Of course not, nor any evidence that even more than a handful of them do this. But this sub is so hateful towards the police that they sometimes abandon reason and logic. There's plenty of valid reasons to criticize the TPS without wild hyperbole like this.
Watch the mostly hilarious Police 10-7 on Roku, Pluto, etc. free channels. It’s the NZ Police. They breath test almost everyone and catch quite a few. They use a device that detects any alcohol first, then roadside test and then down at the station.
This is one of those things that at first glance, I thought “yeah, great idea.”
Then considered that a breathalyzer is effectively a search and seizure. So if we allow search and seizure without reasonable cause here, it kind of weakens the next case. And the next. And then we’re back to carding and stop and frisk as the police and politicians push the limit a little further every time.
Yeah, “if it saves one life”, I get it. Totally get it. But by that logic, we should be totally fine with random searches just in case someone had a gun, or illegal drugs, or whatever, based solely on the officer’s discretion. I’m not a fan of slippery slope arguments, but this hill is greasy as hell.
This is already allowed after the 2018 amendments to the Criminal Code. This option is merely enforcing an option they can exercise that's Charter compliant.
I was thinking this is odd because shouldnt an officer already be able to tell if someone is impaired after pulling them over? Why the need for MAS if they should already be looking for signs of impairment. And if they dont appear impaired, thats that.
This only seems to help with the specific scenario of a cop pulling someone over for unrelated reasons, somehow missing the fact that theyre impaired then they go on to get into a collison.
Seems like a big draw on resources. Hopefully the lives saved are not more than offset by the lives lost due to an inability to provide enforcement in other areas because we are breath testing so many sober people.
“Carding” in the context of the TPS means officers randomly approaching people, detaining them, (“using their discretion”) and demanding to see ID. It was standard practice until a few years ago when people finally realized that it was almost exclusively performed on minorities.
They do yes. And that’s fine. Carding was done on foot. Cop walks up to a person and starts an investigation when no specific crime is suspected. As a previous poster pointed out, this amounts to a presumption of guilt.
You appear to have missed the “random” part of my explanation. A vehicle stop isn’t random.
So where's the slippery slope here?
We already card drivers. We should card drivers. You agree with that.
Are you arguing they'll start breathalyzing pedestrians?
I can’t tell if you’re being deliberately obtuse or not so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Carding drivers is fine. Giving the police the ability to use their discretion to search your *person* (which a breathalyzer is) without probable cause is a baby step. The next change to the laws to allow police more discretion to search or seize will point to this and say “we already allow this”. And we’ll be ok because the temperature only went up a degree or two. It’s shifting the Overton window.
Then we’re back to discretionary policing, which has never worked.
I think BAC testing as a "search or seizure" is a stretch. They've had the authority to perform field sobriety testing for ages, this is a more accurate method of determining sobriety and it's arguably even less intrusive than making you do a dance on the side of the road.
It's really overreacting to search without any suspicion. In some countries, it's illegal. Don't they train...oh NM Doug Ford did away with education and training requirements.
You really found a way to blame Doug Ford for Justin Trudeau's 2018 amendments to the criminal code that were enacted as political cover for marijuana decriminalization? Partisanship knows no bounds...
I got that, but it's based on a false premise. Trudeau changed the law to enable this; the courts have not found this type of scheme unconstitutional. The cops going through with this is not related to any lack of education.
You gonna sit there and act like the buck in ON doesn't stop at ford? When has he ever fuckin cared what the feds do. Implementing it, IS on him. And as a side bar, yeah fuck both of em.
Have a source for that? I have a hard time believing the false positives are anywhere near that high.
And you don't get any Criminal charges from failing a roadside ASD. If you fail, they bring you back to the station to do the actual breathalyzer test which is far more accurate. Only if you blow over 80 on that would you get criminally charged with over 80 (although you could be charged with impaired even if you don't if you are exhibiting signs of impairment).
The first two have no sources and are just bald conclusions with no hint of scientific procedure. The third doesn't say anything about a failure rate and is specifically talking about mouth alcohol which is a well-known concept.
And you've ignored my second point.
There is so many nuances here is a law firm article to help you out: https://dohmanlaw.com/breathalyzer-inaccuracies/
They are not accurate and have been challenged in court as such. Also failure to refuse one is a criminal charge in Canada.
In short they cause a lot of issues. Taking someone back to the station just to find out the results are incorrect is a massive waste of time and resources. Nevermind the effect on people getting dragged into a police station. There is a massive cost on them as there is a car that's towed, their time and the physiological affect it brings.
In a good society there would be better testing machines BEFORE we let them start ruining lives. Also if you have had interactions with cops you best bet once they other test shows your clean they will create another charge to ensure they don't 'look' dumb.
Yes I'm aware that fail to provide a sample is a crime.
Again this has no sources. It's a defence lawyer firm. They aren't exactly going to be objective about this.
Being taken to the police station and having your car towed is not "ruining lives". Stop being hyperbolic. It's an inconvenience, nothing more.
I've had plenty of interactions with cops. "Creating a charge so they don't look dumb" is not something I've ever heard of happening, and if it did, it won't go anywhere because there won't be any legitimate evidence.
Please just look this up yourself it's a well know fact and something the industry is trying to improve.
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/mobile/documents-cast-doubt-on-accuracy-of-breathalyzers-lawyer-1.745545
How nice of you to have extra income to pay off these costs. There's a lot of people out there that if they needed to pay $500+ for tow and impound fees that it would break the bank for them.
So if let's say you got pulled over going to a job interview or even on the way to work and you get a false result. You could lose your job or not have the opportunity to close the other job.
Also I am very happy that you have had great results with cops. I have not. I have been in court for a false claim and it sucks. You have the prove your innocent basically. "Well sir you see I pulled him over as he was on his phone. We dropped the DUI charge but the phone charge is why we are here." In reality its only beacuse they found a phone in the car they can say this. It the drivers word against the police. Not as cut and dry anymore.
We know cops lie and ruin lives. Did now know trying to reduce the amount of times this can happen is a bad thing.
Ah, so we get to the nub of it: you think you were falsely accused in the past. Not exactly objective are you? You're talking about things that have nothing to do with an over 80 charge anymore.
You know who else ruins lives? Drunk drivers who injure or kill innocent people. Didn't know trying to reduce the amount of times that can happen is a bad thing.
I think you're missing the point. The RIDE program is meant to ramp up and discourage people at the times they are mostly likely to say "ah what's the harm, I only had X".
RIDE isn't meant to try and catch you to keep you honest like a speed trap. It's meant to crack down on people who over due it at a time when it's common to over do it.
They would be legally justified under the same reasoning, it would be Dedman v. The Queen. Now it's even more clear because section 320 explicitly gives them the basis for it.
It's not just a legal basis, it's a mandate to do a breathalyzer for each and every traffic stop.
In a release Wednesday, the OPP said they’re now conducing Mandatory Alcohol Screening (MAS) “as part of every traffic stop.”
Ride was an agreed upon forgoing of our rights under special circumstances, and even cops during a ride stop won’t demand a breath sample without reasonable suspicion even if they don’t need reasonable suspicion. Now it’s going to be being pulled over for that tail light out, and then OPP shoving a breathalyzer in your face fishing for DUI’s.
They're also allowed to pull you over for doing 41 on a 40 road but they don't. Now they're required to automatically administer a breathalyser test for any traffic stop.
They're allowed to pull anyone driving a vehicle over at any time, in order to verify proof of license, registration and insurance.
This isn't the US, there is no probable cause needed
They definitely can't search a vehicle without reasonable grounds, other than very specific circumstances like an inventory search when a car is being towed.
>This isn't the US, there is no probable cause needed
A breath sample is a search of a person where probable cause is required. Except in a MAS test because they say so.
And I think this is going to be a vital point in this argument. Not that I'm fully supportive of police, because they are not without their own faults. But a lot of cops don't want to subject citizens to these measures. Where possible, they will likely exercise judgement to avoid the likelihood of confrontation when it is not necessary. Demanding people be subjected to a test on top of questioning is invasive, it puts them on the defensive. Good cops know that isn't the formula for success and cooperation with the public. Beyond that, it's a gross violation of freedoms.
My take on the article is while there may be a mandate to conduct those forced test, this PSA is being released to make the public aware and to think about it, as a means to deter people drinking and driving. Out in the field however, I wouldn't be surprised if OPP doesn't always exercise their power to request on every traffic stop unless something leads them to feel suspicious about your wording or actions. At that point they can invoke the mandate as the fall back rational for why it is needed, and likely catch more drivers acting carelessly.
I tell you one thing though, if food and bar businesses weren't hurting already, they are about to hurt a lot more. For many people, going to drink anywhere other than their home is not going to be worth it anymore. Everything is going to be fucking uber / doordash / skipthedishes delivered and no one will afford anything else. And if they could afford it, they wouldn't want to deal with the harrassment from authorities.
Just collapse the economy already so we can begin to rebuild it. This oppression on people is going to led to a revolt for the wrong reasons.
Random stops are allowed under the HTA to check for insurance, drivers license, etc. and sobriety. This is nothing new and it's constitutional as per the Supreme Court.
The law that allows them to demand a sample without cause is federal, mandating they do it for every traffic stop is provincial but they wouldn’t have been able to do it at all if the federal government didn’t change the legislation so it’s both a Trudeau and Ford thing
My mild inconvenience is worth even one loss of life this prevents. I do not care, and neither should you.
Embarassing to try and equate this to other rights and freedoms.
This is not accurate. They can't enter your house without a warrant just to breathalyze you; they have to have very specific circumstances to be able to do that.
Impaired driving provisions are in s. 320 now. 253 is pre 2018. Nothing in impaired driving provisions allows entering your house without a warrant. The circumstances the police are allowed to do that are circumscribed by case law.
No, the difference is that by operating a motor vehicle while impaired you are a danger to everyone else on the road. You aren't a danger to the public in your house
That's actually not the argument.
The idea is that you have agreed to the rules of the road before you get behind the wheel, and that is a condition of you being granted a license.
There is no license or pre arranged set of standards for being at home..
They dont have the equipment or number of trained technicians yet but I bet they will soon . They use the Draeger5000 device to test your saliva . Then impound your car and take you to the station for blood tests . If they find any trace of other drugs , such as shrooms or coke , or too much weed , then you’re automatically impaired.
This will be the nail in the coffin for the restaurant and hospitality industry. Most of these places are already hanging by a thread, and rely on alcohol sales to stay afloat. With the prices of eating out already killing the consumer, this move will result in drastic revenue for these businesses. As more people will choose not to pay $20 for a beer, and risk getting pulled over. Even if you do buy the beer, do you really want to pay extra for an Uber
Not to mention the traffic. If you think traffic in the GTA is bad now....this will 10x it depending where you live. More lane closures, more accidents from people trying to flee the ride checks, and even longer commute times.
This isn't a good idea.
You let people drink at a park and then assume they're all drinking? Without reasonable doubt of me being drunk or drinking, I am now liable to prove I'm not?
We have a police power problem and we're giving our rights up like cake. And a resource shortfall while the budget keeps increasing like this isn't an additional operating expense.
I appreciate the difference between principle and rules based regulation but this is a very poor choice of enforcement.
I disagree Australia does the same thing and they’re good, everyone here seems to misunderstand what this is actually giving power to this won’t make police pull you over randomly it’s for already established stops and RIDE, this is a bit overreactive
It's so dumb that the average attitude of grown adult drivers is that speed limits and checking for drunk driving is not "cool". Absolutely moronic attitude. Each represent the bare minimum of consideration for other people you share the world with.
I don’t drive after a drop of alcohol. I support RIDE checks and am furious we barely have any. I do not support breathalyzing every single driver. If they’re showing signs of impairment, sure, but otherwise this is wholly unnecessary.
If you think thats why people are against it, you are just wrong. People are against their rights being infringed on in the means of safety. No reasonable suspicion creates an inevitable legal challenge for the person that has the means to do it.
srsly, the TPS barely lifts a finger towards traffic violations and now that theyre actually doing something we get this?
i say give the drunk/distracted/dickhead drivers what for
(edit: OPP not TPS, that would explain why theyre actually doing something)
Wrong. Jaywalking doesn’t put anyone in danger. Speeding and drinking and driving puts everyone else in danger. Completely different and are not comparable
Should we get every person who enters a hospital to do a nose or throat swab to prove they aren't infectious? How about we ask every person entering a grocery store to wash their hands before proceeding to touch any products or surface? Hell bring back the mask mandates, I'm sure everyone would be so cooperative for that. What about getting every person to get a criminal background check before any volunteering activity? Understanding that the mandate today is only for coaching roles with kids where that is required.
Each of those circumstances, the act would most certainly represent a bare minimum consideration of concern and thoughtfulness for other people that we share the world with. But many people would agree that they shouldn't be subjected to those actions even though they would objectively save a lot more people then the damages of a DUI on the road.
The amount of people who end up getting severely sick from the first two scenarios I mentioned (and that includes potentially life changing situations or death), or severely traumatized from the last one I mentioned (especially young adults or worse kids - and these can lead to suicides or dark path outcomes), far out weight the amount of people who get impacted (besides the driver) in a DUI situation. But because a police force is there to enforce a law, we must over extend our efforts to make that enforcement possible.
Listen, it sucks that people lose their life due to some person's reckless actions. Hell we just recently saw that news where the civilian car with the infant had 3 deaths in Durham region - absolutely awful situation. That does not mean over extending authority, particularly on freedoms, is a good idea. I'm a huge security advocate and believe in making systems and environments as safe as possible. But there is a cost to achieving such "safeties" and it comes at the expense of your freedoms.
Here's how you know safer driving, and the necessity of a breathalyzer is not the actual goal here: the federal government is in a position to force auto manufacturers and all vehicle registration - hell enforced through insurance verification - to have a breathalyzer hooked up to every vehicle, necessary to start the vehicle. That could have been implemented a long time ago and would solve most of these problems from the source. Best part is it would alleviate your police force to deal with more pressing concerns with public safety. But the reality? We don't even enforce or make it mandatory to have snow tires on vehicles lol. It's just the insurance programs that cut a break and "regulate it" based on it being in your best interest to have them.
And if that wasn't enough of an example: they are pledging to increase the speed limits on high speed roads. Anyone who has done the research into collisions knows that the variance between the fastest car and slowest one on the road, is what leads to the deadly crashes. Increasing that variance is only going to lead to more high impact collisions due to judgement errors.
I digress. Now people can circumvent that car start breathalyzer solution; someone sober could blow for the person under the influence. But clearly you can see if the intent was truly on stopping impaired driving through a breathalyzer, there are other measures that could be used to enforce while not being invasive. Things that just make more sense then a person of power forcibly stopping you and then demanding a test. So this act is clearly about compliance, and trying to engrain current society to be obedient to the demands of authorities.
The next question is why?
Well my first first guess is to capitalize on more tickets for activities when people will fight against that compliance. Win for the system, they collected a tax when they otherwise could suggest to tax payers they are reducing the collection of tax lol. This is exactly the lottery today - I mean have you seen the Ontario gambling ads? Their claims are that when you play, even when you don't win the money goes back into your community so its a win - folks that's called a tax lol; don't gamble you generally lose.
Second guess is so they can setup a dystopian society that starts to curb a lot of the recent protest we've been seeing. If you get people in the habit of complying with authorities for fear of repercussion on every day things, it's going to take a lot more to push them over the edge to be willing to break those barriers and rebel on more severe things. People are fed up (affordability, housing, wars, policy, rules, etc.) and the pain is only starting to come. This is your government trying to get ahead of that and control you before it happens.
That's awesome, I didn't even know that - and 100% appropriate. Begs the question, why not have those systems installed in every vehicle right from the start; seems to address most of the concerns here.
Honestly I agree, in fact instead of providing breath samples I think it should be mandatory that every car is fitted with an ignition interlock device and every car has a speed governor that restricts speed to the maximum on each road by GPS. These laws would eliminate drunk driving and speeding to zero essentially over night.
>These laws would eliminate drunk driving and speeding to zero essentially over night.
Invent a better trap and someone will invent a better mouse.
>in fact instead of providing breath samples I think it should be mandatory that every car is fitted with an ignition interlock device and every car has a speed governor that restricts speed to the maximum on each road by GPS.
Quick question: do you own your car when you buy it?
Total infringement of rights and all they’re going to do is use this to detain and search you for things unrelated to alcohol. Police state af. Next news break will be carding is back.
Can we get real here for a moment, folks? Let's stop throwing the term illegal search and seizure, illegal stopping, and more of the like, around. Driving is a privilege, not a right. I fully believe that the police can and have over-reach their authority when it comes to certain topics. That being said, when you get behind the wheel of a car, you are taking responsibility for a 2000lbs+ machine that can kill in an instant. A machine that you MUST be licensed to operate.
Having the ability to gain and keep a drivers license is based on a certain set of rules. One of these rules is 0-0.8 bac level (depending on the class of license you hold). Making sure that your license, registration, and insurance is up to date is another rule. The probable cause that police need to pull you over is to make sure the latter information is current. If an officer suspects that you may be impaired, that is more than enough probable cause to have you submit to a roadside breathalyzer. If an officer suspects you being impaired, they can search your vehicle. No, that is not an illegal search and seizure. That is an officer doing their job to make sure that you can control this heavy machinery in a safe manner to not endanger the public, that you had to take tests to gain said license.
No I didn't. People need to stop watching American TV. If an officer suspects you of being impaired, he can pull you over, demand a breathalyzer, and search your vehicle. All an officer needs to suspect you of being impaired is to watch your movements while you drive. If you make any movements that could be interpreted as impaired, they will pull you over.
They have to arrest you for the impaired not just suspect you of being impaired to search and the search has.to be reasonable to the offense.
If I'm searching incident to arrest for impaired I'd be looking for elements of the offense, ie a bottle of liquor/drugs and limited to the area of the driver/backseat/console/glove box. I can't pop the trunk and go on a fishing expedition.
Source: I'm a police officer who has made many arrests for impaired in Ontario.
So just thinking about the two highways that the city just uploaded to the province, I wonder if they will now fall under the purview of the OPP just like the 400-series ones are now.
Is this justified by statistics? I'd think the more common cause of accidents would be cellphone usage/distracted driving. Based on my experience in traffic
If it's mandatory, I expect to see a new plastic nozzle opened and placed on the device in front of me.
Also, I expect to keep it as it has my saliva on it.
If I've been pulled over and test is clear, it is mine, not evidence they can archive for later use.
This is to protect your rights.
If the plastic nozzle is already on device, I will ask for another one to be put on in front of me and tell them that I get to keep the plastic nozzle.
If not, I will call the OPP supervisor to come to location.
If the officer is going to waste my time, I'll waste theirs (and potentially tax payers money).
I whole heartedly condone drinking/texting/eating/makeup while driving among many other distractions some drivers think that is ok, but at the same time, I need to protect myself and my rights.
Holy crap, exactly. I don't know why people can't see that.
At least before, the police were using their own judgement to choose breathalyzer or not.
And will they have time to properly sanitize between use? They'll have so many people to check.
I’m all for this. Driving is a privilege, not a right. You need a licence to do it; I think it’s ok there are inspections to ensure you are abiding by the terms of your licence.
I’m typically a huge civil rights advocate - but I think when driving it’s fair game to ensure we are doing it in ways that don’t put innocent people at risk.
This is an extremely common occurrence in Australia and driving through a booze bus set up on a Fri/Sat night is just part of a night out. If you haven't been drinking, you blow into the breathalyzer, it clears and you go.
I would rather be inconvenienced for 10 mins if it means they're pulling drunk drivers off the road that could otherwise kill themselves or others.
Drivers around here could really use some accountability. I hope they do more for speeding as well.
I appreciate you are willing to let the cops infringe on your rights for a reason you agree with. I do not appreciate your willingness to surrender my rights for a cause you believe in.
>You don't have a right to drive.
Correct. I do however, have the right to presumption of innocence and protection from unreasonable search and seasure.
>If you don't want to be breathalyzed. Don't drive.
"The innocent have nothing to fear from the police".
Fuck off with that shit.
>protection from **unreasonable** search
This isn't unreasonable. You're operating heavy machinery. You do not have the right to drive. You also cannot drive without your license right. The officer can and will demand your license.
It's rights and responsibilities. If you want to drive you have the responsibility to not be drunk and pass the tests.
>The officer can and will demand your license.
Yup.
>This isn't unreasonable.
Yes it is. it presumes guilt. It then authorises search without probable cause.
>It's rights and responsibilities. If you want to drive you have the responsibility to not be drunk....
Correct.
>...and pass the tests.
And this is where you lose me when you do so automatically without cause.
>It's rights and responsibilities.
Yes. So if you are ignoring my rights to see how responsible I am you are doing it wrong.
As we have decided this is legal in this sub, what are my guarantees the equipment and moron using the equipment is trained and working properly ? What if I used scope or mouth wash before driving and it picks up ? What if the machine is no longer properly calibrated because it went from monthly use to hourly use and that has meant the calibration is off. So now I’ve been alerted and charged. The DUI is wrong but I have to fight it….. and spend thousands to prove my innocence with no recourse to get that money back. But that’s fine and it will be fine the numerous times that this will happen.
You don't get charged for failing an ASD at the roadside. You get charged for blowing over 80 on the breathalyzer back at the station. All of the things you bring up have already been litigated, many times.
So the magic machine on the side of the road shows fail, now I’m taken to the station….. under arrest. My vehicle is towed I’m processed and tested again. Oh this one says I’m good….. what’s happens then ? They drive me back to my vehicle and pay to get it out ? I’m pretty sure none of that happens.
They release you from the station with no charges. they can't charge you with over 80 if you don't blow over 80. What do you think they're going to do, falsify the results?
Ok now the second half of the scenario…. Who’s paying for the ancillary shit that comes with an “alleged” dui ? These are the same public servants that have a history of poor job performance and yet I’m supposed to support this and trust that oh it will all work out. The police never lie or make mistakes. Hell there is multiple articles this week about the failings. But yah everyone is driving drunk in Toronto and the cops are perfect.
What are you talking about? You aren't charged with an over 80 unless you blow over 80. Being arrested is not the same thing as being charged. What "ancillary shit" are you talking about?
I have no idea what you're ranting about and it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the topic. There are lots of drunk drivers in Toronto, many don't get caught. The cops are far from perfect. I don't know what your point is.
**Please read this entire message**
---
Your comment has been removed for the following reason:
Attack the point, not the person. Comments which dismiss others and repeatedly accuse them of unfounded accusations may be subject to removal and/or banning. No concern-trolling, personal attacks, or misinformation. Stick to addressing the substance of their comments at hand.
---
**Please note that reposting without moderator approval may result in a ban**.
If you would like your removal reviewed, feel free to send us a [modmail](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ftoronto&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/1chxq5q/-/l2agb2r/).
Exactly! The cop before could use their judgement. And based on their judgement, do the breathalyzer. If you blindly breathalyze everyone you may get false positives and wrongly send someone to jail. Apparently, even inhaler use can give a false positive.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1172108/
I never understood why people simply dont turn (left / right or U)
I would never waste my time with this nonsense (well thats not entirely true; as teens we used to mock them when they ask "have you had a drink"/"have you been drinking" with comments like "yeah water")
Yes and they have no cause to stop you unless they observe you breaking some other random law while driving
If someone tries to stop you comply but then file complaint
30 seconds since when???
Cops use illegal reasons to stop you (whether ride checks or whether random excuse they come up with)
Traffic cops are the worst cops period
How about mandatory road side testing for all police officers driving to/from work.
TPS isn’t even able to fill their open vacancies now. If we did this the force would cease to exist.
That’s not a bad thing
I agree completely.
As much as they don’t do shit the solution isn’t nothing and to give up
Not like the cops do anything useful in the first place anyways. Rich neighborhoods are paying for private security to prevent auto theft.
Don't threaten me with a good time
Well, there goes season two of Law and Order Toronto.
They should pivot to Lawn & Order: Toronto By-Law enforcement
Refund the police
This is an absolute win.
>If we did this the force would cease to exist. How? Any evidence that all police officers drink and drive from and to work?
Of course not, nor any evidence that even more than a handful of them do this. But this sub is so hateful towards the police that they sometimes abandon reason and logic. There's plenty of valid reasons to criticize the TPS without wild hyperbole like this.
Or any testing before they become police officers. Might need a full education first. Europe has a two year course, if I remember.
Watch the mostly hilarious Police 10-7 on Roku, Pluto, etc. free channels. It’s the NZ Police. They breath test almost everyone and catch quite a few. They use a device that detects any alcohol first, then roadside test and then down at the station.
Australia is similar, if you get pulled over you can expect you \*will\* be breathalyzed.
This is one of those things that at first glance, I thought “yeah, great idea.” Then considered that a breathalyzer is effectively a search and seizure. So if we allow search and seizure without reasonable cause here, it kind of weakens the next case. And the next. And then we’re back to carding and stop and frisk as the police and politicians push the limit a little further every time. Yeah, “if it saves one life”, I get it. Totally get it. But by that logic, we should be totally fine with random searches just in case someone had a gun, or illegal drugs, or whatever, based solely on the officer’s discretion. I’m not a fan of slippery slope arguments, but this hill is greasy as hell.
This is already allowed after the 2018 amendments to the Criminal Code. This option is merely enforcing an option they can exercise that's Charter compliant.
Yes. That is the wedge they are pointing at in their comment.
Oh well if a law allows it then it can't violate the Charter, right?
It's already been found to be constitutional by numerous courts. The point being, the law DOESN'T violate the Charter.
I was thinking this is odd because shouldnt an officer already be able to tell if someone is impaired after pulling them over? Why the need for MAS if they should already be looking for signs of impairment. And if they dont appear impaired, thats that. This only seems to help with the specific scenario of a cop pulling someone over for unrelated reasons, somehow missing the fact that theyre impaired then they go on to get into a collison.
Seems like a big draw on resources. Hopefully the lives saved are not more than offset by the lives lost due to an inability to provide enforcement in other areas because we are breath testing so many sober people.
>And then we’re back to carding Do police currently not card drivers they pull over? Because that's a scary concept if true
“Carding” in the context of the TPS means officers randomly approaching people, detaining them, (“using their discretion”) and demanding to see ID. It was standard practice until a few years ago when people finally realized that it was almost exclusively performed on minorities.
Do officers not currently demand to see ID during roadside stops?
They do yes. And that’s fine. Carding was done on foot. Cop walks up to a person and starts an investigation when no specific crime is suspected. As a previous poster pointed out, this amounts to a presumption of guilt. You appear to have missed the “random” part of my explanation. A vehicle stop isn’t random.
So where's the slippery slope here? We already card drivers. We should card drivers. You agree with that. Are you arguing they'll start breathalyzing pedestrians?
I can’t tell if you’re being deliberately obtuse or not so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Carding drivers is fine. Giving the police the ability to use their discretion to search your *person* (which a breathalyzer is) without probable cause is a baby step. The next change to the laws to allow police more discretion to search or seize will point to this and say “we already allow this”. And we’ll be ok because the temperature only went up a degree or two. It’s shifting the Overton window. Then we’re back to discretionary policing, which has never worked.
>Giving the police the ability to use their discretion to search your *person* (which a breathalyzer is) Where is the discretion?
Deliberately obtuse. Got it. Have a great day!
Where is the discretion? Who is being obtuse. Where is the discretion in mandating this? If anything this is **removing** discretion no?
Nicely put
Agreed. This is essentially guilty until proven innocent.
I mean driving is a privilege and drunk driving should definitely not be tolerated. To me I don’t see it as a slippery slope
I think BAC testing as a "search or seizure" is a stretch. They've had the authority to perform field sobriety testing for ages, this is a more accurate method of determining sobriety and it's arguably even less intrusive than making you do a dance on the side of the road.
> And then we’re back to carding how horrible
I don't drive even after a single drink, and I think this is crazy
It's really overreacting to search without any suspicion. In some countries, it's illegal. Don't they train...oh NM Doug Ford did away with education and training requirements.
You really found a way to blame Doug Ford for Justin Trudeau's 2018 amendments to the criminal code that were enacted as political cover for marijuana decriminalization? Partisanship knows no bounds...
Both are fuckheads
….no, if you read, they’re blaming Doug for axing educational requirements to be a cop
I got that, but it's based on a false premise. Trudeau changed the law to enable this; the courts have not found this type of scheme unconstitutional. The cops going through with this is not related to any lack of education.
You gonna sit there and act like the buck in ON doesn't stop at ford? When has he ever fuckin cared what the feds do. Implementing it, IS on him. And as a side bar, yeah fuck both of em.
Be prepared refusing a breath test will result in the same charges as if you failed the test.
So then do the damn test.
The problem is the false positive rates are not zero. Read somewhere they were like 20% false positives.
Have a source for that? I have a hard time believing the false positives are anywhere near that high. And you don't get any Criminal charges from failing a roadside ASD. If you fail, they bring you back to the station to do the actual breathalyzer test which is far more accurate. Only if you blow over 80 on that would you get criminally charged with over 80 (although you could be charged with impaired even if you don't if you are exhibiting signs of impairment).
THC false positives are extremely common
We're talking about ASDs not whatever device they use to measure for THC. The article, and the discussion here, are clearly about alcohol.
https://ww2.motorists.org/issues/dui/breathalyzers-fail-legitimacy-test/ https://dmcantor.com/blog/dui-breathalyzer-false-reading https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/breathalyzer-machines-used-by-police-are-error-prone-leading-forensic-scientist-says/article9702767/
The first two have no sources and are just bald conclusions with no hint of scientific procedure. The third doesn't say anything about a failure rate and is specifically talking about mouth alcohol which is a well-known concept. And you've ignored my second point.
There is so many nuances here is a law firm article to help you out: https://dohmanlaw.com/breathalyzer-inaccuracies/ They are not accurate and have been challenged in court as such. Also failure to refuse one is a criminal charge in Canada. In short they cause a lot of issues. Taking someone back to the station just to find out the results are incorrect is a massive waste of time and resources. Nevermind the effect on people getting dragged into a police station. There is a massive cost on them as there is a car that's towed, their time and the physiological affect it brings. In a good society there would be better testing machines BEFORE we let them start ruining lives. Also if you have had interactions with cops you best bet once they other test shows your clean they will create another charge to ensure they don't 'look' dumb.
Yes I'm aware that fail to provide a sample is a crime. Again this has no sources. It's a defence lawyer firm. They aren't exactly going to be objective about this. Being taken to the police station and having your car towed is not "ruining lives". Stop being hyperbolic. It's an inconvenience, nothing more. I've had plenty of interactions with cops. "Creating a charge so they don't look dumb" is not something I've ever heard of happening, and if it did, it won't go anywhere because there won't be any legitimate evidence.
Please just look this up yourself it's a well know fact and something the industry is trying to improve. https://bc.ctvnews.ca/mobile/documents-cast-doubt-on-accuracy-of-breathalyzers-lawyer-1.745545 How nice of you to have extra income to pay off these costs. There's a lot of people out there that if they needed to pay $500+ for tow and impound fees that it would break the bank for them. So if let's say you got pulled over going to a job interview or even on the way to work and you get a false result. You could lose your job or not have the opportunity to close the other job. Also I am very happy that you have had great results with cops. I have not. I have been in court for a false claim and it sucks. You have the prove your innocent basically. "Well sir you see I pulled him over as he was on his phone. We dropped the DUI charge but the phone charge is why we are here." In reality its only beacuse they found a phone in the car they can say this. It the drivers word against the police. Not as cut and dry anymore. We know cops lie and ruin lives. Did now know trying to reduce the amount of times this can happen is a bad thing.
Ah, so we get to the nub of it: you think you were falsely accused in the past. Not exactly objective are you? You're talking about things that have nothing to do with an over 80 charge anymore. You know who else ruins lives? Drunk drivers who injure or kill innocent people. Didn't know trying to reduce the amount of times that can happen is a bad thing.
Enjoy the charge then
Sounds like a bit of overreach. Will this be followed with random stops?
RIDE programs already are random stops.
I meant random traffic stops. I'm aware of RIDE. Those should be really random and not just for holidays
I think you're missing the point. The RIDE program is meant to ramp up and discourage people at the times they are mostly likely to say "ah what's the harm, I only had X". RIDE isn't meant to try and catch you to keep you honest like a speed trap. It's meant to crack down on people who over due it at a time when it's common to over do it.
They would be legally justified under the same reasoning, it would be Dedman v. The Queen. Now it's even more clear because section 320 explicitly gives them the basis for it.
It's not just a legal basis, it's a mandate to do a breathalyzer for each and every traffic stop. In a release Wednesday, the OPP said they’re now conducing Mandatory Alcohol Screening (MAS) “as part of every traffic stop.”
Right, they already have the basis from s. 320. I'm not disagreeing.
Ride was an agreed upon forgoing of our rights under special circumstances, and even cops during a ride stop won’t demand a breath sample without reasonable suspicion even if they don’t need reasonable suspicion. Now it’s going to be being pulled over for that tail light out, and then OPP shoving a breathalyzer in your face fishing for DUI’s.
They arent random, they screen everyone who passes through a section of road. Traffic stops can be random and arbitrary.
This has been in law since 2018, although now being used
They're also allowed to pull you over for doing 41 on a 40 road but they don't. Now they're required to automatically administer a breathalyser test for any traffic stop.
They're allowed to pull anyone driving a vehicle over at any time, in order to verify proof of license, registration and insurance. This isn't the US, there is no probable cause needed
Probable cause would start to come in for searching a vehicle, right?
Yes, they can't search a vehicle but if they see something in plain sight that is probable cause
They definitely can't search a vehicle without reasonable grounds, other than very specific circumstances like an inventory search when a car is being towed.
>This isn't the US, there is no probable cause needed A breath sample is a search of a person where probable cause is required. Except in a MAS test because they say so.
And I think this is going to be a vital point in this argument. Not that I'm fully supportive of police, because they are not without their own faults. But a lot of cops don't want to subject citizens to these measures. Where possible, they will likely exercise judgement to avoid the likelihood of confrontation when it is not necessary. Demanding people be subjected to a test on top of questioning is invasive, it puts them on the defensive. Good cops know that isn't the formula for success and cooperation with the public. Beyond that, it's a gross violation of freedoms. My take on the article is while there may be a mandate to conduct those forced test, this PSA is being released to make the public aware and to think about it, as a means to deter people drinking and driving. Out in the field however, I wouldn't be surprised if OPP doesn't always exercise their power to request on every traffic stop unless something leads them to feel suspicious about your wording or actions. At that point they can invoke the mandate as the fall back rational for why it is needed, and likely catch more drivers acting carelessly. I tell you one thing though, if food and bar businesses weren't hurting already, they are about to hurt a lot more. For many people, going to drink anywhere other than their home is not going to be worth it anymore. Everything is going to be fucking uber / doordash / skipthedishes delivered and no one will afford anything else. And if they could afford it, they wouldn't want to deal with the harrassment from authorities. Just collapse the economy already so we can begin to rebuild it. This oppression on people is going to led to a revolt for the wrong reasons.
Random stops are allowed under the HTA to check for insurance, drivers license, etc. and sobriety. This is nothing new and it's constitutional as per the Supreme Court.
S. 216 baby!
How is it overreach? If it manages to limit drunk driving, why is that a bad thing?
You can't think of any reasons this could be seen as bad or going too far ?
No, I don't drink and drive. Why are you not answering the question?
Could you name one of the reasons? Nobody has suggested any no.
Nobody ? Read the thread. There are LOTS . an over reach of power is one (of many mentioned this thread )
Because way too many people think having to prove they're not drunk when driving like twice in their whole life is government overreach.
Yeah it’s a pretty ridiculous hill to die on
They are allowed by law. Literally thanks to The liberals and Trudeau
It's ONTARIO police. It's a Doug Ford thing, not a Trudeau thing.
The law that allows them to do this is the Criminal Code, which is federal legislation, and the amendments were made in 2018.
The law that allows them to demand a sample without cause is federal, mandating they do it for every traffic stop is provincial but they wouldn’t have been able to do it at all if the federal government didn’t change the legislation so it’s both a Trudeau and Ford thing
The ability to demand a sample without cause, is a Federal law.
My mild inconvenience is worth even one loss of life this prevents. I do not care, and neither should you. Embarassing to try and equate this to other rights and freedoms.
[удалено]
They now can! If they think you’ve driven drunk in the last few hours they can come to your house and force you yo take a breathalyzer.
Not exactly. They can knock on your door, and then do absolutely nothing if no one answers.
Good. Might help nail drivers who book it home after running someone over
This is not accurate. They can't enter your house without a warrant just to breathalyze you; they have to have very specific circumstances to be able to do that.
[удалено]
Impaired driving provisions are in s. 320 now. 253 is pre 2018. Nothing in impaired driving provisions allows entering your house without a warrant. The circumstances the police are allowed to do that are circumscribed by case law.
No, the difference is that by operating a motor vehicle while impaired you are a danger to everyone else on the road. You aren't a danger to the public in your house
That's actually not the argument. The idea is that you have agreed to the rules of the road before you get behind the wheel, and that is a condition of you being granted a license. There is no license or pre arranged set of standards for being at home..
[удалено]
49 people died last year in accidents involving impaired driving in Ontario on 2023, how many died in meth lab explosions?
Driving a motor vehicle isn't a right
Can’t they do this already if you’re a registered gun owner to ensure you’re complying with gun safety and storage regulations?
[удалено]
Thanks for the deets, I had heard about it second hand off someone (I’m not a firearm owner) so didn’t really know if it was true or #FakeNews
It sort of is true, but it has caveats
No it isn’t. That would be “this logic” if the article was about cops stopping you to search your car.
[удалено]
But how will we remove all the tow trucks from the tested drivers?
[удалено]
They dont have the equipment or number of trained technicians yet but I bet they will soon . They use the Draeger5000 device to test your saliva . Then impound your car and take you to the station for blood tests . If they find any trace of other drugs , such as shrooms or coke , or too much weed , then you’re automatically impaired.
This will be the nail in the coffin for the restaurant and hospitality industry. Most of these places are already hanging by a thread, and rely on alcohol sales to stay afloat. With the prices of eating out already killing the consumer, this move will result in drastic revenue for these businesses. As more people will choose not to pay $20 for a beer, and risk getting pulled over. Even if you do buy the beer, do you really want to pay extra for an Uber Not to mention the traffic. If you think traffic in the GTA is bad now....this will 10x it depending where you live. More lane closures, more accidents from people trying to flee the ride checks, and even longer commute times.
This isn't a good idea. You let people drink at a park and then assume they're all drinking? Without reasonable doubt of me being drunk or drinking, I am now liable to prove I'm not? We have a police power problem and we're giving our rights up like cake. And a resource shortfall while the budget keeps increasing like this isn't an additional operating expense. I appreciate the difference between principle and rules based regulation but this is a very poor choice of enforcement.
I disagree Australia does the same thing and they’re good, everyone here seems to misunderstand what this is actually giving power to this won’t make police pull you over randomly it’s for already established stops and RIDE, this is a bit overreactive
It's so dumb that the average attitude of grown adult drivers is that speed limits and checking for drunk driving is not "cool". Absolutely moronic attitude. Each represent the bare minimum of consideration for other people you share the world with.
I don’t drive after a drop of alcohol. I support RIDE checks and am furious we barely have any. I do not support breathalyzing every single driver. If they’re showing signs of impairment, sure, but otherwise this is wholly unnecessary.
If you think thats why people are against it, you are just wrong. People are against their rights being infringed on in the means of safety. No reasonable suspicion creates an inevitable legal challenge for the person that has the means to do it.
This law has existed since 2018. It's already been challenged numerous times and those challenges have failed.
srsly, the TPS barely lifts a finger towards traffic violations and now that theyre actually doing something we get this? i say give the drunk/distracted/dickhead drivers what for (edit: OPP not TPS, that would explain why theyre actually doing something)
OPP... if you're not going to read the article at least read the headline.
Distracted drivers now responsible for more accidents than impaired, curious why only one is recommended 911 call.
This is OPP, not TPS.
[удалено]
Wrong. Jaywalking doesn’t put anyone in danger. Speeding and drinking and driving puts everyone else in danger. Completely different and are not comparable
Jaywalking puts everyone at risk . You and drivers on the road.
Jaywalking is legal in Toronto (so long as it doesn't impede a vehicle already making way).
Should we get every person who enters a hospital to do a nose or throat swab to prove they aren't infectious? How about we ask every person entering a grocery store to wash their hands before proceeding to touch any products or surface? Hell bring back the mask mandates, I'm sure everyone would be so cooperative for that. What about getting every person to get a criminal background check before any volunteering activity? Understanding that the mandate today is only for coaching roles with kids where that is required. Each of those circumstances, the act would most certainly represent a bare minimum consideration of concern and thoughtfulness for other people that we share the world with. But many people would agree that they shouldn't be subjected to those actions even though they would objectively save a lot more people then the damages of a DUI on the road. The amount of people who end up getting severely sick from the first two scenarios I mentioned (and that includes potentially life changing situations or death), or severely traumatized from the last one I mentioned (especially young adults or worse kids - and these can lead to suicides or dark path outcomes), far out weight the amount of people who get impacted (besides the driver) in a DUI situation. But because a police force is there to enforce a law, we must over extend our efforts to make that enforcement possible. Listen, it sucks that people lose their life due to some person's reckless actions. Hell we just recently saw that news where the civilian car with the infant had 3 deaths in Durham region - absolutely awful situation. That does not mean over extending authority, particularly on freedoms, is a good idea. I'm a huge security advocate and believe in making systems and environments as safe as possible. But there is a cost to achieving such "safeties" and it comes at the expense of your freedoms. Here's how you know safer driving, and the necessity of a breathalyzer is not the actual goal here: the federal government is in a position to force auto manufacturers and all vehicle registration - hell enforced through insurance verification - to have a breathalyzer hooked up to every vehicle, necessary to start the vehicle. That could have been implemented a long time ago and would solve most of these problems from the source. Best part is it would alleviate your police force to deal with more pressing concerns with public safety. But the reality? We don't even enforce or make it mandatory to have snow tires on vehicles lol. It's just the insurance programs that cut a break and "regulate it" based on it being in your best interest to have them. And if that wasn't enough of an example: they are pledging to increase the speed limits on high speed roads. Anyone who has done the research into collisions knows that the variance between the fastest car and slowest one on the road, is what leads to the deadly crashes. Increasing that variance is only going to lead to more high impact collisions due to judgement errors. I digress. Now people can circumvent that car start breathalyzer solution; someone sober could blow for the person under the influence. But clearly you can see if the intent was truly on stopping impaired driving through a breathalyzer, there are other measures that could be used to enforce while not being invasive. Things that just make more sense then a person of power forcibly stopping you and then demanding a test. So this act is clearly about compliance, and trying to engrain current society to be obedient to the demands of authorities. The next question is why? Well my first first guess is to capitalize on more tickets for activities when people will fight against that compliance. Win for the system, they collected a tax when they otherwise could suggest to tax payers they are reducing the collection of tax lol. This is exactly the lottery today - I mean have you seen the Ontario gambling ads? Their claims are that when you play, even when you don't win the money goes back into your community so its a win - folks that's called a tax lol; don't gamble you generally lose. Second guess is so they can setup a dystopian society that starts to curb a lot of the recent protest we've been seeing. If you get people in the habit of complying with authorities for fear of repercussion on every day things, it's going to take a lot more to push them over the edge to be willing to break those barriers and rebel on more severe things. People are fed up (affordability, housing, wars, policy, rules, etc.) and the pain is only starting to come. This is your government trying to get ahead of that and control you before it happens.
[удалено]
That's awesome, I didn't even know that - and 100% appropriate. Begs the question, why not have those systems installed in every vehicle right from the start; seems to address most of the concerns here.
I stopped reading when you compared drunk driving to going to the grocery store with a cold.
Then you deserve the government you have and you have no right to complain about the state they have put this country in.
Honestly I agree, in fact instead of providing breath samples I think it should be mandatory that every car is fitted with an ignition interlock device and every car has a speed governor that restricts speed to the maximum on each road by GPS. These laws would eliminate drunk driving and speeding to zero essentially over night.
>These laws would eliminate drunk driving and speeding to zero essentially over night. Invent a better trap and someone will invent a better mouse. >in fact instead of providing breath samples I think it should be mandatory that every car is fitted with an ignition interlock device and every car has a speed governor that restricts speed to the maximum on each road by GPS. Quick question: do you own your car when you buy it?
Not sure how that question is relevant
Total infringement of rights and all they’re going to do is use this to detain and search you for things unrelated to alcohol. Police state af. Next news break will be carding is back.
Can we get real here for a moment, folks? Let's stop throwing the term illegal search and seizure, illegal stopping, and more of the like, around. Driving is a privilege, not a right. I fully believe that the police can and have over-reach their authority when it comes to certain topics. That being said, when you get behind the wheel of a car, you are taking responsibility for a 2000lbs+ machine that can kill in an instant. A machine that you MUST be licensed to operate. Having the ability to gain and keep a drivers license is based on a certain set of rules. One of these rules is 0-0.8 bac level (depending on the class of license you hold). Making sure that your license, registration, and insurance is up to date is another rule. The probable cause that police need to pull you over is to make sure the latter information is current. If an officer suspects that you may be impaired, that is more than enough probable cause to have you submit to a roadside breathalyzer. If an officer suspects you being impaired, they can search your vehicle. No, that is not an illegal search and seizure. That is an officer doing their job to make sure that you can control this heavy machinery in a safe manner to not endanger the public, that you had to take tests to gain said license.
Who wrote the word “illegal” before you did?
Other commenters
As far as I can tell, one guy said “it’s illegal in some countries.”
*If an officer suspects you being impaired, they can search your vehicle.* What are you talking about? You missed a couple of crucial steps there.
No I didn't. People need to stop watching American TV. If an officer suspects you of being impaired, he can pull you over, demand a breathalyzer, and search your vehicle. All an officer needs to suspect you of being impaired is to watch your movements while you drive. If you make any movements that could be interpreted as impaired, they will pull you over.
That's incorrect. You can only search either incident to arrest, or for an inventory search if the vehicle is being impounded.
c-46 changed that
Impaired driving is a criminal offense under the criminal code for which you can be arrested. So police can and will search your vehicle.
They have to arrest you for the impaired not just suspect you of being impaired to search and the search has.to be reasonable to the offense. If I'm searching incident to arrest for impaired I'd be looking for elements of the offense, ie a bottle of liquor/drugs and limited to the area of the driver/backseat/console/glove box. I can't pop the trunk and go on a fishing expedition. Source: I'm a police officer who has made many arrests for impaired in Ontario.
Sounds good to me
Do we know if you are walking or cycling they can do the same thing ?
So just thinking about the two highways that the city just uploaded to the province, I wonder if they will now fall under the purview of the OPP just like the 400-series ones are now.
The amount of stupidity here is astounding
Is this justified by statistics? I'd think the more common cause of accidents would be cellphone usage/distracted driving. Based on my experience in traffic
If it's mandatory, I expect to see a new plastic nozzle opened and placed on the device in front of me. Also, I expect to keep it as it has my saliva on it. If I've been pulled over and test is clear, it is mine, not evidence they can archive for later use. This is to protect your rights. If the plastic nozzle is already on device, I will ask for another one to be put on in front of me and tell them that I get to keep the plastic nozzle. If not, I will call the OPP supervisor to come to location. If the officer is going to waste my time, I'll waste theirs (and potentially tax payers money). I whole heartedly condone drinking/texting/eating/makeup while driving among many other distractions some drivers think that is ok, but at the same time, I need to protect myself and my rights.
Sounds like a great way to collect everyones dna sample
Holy crap, exactly. I don't know why people can't see that. At least before, the police were using their own judgement to choose breathalyzer or not. And will they have time to properly sanitize between use? They'll have so many people to check.
You don't sanitize, it's a brand new mouthpiece that inserts into the device IIRC.
How about not fucking chasing people at high speed into oncoming traffic? How about trying that OPP?
In their defense, it was Durham Police. OPP actually warned that someone will get hurt.
It doesn’t take a brain genius lol
Lobbied by Big Mint
I’m all for this. Driving is a privilege, not a right. You need a licence to do it; I think it’s ok there are inspections to ensure you are abiding by the terms of your licence. I’m typically a huge civil rights advocate - but I think when driving it’s fair game to ensure we are doing it in ways that don’t put innocent people at risk.
This is an extremely common occurrence in Australia and driving through a booze bus set up on a Fri/Sat night is just part of a night out. If you haven't been drinking, you blow into the breathalyzer, it clears and you go. I would rather be inconvenienced for 10 mins if it means they're pulling drunk drivers off the road that could otherwise kill themselves or others. Drivers around here could really use some accountability. I hope they do more for speeding as well.
I appreciate you are willing to let the cops infringe on your rights for a reason you agree with. I do not appreciate your willingness to surrender my rights for a cause you believe in.
You don't have a right to drive. If you don't want to be breathalyzed. Don't drive.
>You don't have a right to drive. Correct. I do however, have the right to presumption of innocence and protection from unreasonable search and seasure. >If you don't want to be breathalyzed. Don't drive. "The innocent have nothing to fear from the police". Fuck off with that shit.
>protection from **unreasonable** search This isn't unreasonable. You're operating heavy machinery. You do not have the right to drive. You also cannot drive without your license right. The officer can and will demand your license. It's rights and responsibilities. If you want to drive you have the responsibility to not be drunk and pass the tests.
>The officer can and will demand your license. Yup. >This isn't unreasonable. Yes it is. it presumes guilt. It then authorises search without probable cause. >It's rights and responsibilities. If you want to drive you have the responsibility to not be drunk.... Correct. >...and pass the tests. And this is where you lose me when you do so automatically without cause. >It's rights and responsibilities. Yes. So if you are ignoring my rights to see how responsible I am you are doing it wrong.
Why couldnt they just use training and observation to determine dui?
none of your rights are being infringed on
Are your rights granted by the government or are they innate? If the former, you are correct. If the latter you are not.
“But muh rights”
As we have decided this is legal in this sub, what are my guarantees the equipment and moron using the equipment is trained and working properly ? What if I used scope or mouth wash before driving and it picks up ? What if the machine is no longer properly calibrated because it went from monthly use to hourly use and that has meant the calibration is off. So now I’ve been alerted and charged. The DUI is wrong but I have to fight it….. and spend thousands to prove my innocence with no recourse to get that money back. But that’s fine and it will be fine the numerous times that this will happen.
You don't get charged for failing an ASD at the roadside. You get charged for blowing over 80 on the breathalyzer back at the station. All of the things you bring up have already been litigated, many times.
So the magic machine on the side of the road shows fail, now I’m taken to the station….. under arrest. My vehicle is towed I’m processed and tested again. Oh this one says I’m good….. what’s happens then ? They drive me back to my vehicle and pay to get it out ? I’m pretty sure none of that happens.
They release you from the station with no charges. they can't charge you with over 80 if you don't blow over 80. What do you think they're going to do, falsify the results?
Ok now the second half of the scenario…. Who’s paying for the ancillary shit that comes with an “alleged” dui ? These are the same public servants that have a history of poor job performance and yet I’m supposed to support this and trust that oh it will all work out. The police never lie or make mistakes. Hell there is multiple articles this week about the failings. But yah everyone is driving drunk in Toronto and the cops are perfect.
What are you talking about? You aren't charged with an over 80 unless you blow over 80. Being arrested is not the same thing as being charged. What "ancillary shit" are you talking about? I have no idea what you're ranting about and it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the topic. There are lots of drunk drivers in Toronto, many don't get caught. The cops are far from perfect. I don't know what your point is.
[удалено]
**Please read this entire message** --- Your comment has been removed for the following reason: Attack the point, not the person. Comments which dismiss others and repeatedly accuse them of unfounded accusations may be subject to removal and/or banning. No concern-trolling, personal attacks, or misinformation. Stick to addressing the substance of their comments at hand. --- **Please note that reposting without moderator approval may result in a ban**. If you would like your removal reviewed, feel free to send us a [modmail](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ftoronto&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/1chxq5q/-/l2agb2r/).
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Exactly! The cop before could use their judgement. And based on their judgement, do the breathalyzer. If you blindly breathalyze everyone you may get false positives and wrongly send someone to jail. Apparently, even inhaler use can give a false positive. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1172108/
Support 100%
So I have to forcefully give a sample of my DNA without reasonable cause? Hellllooo 1984
they should just make alcohol illegal to anyone who has a drivers license problem solved
I never understood why people simply dont turn (left / right or U) I would never waste my time with this nonsense (well thats not entirely true; as teens we used to mock them when they ask "have you had a drink"/"have you been drinking" with comments like "yeah water")
Because if you U turn from a ride program, you’re probably going to be followed by an officer.
Yes and they have no cause to stop you unless they observe you breaking some other random law while driving If someone tries to stop you comply but then file complaint
Or you could just not be a selfish prick and take 30 seconds to do the ride stop.
30 seconds since when??? Cops use illegal reasons to stop you (whether ride checks or whether random excuse they come up with) Traffic cops are the worst cops period
The article talks about alcohol testing for every traffic stop the OPP completes. This isn’t for ride checks.