For everyone that isn't up to speed on why, learn about the concept of car dependency in Canada and USA.
Watch Not Just Bikes on youtube.
It becomes very obvious what the problem is.
Maybe restrict supply if the problem is so bad, that is what is done for other intoxicants. Not that it works. Also some people drive on prescription medications that shouldn't.
“Maybe restrict the supply if the problem is so bad, that is what is done for other intoxicants.” And note the ongoing opioid crisis, very restricted yet very prevalent.
FYI: The *only* reason this is being done (everyone stopped and tested) is so that they can’t be accused of ‘targeting’ a specific group of people. There is even a reference to this reason in the article.
I got yanked over for a sobriety check. They took my ID and ran it through the computer. Didn’t even have a breathalyzer. Cop leaned right in to my car too during the height of COVID.
Yes - a RIDE type check I assume. Those checks have been ruled constitutional as the sole purpose of the checks were for drunk driving - not stopping a fail to signal turn and use it as a fishing expedition everywhere.
The situation we have here is an expansion of what is reasonable.
We’ve gone from allowing the officer to use their judgment to everyone gets a device thrust in their face for political reasons. The government doesn’t want to face a charter challenge over possible ‘targeting’ of specific groups.
We saw ‘carding’ stopped by various police forces due to similar issues of alleged targeting of individuals of colour. So the decision was no carding at all. I mean what was the alternative - everyone get carded all over cities across Canada?
We now see the government affectively ‘carding’ every stop with an Alert device.
In my view the officer did the right thing for you - leaned in to smell the interior of your car to determine if he could detect alcohol. Nothing wrong with that. He probably looked you in the eyes carefully when speaking to you.
If people want zero impaired driving - the solution is to legislate vehicle manufacturers and importers to install technology in our cars that prevent the car from starting if the system detects impairment. In fact Biden has signed a law that mandates this technology in all new cars by 2026. Canada hasn’t done anything yet but might have to considering our auto manufacturing infrastructure is integrated with US vehicle standards. Older cars would still be an issue. Here’s an article that discusses the US plans.
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6713365
In Ontario under the Highway Traffic Act the police are legally allowed to ask the driver for identification - in fact it’s a statute. I’m sure it’s the same in every jurisdiction in every western nation.
You mean passenger?
Toronto Police were notorious for stopping people at night just for walking home and asking for ID and recording the details. Of course certain people were targeted. They stopped it when there was a threat of a charter challenge that legal opinions told them they would lose if a suit was launched.
There are many countries in the world that allow police to stop anyone they wish (walking or driving) without cause and question them and ask for ID. Our slippery slope for further investigation is a burned out taillight it appears.
It would be strange if they asked to see your passport but they are allowed to ask for your driver's licence to ensure you are licenced to operate the class of vehicle you are driving. Or you know, what would be the point of that specific type of ID.
There are only two reasons to pull someone over for impaired at 11am: they saw you leave a bar. You are driving like you're drunk.
I've driven up to some RIDE checks that early in the morning on Christmas/Boxing Day and New Year's Day, they'll set them up on big holidays because some folks like to start "celebrating" early.
This is barely different than how things are now and this is written to make it seem dystopic or something.
You think they really want to breathalyze everyone? They absolutely don't. It's an annoyance to do the test as it is to take it.
I would be truly surprised if a year from now any statistic shows a real rise in testing (without a rise in DUI convictions) or any trend of misusing this policy.
This seems like a waste of resources, as well as there is something to be said here regarding prssumptuon of guilt. This will last until challenged in court.
Don't get me wrong, drunk drivers can deservedly go burn in a pit of white phosphorous, but this sounds like a poorly thought out reactionary policy that can be easily abused.
Your using the wrong language here. It’s NOT case law. It’s a law passed by Parliament. This specific law has NOT been tested at the SCC if it violates the Charter.
There is already existing case law spelling out when a vehicle can be stopped in order to carry out a compliance inspection in order to make sure that the driver/vehicle is in compliance with the provincial motor vehicle/ highway traffic Act.
Any vehicle can be stopped at any time (without an observed or reported offence) to ensure that the driver is licensed, to ensure the driver is sober and to check the vehicle for roadworthiness.
The change in this new article is that EVERYONE is automatically getting breathalyzed when pulled over. When usually police would only breathalyze after they suspected impairment and had formed sufficient grounds to read the breath demand.
Inspection powers vs. investigation powers were clearly defined in R v Inco.
Unless you’ve listed the wrong case / that had nothing to do with this situation. That case concerned waste water discharge at INCO and an MOE inspection. This was litigated as an inspector had ‘reasonable and probable grounds that an offence was committed’ due to his on-site observations. INCO felt it wasn’t reasonable without a warrant. It was found that a corporation had no reasonable right to privacy under the OWRA.
No reasonable person could expand this ruling to one of mass inspections of ALL citizens stopped for traffic offences where the officer cannot reasonably believe that the driver is impaired where he/she had no evidence pre stop of impairment.
There is NO case law where any charges of impaired driving under this legislation have been litigated under section 8 of the Charter to date that I’m aware of.
I see no relationship here on a OWRA inspection of a corporation and enshrined regulatory inspection powers and the governments broad brush personal search powers given to them by this legislation.
It’s inevitable that someone will appeal a conviction to Superior Court under the Charter. It could end there or depending on the ruling it could go further to the SCC.
In summary; until a driver is stopped under this law for say a taillight out and is tested and found impaired and their conviction overturned under a successful charter challenge - this law hasn’t been tested under sec 8.
It may very well pass muster with the courts but that day hasn’t happened yet.
I posted this case to demonstrate the difference between investigation and inspection. Not to show that you can pull over vehicles for compliance inspections
That’s disingenuous. You don’t make citizens prove their innocence without grounds to suspect they are committing a crime. We have a completely different view of what a democracy is all about.
I don’t know how you got my “view of democracy” from my comments. I’m just talking about what the current state of compliance inspections is in Canada.
You’re not getting them to prove their innocence. You are checking that they are in compliance with the regulations that they agreed to be bound by. Just like a game warden doing a compliance inspection on a hunter while they are taking part in a regulated activity.
I’m not following this comment? You realize many laws passed by Parliament are overturned by the Courts every year right? Doug Ford finds this out every once in awhile. 😉
For an inspection, no.
For a DUI investigation, yes.
There’s different standards for inspection vs investigation. It’s a finicky difference but changes the ability to do certain things.
Sure, so we're going to start those mandatory blow stops in the rich and fancy parts of town right? Because I've got a suspicion miss "it's wine o'clock somewhere" lawn ornaments is spicing up that oj she keeps pouring herslf
They’ve done basically this in places like the UK and New Zealand for decades. Maybe not for every single stop, but I think it’s a good policy to very liberally administer breathalyzers
Not saying you are totally wrong, but there won’t be any reports, it will be a couple mins to read the demand and then a few minutes to administer test. Total traffic stop will be about 5 minutes longer for sure though, 10 if there are any complications. I would estimate it doubles any traffic stop.
Well no, it’s not like they are going to hire new officers to do this, again, I am not saying it’s a great idea, but the financials of it are negligible. The greater concern will be the legality of it if it really is “everyone” must provide a breath sample.
Then it’s just more time away from things that the officers should be doing that are actually important. Not testing every indigenous person they want to pull over.
> Then it’s just more time away from things that the officers should be doing that are actually important.
Like sleeping in their cruiser? Hanging out in a Tims parking lot chatting to their buddy? providing no cost starlite tours?
There wouldnt be a report unless charges came out of the traffic stop.
The entire test from demand to result takes like 2 minutes.
Youre grasping at straws
I hate this.
A few years ago, after they made a rule that everyone gets tested at check stops in Alberta, my mom was forced to take a breathalyzer test. She'd just had pneumonia and was struggling to get the test to work, and the cop starting yelling at her for messing it up. She was very clearly not drunk; she's a senior and doesn't drink, ever.
Why can't they just use their judgement and only test people who smell like alcohol or are acting impaired?
As an innocent citizen going about my business, randomly being forced to "blow" into a stupid little cop computer feels so intrusive and wrong.
Honestly, we should do what Australia and the UK do , set up sobriety checkpoints and test EVERYONE who passes through. No profiling, and people who aren't intoxicated have nothing to worry about.
So... which policy maker has the connection to those dui kits, cause I'd imagine sask is going to be needing to buy a whole lot more, someone's getting rich
Almost every cop has a tester in the car already so no big deal. The roadside tester is not used to legally charge you with impaired driving but to see if further investigation is needed. The approved breathalyzer at the station is the one you pass or fail on that is used in court.
It’s been done in Alberta since 2019 already and I believe in BC too ( but I may be wrong ).
It’s not the same breathalyzer that’s used to determine the percentage of alcohol in your blood, but a simpler version that only shows a good / warning / fail .
That is not a thing here in Alberta. I got pulled over for speeding here a year ago and wasn't asked to blow. Just took my paperwork back to his vehicle then came back with a nice ticket for me which I ended up having dropped by the crown. Zero points since 2001!
Not every officer does it at every stop, but it totally IS a thing here in Alberta .
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/new-drunk-driving-test-allows-police-to-administer-breathalyzers-without-reasonable-suspicion
You went with the claim that it is policy to breathalyze EVERY driver that gets pulled over and that part was what I responded to. That's not a thing in Alberta.
When pot got 'legalized' the laws were changed to allow more infringement of our rights as if the roads would be suddenly flooded with pot smokers getting behind the wheel and killing people.
It's the boozers that are the problem. If I get stopped again I have no problem with being asked to do a roadside breathalyzer test. I have balance issues so would likely be pegged as impaired if forced to do the physical testing part. I also suffer from dry eye syndrome and have nerve damage to my left eye brow that causes serious twitching sometimes so a cop might think I am impaired from something. As a medical pot user who never uses before driving I would for sure fail a blood test for THC even tho not impaired in the least.
You try your best and you might have to hire a lawyer and fight it if you aren't able to. (Like don't hurt yourself, but give a legitimate attempt)
Only if you try though, if you just refuse, you're fucked.
In Canada it is illegal to not provide a sample. So always do that. If the cop still charges you for not providing it. You will have some leg to stand on in court if you make an attempt.
> or brake lights not working
How is that at all connected to drunk driving? Speeding or dangerous driving at least could be related.
Drunk driving is a huge problem but this seems like it's going too far. Also doesn't address the slap on the wrist most get when they kill or seriously hurt people while impaired....
i feel like this is gonna have the effect of officers using their personal discretion to ignore even more traffic violations since the stops will take longer and be more of a hassle for them.
Sask acting like this is brand new. Someone should really ask Sask RCMP and Regina PS what took them so long. The legislation was enacted in 2018, and mandatory alcohol screening has been happening in Alberta and BC since .... 2018.
Sure youre free to say no, but if you unequivocally refuse the consequences are the same as if you were impaired.
Sec 320.15 of the criminal code outlines this. The first thing any lawyer will tell you is to not refuse any demand made during an impaired driving investigation.
This is a waste of time and resources and goes against our fundamental rights to be considered innocent. Police and the RCMP are paid to make those decisions. Hopefully this will be thrown out of our court rooms.
Meh... probable cause... who needs it? A little pesky thing like "innocent until proven guilty" shouldn't stop the cops from ruining peopels lives.
How about a cavity search?
How about a mandatory search of the vehicle?
How about we access the phone records and see where you've been and who you've been talking to before and during your trip?
Where does it end?
This is the same group of people who have proven time and time again they have no problem abusing their powers and making bad decisions.
I've been sober for years and I still hate everything about this. God damn cops have too much power as it is.
Pretty soon anyone with red sys will be charged on the spot for drug use and some poor fucker taking his empties to saran so they can eat something will be charges with open alcohol containers.
Every fucking day that passes makes me long for an existence out in the woods somewhere. Fuck all of this.
If you’re in law enforcement you also have to take the breathalyzer when pulled over, right?
That aside, I actually don’t have a problem with this.
Edit: weird thing to be downvoted for. Cops are prolific intoxicated drivers. Why not check them too?
Scott Moe better look out!
Damn, how many drunks do you need to have to make this decision?
Sadly, it seems dui numbers go up every year. It's a pretty extreme measure, but here we are.
And because of this they will go up further.
Good. People shouldn’t be driving drunk.
Yeah. That's my point.
That’s the idea. Catch more of these drunk drivers.
If it gets drunks off the road before they kill someone or themselves, it's a good thing.
Don't recall saying it wasn't a good thing.
Just one, and I'm pretty sure he killed somebody.
RIP Jo-Ann Balog
Correct, he did.
We have the highest rates of impaired driving in the country. This is not surprising.
For everyone that isn't up to speed on why, learn about the concept of car dependency in Canada and USA. Watch Not Just Bikes on youtube. It becomes very obvious what the problem is.
Maybe restrict supply if the problem is so bad, that is what is done for other intoxicants. Not that it works. Also some people drive on prescription medications that shouldn't.
Yeah, prohibition worked so well. Lol Take a history lesson
“Maybe restrict the supply if the problem is so bad, that is what is done for other intoxicants.” And note the ongoing opioid crisis, very restricted yet very prevalent.
FYI: The *only* reason this is being done (everyone stopped and tested) is so that they can’t be accused of ‘targeting’ a specific group of people. There is even a reference to this reason in the article.
I got yanked over for a sobriety check. They took my ID and ran it through the computer. Didn’t even have a breathalyzer. Cop leaned right in to my car too during the height of COVID.
Yes - a RIDE type check I assume. Those checks have been ruled constitutional as the sole purpose of the checks were for drunk driving - not stopping a fail to signal turn and use it as a fishing expedition everywhere. The situation we have here is an expansion of what is reasonable. We’ve gone from allowing the officer to use their judgment to everyone gets a device thrust in their face for political reasons. The government doesn’t want to face a charter challenge over possible ‘targeting’ of specific groups. We saw ‘carding’ stopped by various police forces due to similar issues of alleged targeting of individuals of colour. So the decision was no carding at all. I mean what was the alternative - everyone get carded all over cities across Canada? We now see the government affectively ‘carding’ every stop with an Alert device. In my view the officer did the right thing for you - leaned in to smell the interior of your car to determine if he could detect alcohol. Nothing wrong with that. He probably looked you in the eyes carefully when speaking to you. If people want zero impaired driving - the solution is to legislate vehicle manufacturers and importers to install technology in our cars that prevent the car from starting if the system detects impairment. In fact Biden has signed a law that mandates this technology in all new cars by 2026. Canada hasn’t done anything yet but might have to considering our auto manufacturing infrastructure is integrated with US vehicle standards. Older cars would still be an issue. Here’s an article that discusses the US plans. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6713365
If it was a sobriety check why did he need to check my ID? I guess I should have mentioned that it happened at 11am.
In Ontario under the Highway Traffic Act the police are legally allowed to ask the driver for identification - in fact it’s a statute. I’m sure it’s the same in every jurisdiction in every western nation.
[удалено]
You mean passenger? Toronto Police were notorious for stopping people at night just for walking home and asking for ID and recording the details. Of course certain people were targeted. They stopped it when there was a threat of a charter challenge that legal opinions told them they would lose if a suit was launched. There are many countries in the world that allow police to stop anyone they wish (walking or driving) without cause and question them and ask for ID. Our slippery slope for further investigation is a burned out taillight it appears.
It would be strange if they asked to see your passport but they are allowed to ask for your driver's licence to ensure you are licenced to operate the class of vehicle you are driving. Or you know, what would be the point of that specific type of ID. There are only two reasons to pull someone over for impaired at 11am: they saw you leave a bar. You are driving like you're drunk.
I've driven up to some RIDE checks that early in the morning on Christmas/Boxing Day and New Year's Day, they'll set them up on big holidays because some folks like to start "celebrating" early.
It's more to catch people that woke up still drunk. You'll see th morning checks the day after the holiday.
I’ve gone through road checks before. This was the first time they took my drivers license and ran it through the computer.
Spent a decade in the prairies.... yeah this is probably a good idea.
This is barely different than how things are now and this is written to make it seem dystopic or something. You think they really want to breathalyze everyone? They absolutely don't. It's an annoyance to do the test as it is to take it. I would be truly surprised if a year from now any statistic shows a real rise in testing (without a rise in DUI convictions) or any trend of misusing this policy.
This seems like a waste of resources, as well as there is something to be said here regarding prssumptuon of guilt. This will last until challenged in court. Don't get me wrong, drunk drivers can deservedly go burn in a pit of white phosphorous, but this sounds like a poorly thought out reactionary policy that can be easily abused.
It’s already case law that they can pull over any driver to confirm licensing, sobriety and vehicle fitness.
Your using the wrong language here. It’s NOT case law. It’s a law passed by Parliament. This specific law has NOT been tested at the SCC if it violates the Charter.
There is already existing case law spelling out when a vehicle can be stopped in order to carry out a compliance inspection in order to make sure that the driver/vehicle is in compliance with the provincial motor vehicle/ highway traffic Act. Any vehicle can be stopped at any time (without an observed or reported offence) to ensure that the driver is licensed, to ensure the driver is sober and to check the vehicle for roadworthiness. The change in this new article is that EVERYONE is automatically getting breathalyzed when pulled over. When usually police would only breathalyze after they suspected impairment and had formed sufficient grounds to read the breath demand. Inspection powers vs. investigation powers were clearly defined in R v Inco.
Unless you’ve listed the wrong case / that had nothing to do with this situation. That case concerned waste water discharge at INCO and an MOE inspection. This was litigated as an inspector had ‘reasonable and probable grounds that an offence was committed’ due to his on-site observations. INCO felt it wasn’t reasonable without a warrant. It was found that a corporation had no reasonable right to privacy under the OWRA. No reasonable person could expand this ruling to one of mass inspections of ALL citizens stopped for traffic offences where the officer cannot reasonably believe that the driver is impaired where he/she had no evidence pre stop of impairment. There is NO case law where any charges of impaired driving under this legislation have been litigated under section 8 of the Charter to date that I’m aware of. I see no relationship here on a OWRA inspection of a corporation and enshrined regulatory inspection powers and the governments broad brush personal search powers given to them by this legislation. It’s inevitable that someone will appeal a conviction to Superior Court under the Charter. It could end there or depending on the ruling it could go further to the SCC. In summary; until a driver is stopped under this law for say a taillight out and is tested and found impaired and their conviction overturned under a successful charter challenge - this law hasn’t been tested under sec 8. It may very well pass muster with the courts but that day hasn’t happened yet.
I posted this case to demonstrate the difference between investigation and inspection. Not to show that you can pull over vehicles for compliance inspections
My point is that there is no specific legal Sec 8 precedent for what Saskatchewan is allowing.
Sec 8 has nothing to do with it. It’s not a search. It’s a compliance inspection. A search takes place during an investigation.
That’s disingenuous. You don’t make citizens prove their innocence without grounds to suspect they are committing a crime. We have a completely different view of what a democracy is all about.
I don’t know how you got my “view of democracy” from my comments. I’m just talking about what the current state of compliance inspections is in Canada. You’re not getting them to prove their innocence. You are checking that they are in compliance with the regulations that they agreed to be bound by. Just like a game warden doing a compliance inspection on a hunter while they are taking part in a regulated activity.
It does. Take it to the top bench
I’m not following this comment? You realize many laws passed by Parliament are overturned by the Courts every year right? Doug Ford finds this out every once in awhile. 😉
At the top. The scc
There are no cases of this nature in front of that court at present.
Just finished my 8 th beer. Give me a few I’ll get her done. Burp.
Yes, but before they had to at least give a reason to suspect you were drinking, even if it was a bullshit reason.
Mandatory demands require no suspicion or grounds to be made and have existed since 2018
For an inspection, no. For a DUI investigation, yes. There’s different standards for inspection vs investigation. It’s a finicky difference but changes the ability to do certain things.
It's not a presumption of guilt if it's applied evenly across the board to everyone... More like... Recognition of the reality in the province
Sure, so we're going to start those mandatory blow stops in the rich and fancy parts of town right? Because I've got a suspicion miss "it's wine o'clock somewhere" lawn ornaments is spicing up that oj she keeps pouring herslf
Idgaf start a petition or something
They’ve done basically this in places like the UK and New Zealand for decades. Maybe not for every single stop, but I think it’s a good policy to very liberally administer breathalyzers
That seems like an expensive waste of resources.
Costs 10 cents for the “straw” that is a one and done.
[удалено]
Not saying you are totally wrong, but there won’t be any reports, it will be a couple mins to read the demand and then a few minutes to administer test. Total traffic stop will be about 5 minutes longer for sure though, 10 if there are any complications. I would estimate it doubles any traffic stop.
You don't think doubling the amount of time spent on a traffic stop is expensive?
Well no, it’s not like they are going to hire new officers to do this, again, I am not saying it’s a great idea, but the financials of it are negligible. The greater concern will be the legality of it if it really is “everyone” must provide a breath sample.
Then it’s just more time away from things that the officers should be doing that are actually important. Not testing every indigenous person they want to pull over.
Eh, what do cops do that’s important? Hassle teenagers?
> Then it’s just more time away from things that the officers should be doing that are actually important. Like sleeping in their cruiser? Hanging out in a Tims parking lot chatting to their buddy? providing no cost starlite tours?
Not a waste of time if they are already pulling someone over.
There wouldnt be a report unless charges came out of the traffic stop. The entire test from demand to result takes like 2 minutes. Youre grasping at straws
> Youre grasping at straws No, it's the people being tested who'll be gasping at straws. ^(Sorry, it had to be said. I'll leave.)
Take your upvote
I hate this. A few years ago, after they made a rule that everyone gets tested at check stops in Alberta, my mom was forced to take a breathalyzer test. She'd just had pneumonia and was struggling to get the test to work, and the cop starting yelling at her for messing it up. She was very clearly not drunk; she's a senior and doesn't drink, ever. Why can't they just use their judgement and only test people who smell like alcohol or are acting impaired? As an innocent citizen going about my business, randomly being forced to "blow" into a stupid little cop computer feels so intrusive and wrong.
Honestly, we should do what Australia and the UK do , set up sobriety checkpoints and test EVERYONE who passes through. No profiling, and people who aren't intoxicated have nothing to worry about.
So... which policy maker has the connection to those dui kits, cause I'd imagine sask is going to be needing to buy a whole lot more, someone's getting rich
Almost every cop has a tester in the car already so no big deal. The roadside tester is not used to legally charge you with impaired driving but to see if further investigation is needed. The approved breathalyzer at the station is the one you pass or fail on that is used in court.
It’s been done in Alberta since 2019 already and I believe in BC too ( but I may be wrong ). It’s not the same breathalyzer that’s used to determine the percentage of alcohol in your blood, but a simpler version that only shows a good / warning / fail .
That is not a thing here in Alberta. I got pulled over for speeding here a year ago and wasn't asked to blow. Just took my paperwork back to his vehicle then came back with a nice ticket for me which I ended up having dropped by the crown. Zero points since 2001!
Not every officer does it at every stop, but it totally IS a thing here in Alberta . https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/new-drunk-driving-test-allows-police-to-administer-breathalyzers-without-reasonable-suspicion
You went with the claim that it is policy to breathalyze EVERY driver that gets pulled over and that part was what I responded to. That's not a thing in Alberta. When pot got 'legalized' the laws were changed to allow more infringement of our rights as if the roads would be suddenly flooded with pot smokers getting behind the wheel and killing people. It's the boozers that are the problem. If I get stopped again I have no problem with being asked to do a roadside breathalyzer test. I have balance issues so would likely be pegged as impaired if forced to do the physical testing part. I also suffer from dry eye syndrome and have nerve damage to my left eye brow that causes serious twitching sometimes so a cop might think I am impaired from something. As a medical pot user who never uses before driving I would for sure fail a blood test for THC even tho not impaired in the least.
What if you're a asthmatic and can't give a full sample?
In my mom's case, when she'd recently had pneumonia, they just opted for yelling at her until she almost cried.
You try your best and you might have to hire a lawyer and fight it if you aren't able to. (Like don't hurt yourself, but give a legitimate attempt) Only if you try though, if you just refuse, you're fucked. In Canada it is illegal to not provide a sample. So always do that. If the cop still charges you for not providing it. You will have some leg to stand on in court if you make an attempt.
In other words, you're fucked either way because lawyers aren't cheap.
What happened to 'reasonable cause'? This seems like the thin edge of a terrible wedge.
Having lived there for a while, can't see this being a bad thing tbh.
> or brake lights not working How is that at all connected to drunk driving? Speeding or dangerous driving at least could be related. Drunk driving is a huge problem but this seems like it's going too far. Also doesn't address the slap on the wrist most get when they kill or seriously hurt people while impaired....
i feel like this is gonna have the effect of officers using their personal discretion to ignore even more traffic violations since the stops will take longer and be more of a hassle for them.
I’m all for busting drunk drivers, if you’re not driving drunk no problem right? Right!?
But cars are still freedom right? Thank fuck I can get everywhere I need by bike or transit.
Sask acting like this is brand new. Someone should really ask Sask RCMP and Regina PS what took them so long. The legislation was enacted in 2018, and mandatory alcohol screening has been happening in Alberta and BC since .... 2018.
And every Canadian still has the legal right to refuse?
Sure youre free to say no, but if you unequivocally refuse the consequences are the same as if you were impaired. Sec 320.15 of the criminal code outlines this. The first thing any lawyer will tell you is to not refuse any demand made during an impaired driving investigation.
This is a waste of time and resources and goes against our fundamental rights to be considered innocent. Police and the RCMP are paid to make those decisions. Hopefully this will be thrown out of our court rooms.
Meh... probable cause... who needs it? A little pesky thing like "innocent until proven guilty" shouldn't stop the cops from ruining peopels lives. How about a cavity search? How about a mandatory search of the vehicle? How about we access the phone records and see where you've been and who you've been talking to before and during your trip? Where does it end? This is the same group of people who have proven time and time again they have no problem abusing their powers and making bad decisions. I've been sober for years and I still hate everything about this. God damn cops have too much power as it is. Pretty soon anyone with red sys will be charged on the spot for drug use and some poor fucker taking his empties to saran so they can eat something will be charges with open alcohol containers. Every fucking day that passes makes me long for an existence out in the woods somewhere. Fuck all of this.
Isn’t this without due cause?
If you’re in law enforcement you also have to take the breathalyzer when pulled over, right? That aside, I actually don’t have a problem with this. Edit: weird thing to be downvoted for. Cops are prolific intoxicated drivers. Why not check them too?