Random Breath tests

[soupy]

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.

Well if they are arrested under an illegal search warrant they have nothing to worry about.
But please, feel free to notify me when the first case arrives of Police attending a home hours later to demand a breath test. When it happens, I guarantee they have a lawful reason to do it.

As per the link you posted. If this cell phone was dead, and in a "cubby hole" then why did this operator have headphones in?

[BCPickles]

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

[countmeout]

As per the link you posted. If this cell phone was dead, and in a "cubby hole" then why did this operator have headphones in?

Would it matter if the cell phone was powered on? The ruling given out was idiotic. If you try to justify it you're just as dumb as the judge.

[soupy]

As per the link you posted. If this cell phone was dead, and in a "cubby hole" then why did this operator have headphones in?

Would it matter if the cell phone was powered on? The ruling given out was idiotic. If you try to justify it you're just as dumb as the judge.

Still not as dumb as the driver who wears headphones attached to a non-powered cell phone that is secured in a holder in his car ....

That makes ZERO sense.

[csm]

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.

Ok, check this scenario out....

> Your driving home at dusk, a cat runs in front of your car ( not seen by the car behind ), you swerve, almost hit a parked car and the curb.
> Shaken, you go home - have a few beer or a couple of stiff drinks to calm your nerves.
> 2 hours later, there is knock at the door - it's the cops - they force their way in, handcuff you and force you to take a breathalyzer which you fail.
> You have now been arrested for Impaired Driving simply because you were reported swerving, and were dead sober when it happened.
> Now you have to ( at your own expense and at about $450/hr ), secure a Lawyer, and face criminal charges for being impaired while operating a motor vehicle.

That is the law your hero JT has forced upon you, and shows how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are not worth the paper they are written on.

[csm]

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

Charged with refusal.
Probably a good chunk of legal fees, and charges will stand.

How do you know charges will stand? I'm anxiously waiting to see how the first charge holds up in court against our charter.

The Charter is a joke. The criminals in Ottawa can change it in a whim ( unlike the States ).

JT is your parent, and you must be the obedient child and pay your rent - or you will be made an example of.

They can spend a million$ or more ( part of it your money ) prosecuting you (guilty or not ) - can you afford a Million (non-tax deductible by the way) to fight them back?

Just be a good obedient sheep and go back to your pasture and wait patiently for your next fleecing.

[my5cents]

The Charter is a joke. The criminals in Ottawa can change it in a whim ( unlike the States ).

JT is your parent, and you must be the obedient child and pay your rent - or you will be made an example of.

They can spend a million$ or more ( part of it your money ) prosecuting you (guilty or not ) - can you afford a Million (non-tax deductible by the way) to fight them back?

Just be a good obedient sheep and go back to your pasture and wait patiently for your next fleecing.

I have to agree with you that the Charter is a joke, csm. I don't agree it is because "Ottawa can change it in a whim". Governments opposed to the provisions of the Charter, can, through their courts, just INTERPRET the Charter in their favor.

The IRP (Immediate Roadside Prohibition) is the most glaring example. The courts by "interpreting" what a "penal matter" is allowed the BC Provincial Government to continue to use a provincial law that allows police to make a finding of "guilt" at the roadside :
- Without a fair public trial by an independent and impartial tribunal (Section 11(d) Charter of Rights)
- Without the presumption of innocents until proven guilty (Section 11(d) Charter of Rights)
- Without being compelled to be a witness in a proceedings (Section 11(c) Charter of Rights)

The same section (Section 94.1) http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws ... ection94.1
that has caused the uproar that someone can be charged if found over the limit within two hours of driving, also provides for a 90 day suspension BEFORE they are convicted.

The law states a "peace officer must" serve on the person a notice of driving prohibition if "a peace officer has reasonable ground to believe", the driver blew over the limit of 80 mgs, or failed to blow.

They are issued a temporary 21 day license and on the expiry of the 21 days, serve a 90 day prohibition on the grounds that the peace officer believes the driver is guilty. No court, no zip.

The driver, during the 21 day grace period can appeal the suspension. (all this before the trial for the offense, if in fact crown proceeds). Doesn't that make a situation where the accused is tried twice for the offense ??? Aren't appeals held AFTER convictions ?????

[countmeout]

Still not as dumb as the driver who wears headphones attached to a non-powered cell phone that is secured in a holder in his car ....

That makes ZERO sense.

Probably the battery died while he was listening to music. It's no different than a Bluetooth phone earpiece. Put his phone in the glove box to ensure that he wouldn't get a ticket and boom, common sense gone.

[lesliepaul]

Ok, check this scenario out....

> Your driving home at dusk, a cat runs in front of your car ( not seen by the car behind ), you swerve, almost hit a parked car and the curb.
> Shaken, you go home - have a few beer or a couple of stiff drinks to calm your nerves.
> 2 hours later, there is knock at the door - it's the cops - they force their way in, handcuff you and force you to take a breathalyzer which you fail.
> You have now been arrested for Impaired Driving simply because you were reported swerving, and were dead sober when it happened.
> Now you have to ( at your own expense and at about $450/hr ), secure a Lawyer, and face criminal charges for being impaired while operating a motor vehicle.

That is the law your hero JT has forced upon you, and shows how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are not worth the paper they are written on.

[/quote]

This is the "rights-removing" law that "native activist" Jody Wilson-Raybould came up with as Justice Minister. I am so glad she is getting tossed! Do not trust her in the least regardless about the SNC-Lavalin circus.

[countmeout]

https://www.kelownacapnews.com/news/nanaimo-woman-wins-court-challenge-after-rcmp-breathalyze-her-at-home/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&fbclid=IwAR1-0Rq2mG8aMzW2kv_T_QbeBhyLguZK-roT4MGjrEvp_SV2KxutjdnUeig#

Well, all you nay sayers, it happened!
Arrested, charged all while having beer at her sisters house NOT DRIVING!

Rediculous. Out vacation and $3500 in legal fees. Yeah our new laws really keep us safer! Just a joke.

So everyone who said this will never happen, what do you think now? Obviously some of you will still taje a zero tolerance approach and say she shouldn't of had the one beer at the pub. I hope this will open your eyes when the government tries to put the next dumb law into place.

[jimmy4321]

You're friend, do no wrong Jody brought this along.

[csm]

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....

What other rights would you like to give up so the "state" can protect us from ourselves?

Being able to provide a breathalyzer on demand for suspected impaired driving, is not the issue - it's the police state type tactics of you having to prove you didn't drive drunk - up to 2 hours after arriving home. That is not reasonable doubt.

Simply grabbing a beer or 2 ( or 3 ) to unwind is not uncommon, but what about swerving to miss a cat or deer and someone reports you, or some lead footed idiot figured you were driving too slow and reports you to "pay you back" for holding him up?

That can cost you thousands of dollars, embarrassment and a criminal record and maybe even your job - even if you are innocent, and it "can" happen to YOU ( unless you don't drink or smoke anything weird ).

In fact, if you drink one mouthful of beer or use alcohol based mouthwash, you can blow way over the legal limit within the first several minutes of consumption because it hasn't been absorbed and it's the residual in your mouth that is getting detected - which can last up to 20 minutes which they will not wait for - and that can get you a drunk driving charge, a criminal record and put you into bankruptcy - even though you are dead sober.

Why is being drunk a defence in Murder, but not in driving?

That is a police state tactic, and that is not what this country was built upon.

If a cop comes to my door, I don't care if he's collecting for the policeman's ball, he better come with a bloody warrant.