Calgary police begin mandatory alcohol screening at Checkstops

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by GGG

So you are saying that it’s okay if a sober person leaves the scene of an accident and goes to the bar to drink that charging then with a DUI without evidence that they were drunk.

And are you 100% sure of when Police are required to be called at the time of an accident? Because if you are wrong you could get a DUI.

No I'm saying it's not likely to happen the way you describe it. First of all, the person leaving the scene of an accident is already likely guilty of an indictable offense...leaving the scene of an accident. The breathalyzer tests that would follow would include toxicology reports that would indicate if the person's bac is rising or falling and possibly when the alcohol was consumed. As well there would be a record of how much the person drank at the bar so it would be possible to match that or not with the person's bac. At any rate, it's not just a simple breathalyzer. It's a preponderance of evidence that would show or not show the person had been drunk while committing their offense.



Still, the scenario you described is not reality. You have to know that a breathalyzer would be required in the 2 hours following your accident. Someone changing their statement to police after the investigation was complete would not give anyone reason to believe they would be required to give a breathalyzer in the near future. Your defense in this scenario is in fact provided to you free of charge from the crown.



If you get in an accident, exchange information and agree to drive away unharmed without calling the police, someone could call the cops later and suggest you were intoxicated but still, there would be no reasonable expectation of you knowing this and therefore knowing that a breathalyzer would be required of you.

[DownInFlames]

Remember when I asked what would happen when someone couldn't provide a sample because of medical reasons? This is what happens...

https://www.timescolonist.com/news/l...law-1.23799029

I do have a couple of questions that aren't answered in the article. If she can't blow wouldn't she be given a blood test? I would definitely demand one if I couldn't blow. What expertise does the adjudicator have to determine whether she could give a breath sample? Are they a doctor?

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Remember when I asked what would happen when someone couldn't provide a sample because of medical reasons? This is what happens...

https://www.timescolonist.com/news/l...law-1.23799029

I do have a couple of questions that aren't answered in the article. If she can't blow wouldn't she be given a blood test? I would definitely demand one if I couldn't blow. What expertise does the adjudicator have to determine whether she could give a breath sample? Are they a doctor?

I think the valid argument against all of these laws (being made by the complainant in above article) is that there was no evidence of her operating a vehicle under the influence other than shopping at a liquor store in the morning. So the officer was able to detain her, request a breath, and then impound her vehicle all without the involvement of any charges or legal counsel.

I understand the rationale for the law, but constitutional rights are rights for a reason and must be protected.

I don't think saying the old lady should have to go to a hospital to get a blood screening (again, without evidence or probable cause) is really the "easy" or appropriate solution.

It's like claiming CPS should have 24/7 access to your phone or computer, because if you're not committing a crime, what do you have to hide?

[transplant99]

In February, the former care aid, who volunteers with Thrifty Foods’ Sendial program, lost her licence for 90 days and her car for 30 days, even though there was no evidence she had any alcohol in her system.

In 2005, McLeod had half of the roof of her mouth removed because of mouth cancer — she now has a prosthesis in her mouth. She has also been diagnosed with chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive lung disease.

On Feb. 14, a police officer watched her come out of the liquor store at Hillside Centre at about 9:35 a.m. with a bag.

As McLeod drove off, the officer pulled her over and demanded a breath sample.

McLeod was unable to provide a proper sample because of the prosthesis and her inability to produce enough breath.

She now faces thousands of dollars in penalties, even though she says she’d had nothing to drink that morning.

“Under the new law, police can detain you with no grounds. While you are unlawfully detained, your right to call a lawyer is denied. Asking you to provide a breath sample is a warrantless search, which violates your right to be free from an unreasonable search,” Teryn said.

She is also seeking an order setting aside the IRP, fines and the cost of impounding McLeod’s car, as well as the return of McLeod’s licence, pending the hearing of the petition.

“What’s shocking and terrible about Miss McLeod’s case is the police officer is going out of his way to paint a picture of [her] that is not even accurate. He alleged that she looked like an alcoholic,” said Teryn.

That is just so unacceptable in any decent democracy/free society...yet here we are.

I mean...do we really want to go down this road in this country?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by transplant99

That is just so unacceptable in any decent democracy/free society...yet here we are.

I mean...do we really want to go down this road in this country?

IF yOU arEn'T brEAkiNG thE LAw YoU hAve NOThinG to WoRRy AboUT!!!!!

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

This is completely ignoring the section I posted above and the article is misleading. For the police to do this, you would have to have done something pretty serious to get tested within the two hours. For instance if you hit a pedestrian and took off, dipped into a bar, you cant tell the police you were so sook up that you guzzled 8 beers in two hour, that is why I am now drunk.

Something like hit and run should cause some to think there may be a reason for them to be tested within the two hours. That is if you are a reasonable thinker.

Except what if they think you committed a hit and run, but it was someone else? Then they show up at your house and demand a sample. Since you weren't actually involved you've been having a backyard bbq with beers. Now they think you committed a hit and run while drunk.

It's not as farfetched as it seems, imo. It's not like they're operating a CSI style lab for every property damage call. And I know for a fact there is another vehicle of the same type/color as mine with the same first three letters on the license plate. If that car was involved in a hit and run near my house I think it's likely I get a call (or now, a forced entry to my home!)

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Except what if they think you committed a hit and run, but it was someone else? Then they show up at your house and demand a sample. Since you weren't actually involved you've been having a backyard bbq with beers. Now they think you committed a hit and run while drunk.

It's not as farfetched as it seems, imo. It's not like they're operating a CSI style lab for every property damage call. And I know for a fact there is another vehicle of the same type/color as mine with the same first three letters on the license plate. If that car was involved in a hit and run near my house I think it's likely I get a call (or now, a forced entry to my home!)

Well your pristine car would have to have some damage on it. But ok. Let's say your car has some existing damage that matches the damage from a hit and run from a car that happens to be the same make and model as yours with the same license plate less a couple numbers. And let's say you happened to be in the area of the hit and run and match all other descriptions of the hit and run. And you have no other witnesses to your backyard drinking over the last two hours and all your toxicology reports are screwed up and don't match with what, when and how much you had to drink. Then, in that case, you could be be in a bit of trouble.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by transplant99

That is just so unacceptable in any decent democracy/free society...yet here we are.

I mean...do we really want to go down this road in this country?

As far as not being able to speak to a lawyer while detained- I would be surprised if that was the case.

However my bigger concern is that somebody who is not able to breathe well enough to provide a breath sample is still allowed to drive. I have been down this road with grandparents, and now my parents. We reach a certain point in our lives where our ability to drive decreases to the point that we may not be able to pass a road test any longer. I've already told my son that in case self driving cars aren't perfected yet, he may have to tell me that it's time to surrender my license.

Perhaps a little extreme, but if somebody fails to list medical issues that would prevent them from being able to follow the rules of the road, is that the fault of the justice system or the person who didn't disclose?

I do feel sympathy for her situation, and hopefully some greater good can come from all of this.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ken0042

As far as not being able to speak to a lawyer while detained- I would be surprised if that was the case.

However my bigger concern is that somebody who is not able to breathe well enough to provide a breath sample is still allowed to drive. I have been down this road with grandparents, and now my parents. We reach a certain point in our lives where our ability to drive decreases to the point that we may not be able to pass a road test any longer. I've already told my son that in case self driving cars aren't perfected yet, he may have to tell me that it's time to surrender my license.

Perhaps a little extreme, but if somebody fails to list medical issues that would prevent them from being able to follow the rules of the road, is that the fault of the justice system or the person who didn't disclose?

I do feel sympathy for her situation, and hopefully some greater good can come from all of this.

Is the ability to provide a breath sample required for driving? I believe the requirement of reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities would apply here.

[Muffins]

Originally Posted by ken0042

As far as not being able to speak to a lawyer while detained- I would be surprised if that was the case.

However my bigger concern is that somebody who is not able to breathe well enough to provide a breath sample is still allowed to drive. I have been down this road with grandparents, and now my parents. We reach a certain point in our lives where our ability to drive decreases to the point that we may not be able to pass a road test any longer. I've already told my son that in case self driving cars aren't perfected yet, he may have to tell me that it's time to surrender my license.

Perhaps a little extreme, but if somebody fails to list medical issues that would prevent them from being able to follow the rules of the road, is that the fault of the justice system or the person who didn't disclose?

I do feel sympathy for her situation, and hopefully some greater good can come from all of this.

Except she could breathe just fine. It's forcefully blowing that was difficult.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by ken0042

As far as not being able to speak to a lawyer while detained- I would be surprised if that was the case.

However my bigger concern is that somebody who is not able to breathe well enough to provide a breath sample is still allowed to drive. I have been down this road with grandparents, and now my parents. We reach a certain point in our lives where our ability to drive decreases to the point that we may not be able to pass a road test any longer. I've already told my son that in case self driving cars aren't perfected yet, he may have to tell me that it's time to surrender my license.

Perhaps a little extreme, but if somebody fails to list medical issues that would prevent them from being able to follow the rules of the road, is that the fault of the justice system or the person who didn't disclose?

I do feel sympathy for her situation, and hopefully some greater good can come from all of this.

So a guy with one leg is asked to do heel to toe or balance on one leg (roadside sobriety tests) but cannot comply, so he too should not be allowed to drive?

I find your stance just bizarre. I mean......people are on oxygen with COPD etc, should they too be denied a basic privilege that every other able bodied person qualifies for?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Muffins

Except she could breathe just fine. It's forcefully blowing that was difficult.

Because she had cancer.. Ugh. "Sorry you got cancer and are perfectly capable of driving, but since you can't blow into a machine to prove sobriety you aren't allowed to drive."



Bad take Ken.

[ken0042]

I get what you guys are saying. I just think we may be a little too easy on letting everybody to continue to drive. I may be a little jaded in having seen my mom drive recently, and then relieved that my sister convinced her to give up her license.

Obviously I may be in quite the minority here.

[Muffins]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I get what you guys are saying. I just think we may be a little too easy on letting everybody to continue to drive. I may be a little jaded in having seen my mom drive recently, and then relieved that my sister convinced her to give up her license.

Obviously I may be in quite the minority here.

I agree that there should be some sort of testing for people past a certain age to ensure they still have the ability to drive.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with this particular woman's case.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I get what you guys are saying. I just think we may be a little too easy on letting everybody to continue to drive. I may be a little jaded in having seen my mom drive recently, and then relieved that my sister convinced her to give up her license.

Obviously I may be in quite the minority here.

I don't think you are in the minority on seniors and driving, but where the disagreement is saying someone can't drive becuase they can't perform a task that has nothing to do with driving. I think a lot of seniors shouldn't be driving, but ability to perform a breathalyze shouldn't disqualify you.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Well your pristine car would have to have some damage on it. But ok. Let's say your car has some existing damage that matches the damage from a hit and run from a car that happens to be the same make and model as yours with the same license plate less a couple numbers. And let's say you happened to be in the area of the hit and run and match all other descriptions of the hit and run. And you have no other witnesses to your backyard drinking over the last two hours and all your toxicology reports are screwed up and don't match with what, when and how much you had to drink. Then, in that case, you could be be in a bit of trouble.

Why would the toxicology reports have to be screwed up? If you were already drunk at your house when someone commits a crime somewhere else you'd still be innocent, but under this set of laws I think it's possible you'd end up convicted.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do we actually have a charter right against self-incrimination?

Maybe Section 7 could apply but their certainly isn’t anything specific in the text. Does case law shed some light on this?

I was scrolling through the thread because it got bumped and saw that I had not responded to this. You have it correctly - it is section 7, and it is enshrined in case law. There are a number of cases you could cite for it, but as an example, this is from R. v. White, [1999] 2 SCR 417 at 40:

It is now well-established that there exists, in Canadian law, a principle against self-incrimination that is a principle of fundamental justice under s.7 of the Charter. The meaning of the principle, its underlying rationale, and its current status within Canadian law have been discussed in a series of decisions of this Court [...]

The principle against self-incrimination was described by Lamer C.J. in Jones, supra, at p. 249, as “a general organizing principle of criminal law”. The principle is that an accused is not required to respond to an allegation of wrongdoing made by the state until the state has succeeded in making out a prima facie case against him or her. It is a basic tenet of our system of justice that the Crown must establish a “case to meet” before there can be any expectation that the accused should respond [...]

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Why would the toxicology reports have to be screwed up? If you were already drunk at your house when someone commits a crime somewhere else you'd still be innocent, but under this set of laws I think it's possible you'd end up convicted.

Sorry I assumed the guy was driving in the area of the hit and run, went home and started drinking post accident.



Any way you look at it, you can create a scenario where someone gets wrongly accused and subsequently convicted. That's true for every law. The example of the woman with a medical issue not being able to blow is on one hand horrible police work. On the other, the law definitely over reaches. But the scenario where you can get busted for not drinking while not driving is generally not conceivable in the way people portray it.



There are a few challenges to this law now and I hope they amount to some reasonable changes.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So a guy with one leg is asked to do heel to toe or balance on one leg (roadside sobriety tests) but cannot comply, so he too should not be allowed to drive?

I find your stance just bizarre. I mean......people are on oxygen with COPD etc, should they too be denied a basic privilege that every other able bodied person qualifies for?

I do totally agree with your stance, but the contrarian in me has to ask are you actually able bodied if you cannot comply to our law enforcement techniques? If you cannot exhale forcibly, which is a task most people can perform, are you actually able bodied?

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

I do totally agree with your stance, but the contrarian in me has to ask are you actually able bodied if you cannot comply to our law enforcement techniques? If you cannot exhale forcibly, which is a task most people can perform, are you actually able bodied?

Must have missed the exhale strength portion of my road test when I got my licence.