Random breathalyzer tests considered for Canada

[grumpydigger]

he federal justice minister is considering a new law that would allow police to conduct random breathalyzer tests on drivers, regardless of whether they suspect motorists have been drinking.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving says the federal government is considering adopting random breathalyzer testing, following the June 2009 recommendation of a House of Commons justice committee.Mothers Against Drunk Driving says the federal government is considering adopting random breathalyzer testing, following the June 2009 recommendation of a House of Commons justice committee. (CBC)

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson raised the prospect recently at a meeting of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, according to MADD chief executive Andrew Murie.

If random testing were to be adopted, it would be a major change to Canada's 40-year-old breathalyzer legislation, which stipulates that police may only administer a test if they suspect a driver has been drinking.

In June, a House of Commons parliamentary committee recommended changing the legislation to allow for random testing, arguing it is an effective deterrent.

The change would also bring Canada in line with a number of other countries in Europe and countries like Australia, which have adopted similar measures.

Murie said its biggest selling point is that it improves road safety, with drunk driving fatalities dropping 36 per cent in Australia after legislation was introduced, and 23 per cent in Ireland when it made the change.
Tests could infringe on civil liberties
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson introduced legislation in 2008 that compelled drivers stopped by police to take a roadside test, such as walking a straight line.Justice Minister Rob Nicholson introduced legislation in 2008 that compelled drivers stopped by police to take a roadside test, such as walking a straight line. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

"In the European Union, they demand that their countries, as part of membership for road safety, have sophisticated random breath testing because of the difference it's made in lives saved," he told CBC News.

Murie said the change would allow police at roadblocks to conduct about three times as many breathalyzer tests because they would not need to spend time determining whether there is "reasonable" suspicion a driver has been drinking.

The issue for civil libertarians, however, is that changing the law to allow random testing would be a violation of a person's right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

"It has no real place in a democratic society," said Richard Rosenberg of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

"Giving police power to act on a whim is not something we want in an open democratic society."

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh, the former attorney general of British Columbia and a member of the House justice committee, said the question of whether any legislation would be allowable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would come down to implementation.
Constraints on police power needed: MP

"It remains to be seen what the actual legislation is when the minister brings it forward because we want to make sure that it's appropriately constrained and it's not too much of an infringement on civil liberties," Dosanjh told CBC News.

Dosanjh said the charter does allow for constraints on rights when they are deemed reasonable, but said he would need to see how those constraints are implemented before judging any future legislation.

"For instance... I wouldn’t want the east side of Vancouver monitored more than the west side of Vancouver because there is a clear economic division in the city," he said.

"We want to make sure that areas are not unnecessarily excessively focused on and that's why I think that we need to make sure that the legislation is properly drafted with appropriate constraints and guidelines for the police," he said.

But Dosanjh pointed out that driving is not a right itself, but rather a privilege subject to licences given by government authorities.

Nicholson could not be reached for comment.http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/ ... t-law.html

[mtnman1]

AND your comment is?

[grumpydigger]

It wont be long before they will be allowed to break down the door of your house because they suspect you might be committing a crime..............random house searchs for your protection

[mtnman1]

Speculation without evidence.

[baaron]

Say hello to 21st century Canada: “Papers please”.

On this day I am embarrassed to be a Canadian.

[kgcayenne]

So what!

If people didn't drive impaired and cause damage/death, then there would be no need for this kind of enforcement. Don't blame the lawmakers, take down those who wish to threaten everyone's safety.

Level 1 - Caught over the limit = Charged with impaired status quo
Level 2 - Cause non-life threatening injuries in an accident = Assault with a deadly weapon
Level 3 - Cause serious injuries in an accident = Attempted 1st degree murder
Level 4 - Cause death in an accident = 1st degree murder, lock-em up

[zerograv]

I would hate to recieve fines based on an officers whim.........oh wait....how is this any different than it was before? A police officer can't smell if you have had ONE beer or EIGHT so breathalysers are random enough as it is.

The Government has their hands in my pockets, I don't need their cronies to have their hands on my steering wheel.


As kccayenne says. Stiffer fines/penalties is what we need. I was always in favour of having a big red "D" magnet, similar to the N, on top of a breath immobilizer.

[WhatThe]

Yes sir, I'd love to submit to you, here's the Vaseline

Peoplejust don't recognize the true value of what it means to be free.

[steven lloyd]

People just don't recognize the true value of what it means to be free.

It doesn't mean you have the right to act irresponsibly without accountability. If you are unable to be responsible to a collective (society), don’t live in one.

[WhatThe]

People just don't recognize the true value of what it means to be free.

It doesn't mean you have the right to act irresponsibly without accountability. If you are unable to be responsible to a collective (society), don’t live in one.

If only itwere that easy to emancipate.......
The point is we are becoming weak. People don't want personal responsibility, they'd rather let the authorities deal with lifes inherent risks and preach "save us". What other explanation is there that would allow inept officials to chip and bend our most precious document and principle?
It's smart to be safety conscience, but this goes too far. Reasonable grounds is reasonable grounds.

[steven lloyd]

People don't want personal responsibility, they'd rather let the authorities deal with life’s inherent risks and preach "save us". What other explanation is there that would allow inept officials to chip and bend our most precious document and principle? It's smart to be safety conscience, but this goes too far. Reasonable grounds is reasonable grounds.

Unfortunately then, if people don’t want personal responsibility then it has to be imposed on them. I agree with you in acknowledging that in many, if not most cases, our officials are inept and when I speak of our responsibility to the collective I am certainly not talking about some responsibility to our corporate sponsored government. The bottom line is when we’re talking about impaired driving though is that too many people are still not getting the message.

Ironically we live in a society that promotes and perpetuates that “me, me, me” attitude, but rather than the long term degradation effect that has to our society, impaired driving poses an immediate and deadly risk to many potential innocent victims.

It’s truly sad we now live in a world where it takes you an hour to go through security clearance to get on to a plane but there’s obviously a good reason for that. Likewise, there is a good reason to randomly screen drivers to see if they are placing the lives of innocent victims at risk.

[westsidebud]

Speculation without evidence.

lol oh realy?the usa is a police state.and we are next

[westsidebud]

So what!

If people didn't drive impaired and cause damage/death, then there would be no need for this kind of enforcement. Don't blame the lawmakers, take down those who wish to threaten everyone's safety.

Level 1 - Caught over the limit = Charged with impaired status quo
Level 2 - Cause non-life threatening injuries in an accident = Assault with a deadly weapon
Level 3 - Cause serious injuries in an accident = Attempted 1st degree murder
Level 4 - Cause death in an accident = 1st degree murder, lock-em up

booze should not be legal

[westsidebud]

People just don't recognize the true value of what it means to be free.

It doesn't mean you have the right to act irresponsibly without accountability. If you are unable to be responsible to a collective (society), don’t live in one.

[Mutha]

Don't drive while impaired, and you have nothing to worry about. I'm all for it. BTW, I really hope my tax dollars don't pay the salaries of the coneheads in the BC Civil Liberties Association.