Castanet

Yes it's remarkable that the CBC story has generated 3142 comments. This Toronto lawyer Daniel Brown is saying that for up to two hours after driving, the police, without grounds can demand a screening test from a person who apparently is not currently driving. I didn't read that in the law, but I'm not a lawyer.

What REALLY concerns me is that yes, people across Canada are concerned that this new CRIMINAL law is taking away the right to be presumed innocent and in fact reverses the onus to the person to prove they weren't over the limit. BUT we in BC have the IRP that has NO PROTECTION and the IRP is triggered by the screening test, with it's new lack of any need for grounds to make the demand.

So yes, if the police choose to charge someone criminally there is a reverse onus, BUT in BC if the police, after obtaining the screening test of "warn" or "fail" revert to the BC Motor Vehicle Act, it's even worse ! The cop pronounces you guilty at the scene and all sorts of unconstitutional things happen.

I would love to see the stats on the number of Criminal Drinking Driving charges laid in BC verses the number of IRP. I would bet it's 95% IRP.

Don't get me wrong. I'm totally against anyone who drinks and drives. I just don't think taking away a person's rights is the way to go.

I'm disappointed in the number of people who feel that the end justifies the means.

oldtrucker wrote:It is on the Libs...they will be remembered for being the ones in power that allowed the law in Canadians living rooms and bedrooms 2 hours after they got home.

Kind of ironic how it was Trudeau Sr. that said the "Government has no business in the Nations bedrooms" ...

But the answer may be simple ...

"Knock-Knock" ... "Who's there?" ... "The police, open up and give us a breath sample" ... "GO GET A WARRANT"

... That ought to take care of the 2 hour time limit. It'll be a cold day in hell before I open my front door under those circumstances to any cops that don't have a warrant .

Wheels wrote:It's about time Canada. Fully support MADD in their initiatives.
RCMP need the tools and Government needs to tighten loop holes in the law! It's been done in Sweden and Australia to name a few. Get with it. Driving under the influence is a crime and should be legislated as such....

In some instances - yes, but not when it begins to violate your constitutional rights and increases the inception of a "Police State"!

It's absolutely unbelievable that they can come into your home and demand a breath sample 2 hours after you get home, then it's up to you to PROVE you had a couple of beer AFTER you got home ( not before ), that, my friends, is bordering on autocratic police state tactics - and Trudeau stated he "LIKES" China's system of Tyranny - a classic "AUTOCRATIC POLICE STATE".

Of course, JT can get stoned and *bleep* and drive without getting convicted because he is one of the "Elite" and above the law!! ( like Sikhs not having to wear motorcycle helmets when the rest of us do ).

What's next, they going to add the fact you have a cell phone and a car, so you must have been texting or talking on the phone while driving at one point? Or if you have a dog, it must have been sitting on your lap when you were driving? You hav an empty Timmies cup in the car, so you MUST have drank it while Driving?

Sorry, if your out driving and your stupid enough to drive drunk, then that's your problem.

Leaving a bar, party or anywhere serving alcohol is also fair game in my opinion, but not breaking into your house 2 hours later demanding a sample when there is no proof that you were drunk driving.

THAT IS POLICE STATE TACTICS!!!

So, what is this issue about going into a bar and testing you - if you have a car, are they going to walk in and demand everyone with a vehicle line up, test you, then assume your going to drive and arrest you for impaired??? WOW - concentration camp tactics or what!!!

FYI - it takes 20 minutes of NO DRINKING to get an accurate breath sample - to test you in the bar while your actively drinking is total stupidity because if you take a sip of beer, you can register easily .11 to .15 up to several minutes after - which is not a true BA reading.

It's "Cash Grab" tactics from a Government that is totally BROKE from that idiot's overspending of OUR tax money.

I bought a small breathalyzer from Bactrac that connects to my cell phone, and when I go out, I always check before I ever turn the key - and if I'm even close to the limit, I don't drive until I'm well under.

Everyone should get one that likes to go out and have a few - because you just don't know - especially if think you feel fine.

I got a few extra mouth pieces so that when I have my next house party - I'll make sure I will test my guests before they leave just to be sure - that is a win/win.

It's cheap insurance, and can help you make a very bad mistake.

pieinthei wrote:

voice of reason wrote:it is a violation of our charter rights under section 8. if there is no suspicion then it is an unlawful search. im all for getting drunks off the road but not at the cost of eroding our rights.this is a slippery slope

rules and laws change.. get used to it, and blow

I'm sure you will the first to agree to the return of the Curfew laws as well - but instead of just "Teenagers" it will be for anyone being out without a reason after a certain hour of the night.

I'm sure that will save a lot of lives too!!

You can't control or protect everyone from themselves or others without infringing on their freedoms.

It's how much freedom people are willing to give up that counts, and just where does the control end is the question.

I personally will defend freedom - my father put his life on the line to do just that, and so did 10's of thousands of other Canadians. Do we simply look at their sacrifice - shrug our shoulders and say - too bad you died for something that no one now has the guts to defend??

Don't take autocracy with a grain of salt - it is a very real and dangerous road that is picking away at our rights and freedoms, and people like JT are only too happy to be the top of the pyramid controlling everything you do, say or hear - and to be above the very law he imposes on the masses.

RVThereYet wrote:Kind of ironic how it was Trudeau Sr. that said the "Government has no business in the Nations bedrooms" ...

But the answer may be simple ...

"Knock-Knock" ... "Who's there?" ... "The police, open up and give us a breath sample" ... "GO GET A WARRANT"

... That ought to take care of the 2 hour time limit. It'll be a cold day in hell before I open my front door under those circumstances to any cops that don't have a warrant .

If, as has been described, (no hit and run, just a neighbor saying he thought your driving was suspect) it would be very interesting for sure.

If you saw it was the police, just don't answer the door. Now how the heck do they prove refusal then ?

? Section 1234(a)(b)(c) Criminal Code of Canada - Fail to answer the door when police knock.

To those who subscribe to "well if it will get one impaired driver off the road, I'm all for it"

Benjamin Franklin had your answer : "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

Have we allowed Trudeau and MADD to take control of Provincial traffic laws? I don't remember voting for MADD. MADD needs to be controlled. They are now worse than enviro-fascists. Cops walking into my house after I have been at home for a while and demanding a breath test is a Liberal Police State. We can expect that they will claim since they are in the house they will do a complete search to see if they can find something wrong. All this based on a neighbor's complaint. Trudeau will have us spying on each other to try to suck up to him and his dictatorship.

We have to eliminate him and his Liberals from Canadian politics. It is critical for the survival of Canada as a free and democratic country.

vegas1500 wrote:

LTD wrote:wont be getting a random breath test from me

And if you are requested how do you think that will play out?

Simply don't open the door at home.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to remove drinking drivers from our roads. So that innocent lives are not at risk, well at least from this threat.
Because 50+/- years of counterattack isn't working so far.

To clarify preventative actions.

GordonH wrote:Does anyone have any suggestions on how to remove drinking drivers from our roads. So that innocent lives are not at risk, well at least from this threat.
Because 50+/- years of counterattack isn't working so far.

To clarify preventative actions.

Counter-Attack road checks as currently deployed are a joke! I moved to the Okanagan in 1997 and I drive a lot all over the valley and many other places in BC, during that time I can remember one roadblock I was caught up in (Vernon many years ago at Christmas) and one that was opposite side of the road to me (Lake Country 2 years ago, also during Christmas), that's it ... If these checks were to pop up way more frequently and during all times of the year at random times/places "morning, noon and night" (not just Christmas & New Years) I think they would nab way more drunk drivers and the message would eventually get across that if you drive drunk your chances of getting caught are pretty good. The risk of getting caught today under the current set-up are way too low... yes it would cost more tax $, but I for one wouldn't mind if it was to get drunks off the roads. And they should be dealt with under the CCC, none of this IPR BS, unless maybe they blew a warn above .05 but below .08, but anyone over .08 should be charged under the CCC - period!

But I don't think it matters what we do, even if we implemented zero tolerance, 5 years in jail coupled with 10 year DL loss on first offence, people would still drive under the influence. Maybe a lot less than now, but some still would...

And giving the police these carte-blache powers is not the answer for sure...

This Quote I have always believed to be true:


"My house is my castle" simply means that you can do whatever you want to at your own home. Also,
You home is your domain. you are the ultimate ruler, have ultimate responsibility and should be able to do whatever you want in it. you also have the right and responsibility to defend it and protect anyone and anything in it.

Now I would think a police officer should know this, and obtain a warrant, before trying such a stupid move.

GordonH wrote:Does anyone have any suggestions on how to remove drinking drivers from our roads. So that innocent lives are not at risk, well at least from this threat.
Because 50+/- years of counterattack isn't working so far.

To clarify preventative actions.

RVThereYet wrote:Counter-Attack road checks as currently deployed are a joke! I moved to the Okanagan in 1997 and I drive a lot all over the valley and many other places in BC, during that time I can remember one roadblock I was caught up in (Vernon many years ago at Christmas) and one that was opposite side of the road to me (Lake Country 2 years ago, also during Christmas), that's it ... If these checks were to pop up way more frequently and during all times of the year at random times/places "morning, noon and night" (not just Christmas & New Years) I think they would nab way more drunk drivers and the message would eventually get across that if you drive drunk your chances of getting caught are pretty good. The risk of getting caught today under the current set-up are way too low... yes it would cost more tax $, but I for one wouldn't mind if it was to get drunks off the roads. And they should be dealt with under the CCC, none of this IPR BS, unless maybe they blew a warn above .05 but below .08, but anyone over .08 should be charged under the CCC - period!

But I don't think it matters what we do, even if we implemented zero tolerance, 5 years in jail coupled with 10 year DL loss on first offence, people would still drive under the influence. Maybe a lot less than now, but some still would...

And giving the police these carte-blache powers is not the answer for sure...

The loss of human beings to drinking drivers is also not the answer.

GordonH wrote:
The loss of human beings to drinking drivers is also not the answer.

Ok, so what do you think should be done then???

And to clarify, I don't mind blowing anytime I'm driving and get stopped in a legal traffic stop, that's not the issue for me, but this coming to my door up to two hours after I get home to demand a breath sample is going too far!

I wonder what that moron MP Stephen (I'm a pilot) Fuhr or is it Fuhrer has to say about his "masters" idea of taking away Canadians RIGHTS?

………..never a peep out of this 6 figure pension seeker!

Its amazing reading these forums and seeing more and more anti-police comments when the police did not create this law.
If you disagree with this law then go to your MP and get it changed.

The police are there to catch impaired drivers. YOU pay them to. If they're not out then its a problem, and if they are out its a problem....

Once again if you want to challenge this law then do so.

The police are there to catch impaired drivers. YOU pay them to. If they're not out then its a problem, and if they are out its a problem...

hmmm...

My first thought is , ok ..

My second thought is , we pay them to catch criminals .. If they can't find any , they can MAKE criminals to catch just to justify their existence ..

Happens every day and this "new" law will make it easier for them to do just that ... Look at the Enterprise Way crawl for an example .

You going to tell me that anyone who's had a long , hard day at work has to wait for two hours for a glass of wine or a beer to unwind AFTER they get home for fear of criminal prosecution ?