Random Breath tests

[jimmy4321]

In this day vehicle manufacturers should be able to make a vehicle that beyond the radio should not be able to function unless the driver were sober to drive. This would not only save lives and injuries but also lower insurance rates.

I'm not thinking that much into it but when you consider your smartphone uses biometrics just to open it and all the other advances, surely manufacturers can come up with a way that people couldn't cheat it. Hell they could have your face scanned immediately after breath test and facial or retina scan every minute of the ride after- if your smartphone can zero in on faces for a pic this all doesn't seem to far fetched. Considering the tech is readily available it wouldn't be cost prohibitive, just needs imagination and will.
It could also be used to prevent auto theft.
Not Star Trek *bleep*

[BGrigg07]

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

Ah, but it is...

You're just not thinking it through!

[Ken7]

For years I have seen the adds stating "If you refuse to blow, it is the same as blowing over".

WRONG...…...It will definitely cost you money for a lawyer and go to court but the IMPAIRED charge has zero merit without the evidence.

Many years ago over a period of time in another city there were numerous impaired charges laid against off-duty police officers and EVERYONE of them refused to blow (what did they know that the rest of us didn't)...………….end result, the charges were tossed from court every time.

Either way you were going to pay thousands of dollars if charged or fighting the charge.

Tobacco advertising was banned almost 20 years ago because of the health issues, why not ban ALL alcohol advertising? I could care less about the B.C. wine industry if it will end up saving lives on our roads. The "vice" they are promoting has far more health and society issues than tobacco ever did.

I will tell you, a refusal has no defence. You do not have the right to refuse. That is the law.

[Ken7]

Cops shouldn't be allowed to test every car that passes by them with a radar gun either. If I'm going the speed limit then they have no reason to think I'm speeding so shouldn't be allowed to test me. I feel so violated. It's like that gun can see into my soul.

That is funny. Fact of the matter is, a radar only supports the observation of the user. I used to be able to be no more then 2 k over in my speed estimate. I won more coffee betting other members then enough.

So as you say, they do not THINK you are speeding.

[Ken7]

I'm sure the watch commanders are instructing RCMP members to make sure that they have real cause to pull someone over under this law. An eventual court challenge will set the precedent and I'm sure they don't want to lose this "tool" to improper actions of police members (ie. power tripping)

It is easy to see however, that there is an appearance of a police state type of authoritarianism emerging and that this law is a thin edge of the wedge of perhaps, larger, ominous and more rights infringing laws on the horizon.

What's next? Are the police going to be given authority to randomly draw your blood and get DNA samples?

You have a lack of understanding of the law.
Prior to this Police had the right to stop you to ensure you have a drivers licence, and you vehicle is insured.

[Bpeep]

I will tell you, a refusal has no defence.

Not to argue semantics, but everything has a defense.

[Ken7]

Not to argue semantics, but everything has a defense.

If you know anything about case law, skim through it and find a case that is a proven defense. I've been on numerous cases and sorry, even deep pockets failed to save a refusal.

But if you can find one, I'd love to read it. We had some pretty well known Criminal Lawyers in Saskatchewan.

[Bpeep]

Like I said, I don't wish to argue semantics, but you mentioned no defense.
There's a defense for every offense.
Everyone, even those charged of the most heinous of all crimes are entitled to that defense.
I made no reference to success.

[Bpeep]

Speaking of worthless defenses, has anyone heard anything about the trials of pirko and forman? I think theres a publication ban on one but I'm not sure of the other.
There's been nothing in media about either for quite some time.
Off topic. Sorry.
But does anyone know anything new?

[Ken7]

Speaking of worthless defenses, has anyone heard anything about the trials of pirko and forman? I think theres a publication ban on one but I'm not sure of the other.
There's been nothing in media about either for quite some time.
Off topic. Sorry.
But does anyone know anything new?

I do, but there is a BAN on it...sorry.

[Passion4Truth]

I will tell you, a refusal has no defence. You do not have the right to refuse. That is the law.

Is it not possible to be falsely classified as a refusal, in which case there can be a successful defense?

[Pitapants]

I will tell you, a refusal has no defence.

Not to argue semantics, but everything has a defense.

But it may be weak and ineffective. France comes to mind. :)

[my5cents]

I think you have missed something small...yet significant:

Section 215.41(7) This is where the "must" gets a little muddy.

When a an officer has a person blow a "fail" or a refusal and then proceeds with a Criminal Code Investigation, they do not have to (can't) issue an IRP. They will, however, serve the driver with a Notice of Driving Prohibition under Section 94.1 MVA.

It's still action under the MVA, but not an IRP.

Yes, I'd say very muddy.

The way I read it....

The IRP is based on an RSD demand pursuant to Sec 254 of the CC of C. Sec 94.1 of the MVA says if a peace officer has R & P grounds to believe a person refused to comply to providing a sample under 254 of the CC of C...the peace officer MUST issue a prohibition under 94.1(1) (an ADP (Administrative Driving Prohibition). Having issued an ADP under 94.1, the peace office "must not serve" a driving prohibition under the IRP section.

Section 254 encompasses both the RSD 254(2)(b) and the test with an approved instrument 254(3)(a)(i)

(In lay terms, it say if a cop has reasonable and probable ground to believe you failed to blow, after a demand for a sample under the Criminal Code, either the roadside screening device or the Breathalyser, the Motor Vehicle Act of BC says the cop must issue an Administrative Driving Prohibition under the MVA, which is a 90 day suspension that starts 21 days from receiving the notice. Having issued that, they can't issue a suspension under the IRP)

I can't see a situation where the IRP could be used for fail to blow.

[my5cents]

Just out of curiosity. Let's say one wasn't drinking, yet for some reason you still blow a fail. What can one do at that time?

Right to second analysis
215.42 (1) If an analysis of the breath of a person by means of an approved screening device under section 215.41 (3.1) registers a warn or a fail,
(a) the person has a right to forthwith request and be provided with a second analysis, and
(b) a peace officer must inform the person of that right before the peace officer serves on the person a notice of driving prohibition.
(2) A second analysis performed under this section must be performed with a different approved screening device than was used in the first analysis.
(3) If a person provides a sample of breath for a second analysis in accordance with this section, the lower of the first and second analysis results governs for the purposes of section 215.41 (3.1).

[jimmy4321]

Maybe police just need to pin some big wigs to sort it all out lol