Quote:
Originally Posted by MBates
Do you wonder why the government press release doesn’t explain the powers police have to pull you over under ‘common law’ and traffic safety legislation?
Maybe so people like you will blindly tell everyone they know not to worry because ‘probable cause’ is required for a stop? Which is simply not true.
Police can stop any car they want to check that the driver has a license and that the car has insurance and is mechanically safe etc. They don’t have to have grounds to believe the driver is not licensed or that the car is uninsured or dangerous. Under the old law, when that was the purpose of the stop, they couldn’t just launch an arbitrary criminal impaired investigation.
There is zero ‘probable cause’ required for stopping you and then making you provide a roadside breath sample under the current law. Police can pull you over whenever they want and now, unlike before where they had to have the most minimal reason to suspect you were doing anything illegal before detaining you and forcing you to provide bodily samples you are automatically obligated to provide same on demand.
Another part of the new law people are not talking about here is that you are guilty of a criminal offence for having blood alcohol readings over .08 mg% within two hours of driving. The offence no longer is about being over the limit at the time you drive. So yes, you can be convicted of a crime for driving sober and then drinking to more than the limit after parking at your destination.
But no worry, so long as you prove you were under the limit at time of driving (in a manner that has your evidence be consistent with the breathalyzer result because the result is now conclusive proof of your BAC) you still have a chance to show you didn’t commit an offence. You will have to hire a specialized lawyer and a toxicologist expert (last one I hired charged $400 per hour by the way).
Another interesting change not being discussed is that a statutorily compelled statement under the traffic safety act that has always clearly been inadmissible in criminal proceedings because, well it is the definition of an involuntary statement, is now declared to be admissible. So yes, the state can now force you under threat of imprisonment to give them a statement and then use that to imprison you. The SCC has ruled that is unconstitutional but the government is going to give it another go.
Also, don’t forget provincial driver control board license suspensions will all be proceeding independent from the criminal allegation. Incidentally, you might recall parts of Alberta’s last provincial regime based on ‘safety’ were struck as being unconstitutional as well.
But anybody even remotely concerned about state overreach and slippery slopes is apparently living in an alternate reality and deserves to be mocked according to some on this site.
Just because the grade isn’t steep doesn’t mean we are not on a slippery slope.
Remember the government itself clearly knows they are breaching potentially each of section 7, 8 and 9 of the Charter with these changes and have prepared in advance to ‘save’ the law with arguments under section 1. People being concerned about unwarranted state intrusion are not the only ones who see potential problems with what has been done here. You might want to read the law more closely before defending it so strongly...and incorrectly.
|
A roadside stop to ask for license, registration and proof of insurance was always, and will continue to be just a fishing expedition for any criminal conduct.