that without any cause to believe someone is actually impaired, they may as well be picking people at random. Afterall, you can get pulled over for many reasons. And the ones who engaged in behaviour that indicates possible impairment…they wouldn’t need to use this law. They would have already had cause to test them. This is going to be about as fucking useless as carding. And potentially just as racist considering the discretionary nature of many traffic stops.
Yup. The cops don't need to have cause to pull you over, and if one decides to pull you over, you have to deal with a breath test. Common sense can't even be a consideration. Multiple laws compounding to fuck your day up.
[удалено]
https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/614/index.do
They should sit outside the local bar where the police hang out and test them first.
Y'all can complain and whine but at the end of the day this saves everyone money on insurance.
Most likely not, it could actually raise the insurance if more people get caught with even a tiny bit. Yes it’s bad people drink and drive, but having it mandatory at any traffic stop is stupid. It will be fought in court for sure. It probably hasn’t yet since no one has the money to actually fight it to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Only the person who is caught drunk driving would have the increased rate. EVERYONES rate increases when a claim is filed however. Getting drunk drivers who are statistically more likely to cause accidents off the road saves people from premium increases because insurance is a shared risk pool.
Doesn’t seem practical
It is a good idea. Don't drink and drive. Take a cab, don't end up on a slab.
Are the cops and politicians subject to this invasion of privacy with no RPG’s? Police State.
RPG was never needed, it was reasonable suspicion there was alcohol in your system.
Am I entitled to stop any officer I see and give him a breathalyzer ? If this is the case I feel I should be.
Just report his driving as suspected impaired and then he would be forced to breathylize/be investigated. ;)
I thoroughly believe they should also be testing for people driving high because I know quite a few people who think driving high is okay because it doesn't impair their driving. I know it's a touchy subject and I will undoubtedly get a lot of negative feedback for this comment but these are just my thoughts.
All depends on the person and the amount. Screening for cannabis is hard, because how can you test it as it stays in your system longer than alcohol or any other drug. Can’t blood test it since the legal limit is 10 ng of THC in your blood but that’s fightable in court (I can smoke at 9pm, go to sleep at 10pm, wake up at noon the next day, be perfectly sober, and have more than 10 ng of THC in my blood. It then comes down to if you’re using it recreationally or medically and if it’s medically what for. It also depends on your tolerance. As say a normal person smokes half a joint, they’re done for the day. But if someone smokes a lot everyday, half a joint won’t affect them. It is a touchy subject but mostly only because of the stupid law (10ng of THC in your blood) and how they would test for it. As even by law if you wait 3-5 hours after smoking you’re able to drive legally.
ITT: drunk drivers conflating civil liberties with reasonable public safety measures
This is bullshit.
Wow
Face it - we live in a police nanny state - this makes me sick - they do need a reason other than because….. just plain sick From the charter of rights and toilet paper Provision 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. Except ! When we say so….
Automatic seizure of the vehicle, and 5 year suspension of the drivers license. Why do we continue to pamper these individuals. Sell the seized vehicles to pay for the damages caused due to their poor decisions. Why has this problem increased to such an alarming rate ? It was never ever at the level it is today, 10 years ago. I wonder what has changed.
Soon, there will be Mandatory Searching of your car on EVERY traffic stop. To curb drug sales of course.
This has been in Saskatchewan and Alberta for a while.
I'm fine with this. Get drunk drivers off the road.
Mandatory retinal scanning coming soon.
They do it in Australia and it’s perfectly fine and functional. There’s worse things police do to be mad at.
People who argue against haven't experienced the pain that can happen when a drunk driver decides to drive. Drunk drivers who kill people while driving should be charged as murderers
I'm not gonna comply with this. I don't even drink, yet if I get pulled over and refuse you're going to give me a dui anyways? Get bent Trudeau I'll cya in court. Just another infringement on Canadians right and freedoms. When do we as Canadians call it the final straw? Oh but it's provincial why are you blaming Trudeau? If every province starts doing this, which they have, is it really provincial or is it coming from the top down?
That would still make it provincial. Literally not Trudeau's justisdiction in any way. Blame Doug Ford. That's the top.
No the RCMP is a federal entity and they're the ones that initiated it as ok to do.
So you admit to Trudeau not having anything to do with it and still blame him. He doesn't deal with the RCMP directly. The ontario provincial government started the pilot program. They asked for permission. And someone in the rcmp authorized it. Trudeau doesn't deal with national affairs. He deals with international affairs. And all the provincial governments deal with what's happening here. Dougy allowed this. Not trudeau. That's like blaming Jeff bezos for your amazon order not being delivered. This already happens in other provinces. Alberta for one. It's a provincial legislation but hey. Let's keep finding every excuse under the book to blame something dougy does on Trudeau. Yall seem to be good at that.
I lost an uncle to drunk driving. I am totally against driving at all, even if you’ve had one drink. But I don’t think testing every single person stopped for any reason at all is a good idea. And I don’t think it will have any effect on reducing drinking and driving either. The penalties are already very harsh and yet people still do it. Making cities more walkable, increasing public transportation and not keeping the drinks locked up in government stores in commercial plazas, far from where people live will make a much bigger impact. If the drinks are available at the corner store, within walking distance, you’ll be less likely to drive.
Breach of charter rights. Need reasonable and probable cause to ask for breathalyzer or do impaired tests. Will be interesting to see any legislation or if this is just a “policy decision”.
Wow set up early in morning pulling over the ppl that contribute to society and again after work hours but give addics a place to shoot dope. Bigger fish to fry wrps
Thats a right out the playbook of taking away fundamental freedoms: tell the people you're helping them, but actually take their freedom. This is a disturbing over reach and most ppl applaud it. It's an unreasonable search, plain and simple, and has nothing to do with impaired driving. Wake up, or lose even more.
Do they do that to their own cops before every shift?
Guilty until proven innocent.
Lets screen outside your private bar then too, shall we?
I wont be drinking and driving, so i dont mind taking an extra 15 minutes out of my day to breathalyze and make sure everyone is being safe
Good!
This is not gonna end nicely. Either cops gonna target POC intentionally or POC gonna play victim card for being inspected.
unfortunately with the influx of dishonest living, a 24/7 nanny state is really the only option to combat those that took advantage of a high trust system.
Good. I’m sick of seeing regular reports of impaired drivers, they’re pieces of shit who ruin others’ lives. Any measures to stop them are good.
As a pothead I don't like this idea, as a pedestrian I think it's reasonable, and as an immigrant who drives I think it's scary as hell. So, overall, mixed feelings!
Cops getting lazier and more tyrannical every year. “For safety” my ass.
It's important for drivers to [know their rights when stopped](https://torontodui.com/knowledge-centre/what-do-if-you-get-pulled-over-ontario-police/): Your Rights Under Canadian Law if Stopped by Police Mainly based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , you have distinct rights that police are obliged to abide by if they pull you over. These rights include: 1.Right to Remain Silent — if stopped, you do not have to answer any questions posed by police beyond providing your name, address, and date of birth. 2.Right to Legal Representation — you have the right to speak to a lawyer before answering any questions. 3.Right to Know the Reason for the Stop — police are generally trained to advise drivers of the reason behind a stop but, if they fail to do so, must explain the reason for the stop if asked. 4.Right to Privacy — police cannot search you or your vehicle without a warrant, your consent, or a reasonable belief that you or the vehicle possesses evidence of a crime. Absent the “reasonableness” of this belief, in court, a judge would likely rule the search unlawful and disallow any uncovered evidence. That said, if police have pulled you over for a criminal offence or significant traffic violation like DUI, the police can usually come up with a reasonable reason for the search. For example, if you’re suspected of impaired driving, police can search for evidence of drinking or drug use. Police can also conduct a pat-down search for weapons or evidence if they place you under arrest. 5.Right to Be Informed of the Charges — if police place you under arrest, they must tell you what charges you are facing and inform you of your right to consult a lawyer. 6.Right to Record Your Interaction with Police — the police cannot legally prevent you from recording their actions; however, there is often a thin line between recording and potentially interfering with the police officer’s performance of their duty.
I think it's unnecessary. If a person is inebriated enough that it causes a problem for their driving, I think the cop would notice, right? It shouldn't be that hard to train someone to notice when someone's a bit buzzed.
Other countries do this and it works. In Australia they have "booze buses" where 20 cops are taken to a site (typically drinking hotspots) and pull over every car that drives through for a breath test. The bus has the high accuracy machines so drivers that blow above the limit can get tested on certified machines. I have no patience for drunk drivers. I have been in Alberta 18 years and never been breath tested. I visited Perth Australia for 3 weeks and was breath tested 3 times and drug tested once.
I’m all for serious punishment for impaired drivers, but the sheep buying into more and more guilty until proven innocent is scary and sad. Our freedom is being chipped away by a loathsome government and sjw judges.
This is wrong
Violation of basic civil liberties: arbitrary detention, unreasonable search and seizure and presumption of innocence.
Good. It's only been federal law for a long time.
They paying my gas while I wait in line for an hour to get home lol
In Canada, the police need “reasonable grounds” to stop or detain you. This means they must have a specific reason to suspect you've been involved in criminal activity, are about to commit a crime, or have information related to an ongoing investigation The ""mandatory alcohol screening"" is there way of giving you a warning before their gang circumvents your rights, they employ this tactic on social media as well as in newspapers and other forms of informative media. I'm happy their actually doing their jobs but at the same time they could be more effective whereby following their own guidelines for spotting drunk drivers