Castanet

my5cents wrote:

soupy wrote:Correct me if I am wrong. But where in this new law does it give the right to randomly stop drivers?
It does give them the right to request a breath sample without having to prove reasonable suspicion.

You are correct soupy, although I would have probably used the word "demand" instead of "request.

The police must have stopped the vehicle lawfully. After that, it's on to the screening test, without any grounds.

A road block is a legal way to stop cars. To be pulled over at a traffic stop doesn't imply the driver has done anything wrong.

The police don't need a reason to pull you over, all they have to say is they wanted to verify your insurance. After pulled over they can issue an IRP and not much can be done. 90% of cops won't do this but there is always over zealous ones. This law put forth by government puts all the power to one person which is wrong.

countmeout wrote:A road block is a legal way to stop cars. To be pulled over at a traffic stop doesn't imply the driver has done anything wrong.

The police don't need a reason to pull you over, all they have to say is they wanted to verify your insurance. After pulled over they can issue an IRP and not much can be done. 90% of cops won't do this but there is always over zealous ones. This law put forth by government puts all the power to one person which is wrong.

Is this factual? (Actually curious as I have never heard of police pulling someone over just to verify insurance)
Apart from if their tag on the plate was expired / missing.

soupy wrote:Is this factual? (Actually curious as I have never heard of police pulling someone over just to verify insurance)
Apart from if their tag on the plate was expired / missing.

Unfortunately I cannot find a better article but this one outlines that they can pull you over for no reason. The courts voted on it and didn't see aby violation to the charter.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/commuting/can-police-legally-pull-me-over-to-check-my-truck-and-trailer/article29583815/

countmeout wrote:A road block is a legal way to stop cars. To be pulled over at a traffic stop doesn't imply the driver has done anything wrong.

The police don't need a reason to pull you over, all they have to say is they wanted to verify your insurance. After pulled over they can issue an IRP and not much can be done. 90% of cops won't do this but there is always over zealous ones. This law put forth by government puts all the power to one person which is wrong.

You jumped a couple of steps there countmeout. After being pulled over, they can demand a screening test, and if the results are a "warn" or "fail", then the IRP.

soupy wrote:Is this factual? (Actually curious as I have never heard of police pulling someone over just to verify insurance)
Apart from if their tag on the plate was expired / missing.

Of course.

oldtrucker wrote:

lesliepaul wrote: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!

Yes. He is a pilot... a very skilled one. I dare anyone to strap themselves into a F-18A and head off into a combat zone as he has.
They don't use first names on the side of aircraft. Check the name on the bird at 0:43 in the vid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPxDtaOyPH4

………..and being a "skilled pilot", that seems to impress you enough to vote that person into politics? Would you also vote for a "newscaster" simply because you see the person on TV reading the news or telling us about the weather nightly? Canada has "blue collar" convicts in prison that are more qualified than Fuhr.

Think about it.

Everyone is up in arms about the new law that allows a screening breath test with no grounds. BUT there wasn't that much concern or opposition when the IRP was enacted in BC.

Some were saying "Well if it keeps just one impaired driver off the road, it's a good thing".

If there was no IRP, the groundless screening test would then have to be backed up with a breathalyser test if the screening test resulted in a "fail", if the breathalyser test resulted in criminal charges the driver would be back in the protection of rules of evidence, and the Charter of Rights.

Actually the IRP is the most worrisome IMO.

Criminally the limit is 80 mgs and Crown won't approve a charge unless it's at least 100 mgs.

Jonrox wrote:This is a good thing... a very good thing. It's not a slippery slope at all.

Trudeau intentionally put this into the Criminal Code of Canada, even though laws regarding operating a motor vehicle is Provincial jurisdiction. Canada is now a Police State that allows police to enter your home without a warrant. They can assume we have had a drink and arrest us without cause. Next step - entering and searching our homes and property looking for firearms or anything else that the police think might possibly break some obscure law.

Should Trudeau win, it is very likely that the next election will be the last "democratic" election. Uncontrolled migration, no border, passports that are now just expensive Butts wipe, a Trudeau Carbon Tax that does absolutely nothing except steal more money, intentionally importing and rewarding ISIS killers, financing Hamas terrorists, intentionally chasing over $100 billion out of Canada, deliberately destroying the resource industry and on and on and on.

Canada, arm yourselves. Trudeau is dangerous.

ninetyninepct wrote:

Jonrox wrote:This is a good thing... a very good thing. It's not a slippery slope at all.

Trudeau intentionally put this into the Criminal Code of Canada, even though laws regarding operating a motor vehicle is Provincial jurisdiction. Canada is now a Police State that allows police to enter your home without a warrant. They can assume we have had a drink and arrest us without cause. Next step - entering and searching our homes and property looking for firearms or anything else that the police think might possibly break some obscure law.

Should Trudeau win, it is very likely that the next election will be the last "democratic" election. Uncontrolled migration, no border, passports that are now just expensive Butts wipe, a Trudeau Carbon Tax that does absolutely nothing except steal more money, intentionally importing and rewarding ISIS killers, financing Hamas terrorists, intentionally chasing over $100 billion out of Canada, deliberately destroying the resource industry and on and on and on.

Canada, arm yourselves. Trudeau is dangerous.

Thanks, i needed a good laugh today.

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....

.

Maybe the auto industry should be made to put breathalyzers into cars, and it won't start unless the driver is zero - I understand that there are ways to circumvent that, but in reality, why would a sober passenger bypass the system so a drunk can drive, but like seat belts, not everyone wears them, but most do and the fatality rate has dropped because if it.

The biggest problem is - driving infractions are a cash cow - we now have "revenue policing" as opposed to policing for the protection of the public.

These laws are designed to appease the public without actually cutting into the revenue generated by the fines associated with it. Not to mention, try and find a Taxi on a Friday or Saturday night? And when you do, you need a pile of money to go 2 km.

Our government is a criminal organization that breaks every racketeering law on the books - they have the guns, the jails and the power - we really have no rights except to be victims of their extortion - even our elections are likely rigged. Now they want to erode our rights a little at a time to appease the fanatics of our society - but more importantly - garner another cash cow.

One might want to question why - "Being drunk is a defence in Murder, but not driving" - hmmm...…. guess murder victims are just not that important.

GordonH wrote:Here are some signs to look for drinking driver:

1) Swerving or slowing
2) Erratic braking and acceleration
3) Sudden, abrupt turns
4) Driving down the center of a road or straddling two lanes
5) Driving on the wrong side of the road
6) Stopping inappropriately in traffic
7) Failure to respond appropriately to traffic signals

Many of the above signs can be seen daily on Harvey, so should the police be pulling them over.

Same can be said of drunk killing innocent victims, there right to life has been extremely violated (voice of reason).
Courts gives that killer essentially not much more the slap on the wrist, meanwhile victims will never return. impo they lost their rights the moment they decided to drive after drinking.
Plan ahead & stick to that plan... be it a Cab, DD, or call a friend.

That could also be caused by cell-phone addiction - another form of impaired driving.

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....

First of all - NO I don't condone impaired driving.

NOR do I condone texting and driving, yakking on their cell phones and driving and driving with their stupid dog on their lap - that is no better than impaired driving and has been responsible for thousands of deaths - if not more than impaired driving has.

Maybe the cops should come to your house, grab your phone and check it and make you prove you weren't texting and driving? or if there is dog hair on the drivers side of your vehicle - "your guilty" - Where does it end?

I'm willing to bet all the do-gooders here are guilty of some form of distracted driving - yet, sit here in judgment of others.

That is what Canada is founded on - hypocrisy - and bleeding heart Liberals that think with their feet.

The whole argument about "cops going into your house" with the changes in law is NOT the police's fault. The government passed the law that a lot of Canada voted in.

If YOU want that law changed or challenged then YOU go to your government rep and complain.

Just because the cops can do it doesn't mean they will do it.

People are just taking things to the extreme.

How about simply don't drink and drive and don't text and drive. If you're caught stop complaining about the laws. Obey them.

Don't bounce off of three parked cars, run over a dog, and park
on top of the neighbours trash cans.
The Police will have no reason to be at your door looking for a
breath sample.

I can see an upside to random breath tests:

Chyren wrote:The whole argument about "cops going into your house" with the changes in law is NOT the police's fault. The government passed the law that a lot of Canada voted in.

If YOU want that law changed or challenged then YOU go to your government rep and complain.

Just because the cops can do it doesn't mean they will do it.

People are just taking things to the extreme.

How about simply don't drink and drive and don't text and drive. If you're caught stop complaining about the laws. Obey them.

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/253674/Earbuds-land-driver-ticket

Everyone that keeps stating the cops and judges won't abuse the laws needs to read this article! Only a matter of time before someone is arrested with the 2 hour after getting home law under an illegal search warrant.