Calgary police begin mandatory alcohol screening at Checkstops

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So you’re ok with someone driving drunk if they can manage the vehicle? If they aren’t doing anything suspicious, it’s all good? Not everyone who drives drunk is swerving around or have someone phone them in, so they should be free to continue their drive home until they screw up, yes?...

See, you are inserting presumed axioms; that's not a good debate tactic. "Someone driving drunk" is not something that is absolute in definition. "Someone driving with alcohol concentration above the currently legislated limit" would be more accurate. And no, I am not cool with it. Just like I am not cool with someone concealing a machine gun, or a bag of fentanyl for sale to teenagers. You must be able to see the striking similarities in approach.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Not at all. I’m on the side that believes this is a very minor loss of personal freedom for what amounts to a greater overall benefit to society. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing, Orwell vs Lawless utopia. It’s ok to actually discuss an issue with nuance and talk about this issue for what it is (you might have to take a breathalyser when you’re driving) than blow it into some grand loss of democracy.

Democracies are rarely lost at once. It is usually a step-by-step irreversible process.

[Pizza]

for those of you who thinks this would only inconvenience you for only "1 minute", read the article

It allows police officers carrying approved screening devices to test a breath sample of any driver they lawfully stop, even without a “reasonable suspicion” that the driver has consumed alcohol, such as the smell of alcohol on their breath.

Calgary police said they’d begin applying mandatory alcohol screening at all Checkstops this week, meaning all drivers who enter a Checkstop will be asked to provide a preliminary breath sample from within their own vehicle.

So instead of a quick 5 second conversation, everyone now has to do the breathalizer test, which means another few more minutes and when you have several hundred cars, you'll likely end up waiting more than an hour when there's a checkstop

we're not talking just "1 minute or 2"

i dont see why they cant leave it with having to do the breathalizer based on reasonable suspicion like smelling alcohol on the driver's breath

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I also guarantee no one would be fine with the inconvenience if they received a false positive test. And that happens an awful lot.

You have the right to request the test be repeated with a separate device. The chances of getting a false positive on both is essentially zero.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

You have the right to request the test be repeated with a separate device. The chances of getting a false positive on both is essentially zero.

That's not how all false positives work. Jesus.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It gets kind of frustrating hearing "it only takes a moment of your time" argument. That's total bull. Every check stop I've ever been through I've been waived through without even rolling down my window along with most everyone else around me. And it still takes twenty minutes to get through. If you stop every single car and take a "moment" of everyone's time it's going to take hours to get everyone through.

It's not just check stops. Any lawful detainment can get you a test. I just hope cops still use a bit of common sense and look for suspicion first.

I also guarantee no one would be fine with the inconvenience if they received a false positive test. And that happens an awful lot.

For one, it’s not a given that they would test everyone because they don’t have to, have their own time to account for, and are still functionally capable of using human common sense.

Two, you can request a second test if you fail the first one, and the false positive is exceedingly rare enough that you’d have to be the unluckiest SOB to fail two in a row (though let’s be honest, you’re probably just drunk).

It’s also frustrating to hear gross exaggeration, Orwellian slippery slopes, and the suggestion that some anecdotes are more valid than others.

In the two checkstops I encountered, I waited about 5 minutes. So not all checkstops take at least 20, and the addition of this rule will not automatically raise the time waited to an hour+ (you also need to keep in mind that police will be cognisant of line-length to ensure it doesn’t exceed exit options, checkstops are useless if you can see one coming and take an exit).

[OMG!WTF!]

False breathalyzer tests are not exceedingly rare at all. They are about 23% inaccurate. They dont have to be off by much to create a conviction from an innocent person.

And yes they specifically said EVERYONE going through a check stop will get the test and it's no big deal cause it only takes 30 seconds. If they decide to use common sense and only test a few people then you are back to using actual common sense and judgement to find a real reason to test someone.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

That's not how all false positives work. Jesus.

Source?

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

False breathalyzer tests are not exceedingly rare at all. They are about 23% inaccurate. They dont have to be off by much to create a conviction from an innocent person.

And yes they specifically said EVERYONE going through a check stop will get the test and it's no big deal cause it only takes 30 seconds. If they decide to use common sense and only test a few people then you are back to using actual common sense and judgement to find a real reason to test someone.

Yup, that’s true, my bad. I guess I’ll have to assume they’ll manage the traffic impediment one way or another until I see otherwise. Perhaps instead of the 15-30 second conversation they’ll just ask you to blow and send you on your way if it’s good.

It’s honestly very fast for those that have never done it.

[badradio]

When I first heard of this law they framed it in a way that I thought they could breathalize people without suspicion of drinking and it would be used sparingly (if they had to they could sort of thing) I didn’t realize that they would breathalize every single driver at a checkstop. It seems like an abuse of what the law was originally intended for, or they mislead the public to what they had intended to do with the law all along.

[Ped]

Honestly I'm torn on this.


Having seen first hand the devastation that drunk drivers can cause, I'm all for nailing them and taking every opportunity to so.


However, I find the possibility for abuses far too possible, especially since we've seen over and over how small segments of the police already use tools at their disposal to unfairly target minorities and people they don't like.


It might be easy to set up checks against that, but police forces in general are horrible at policing themselves, as others have pointed out, and have shown a real resistance to attempts to make their activities more open (such as body cams).


I don't think I can get behind being able to do a breathalyzer without a reasonable suspicion. People like to discount the slippery slope argument, but there is a reason these rights exist, and those rights tend to be eroded over time. Today it's alcohol, tomorrow it's drugs, then it's this or that.


What I can get behind is, as someone else suggested, mandatory ignition locking devices, or even something else. We have cars where the seatbelt sounds doesn't shut off unless the seatbelt is attached, so why not something similar?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Ped

...
What I can get behind is, as someone else suggested, mandatory ignition locking devices, or even something else. We have cars where the seatbelt sounds doesn't shut off unless the seatbelt is attached, so why not something similar?

Too much risk of malfunctioning is one of the reasons. Vehicle wouldn't start and you can't drive away causing you all kinds of unintended consequences from very minor to very dramatic: parking ticket, tow-away, inability to leave and staying exposed to danger... Different regulations in different jurisdictions would be another one.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Checkstops existed well before this. Freely administering a breathalyzer during a checkstop isn't violating the charter of rights unless you have something to hide,

To hell it isn’t.

Although I guess it’s only a violation if believe in things like due cause.

I have zero problem making people blow at at check stop if there’s reason to believe they’ve been drinking.

There’s a MASSIVE red flag at making them blow because they cross an arbitrary intersection.

People jump on the slippery slope argument here but Japan is now allowed to hand out DUIs If they even think you’ve had a drink, no test required. This gets us one step closer to that.

[CaptainYooh]

The argument is already lost. The irony is that the moment the regulation is enacted, it becomes legal. The proper way would be for any government to have such legislation publicly discussed, publicly reviewed, publicly debated and then constitutionally challenged before the Supreme Court, as a matter of due course. Canadian Civil Liberties Association could be the right organization to represent the public on this. But no, our elected officials would much rather do it in a rush by mandate and then wait for someone to challenge it individually, at their own expense. Very cowardly.

[slots881]

I drove through one the other night. About 5 Police officers on either side occupied with cars. I drove straight through and wasn't stopped. Looks like they will breathalize who they can but let the traffic get through if they are busy.

[wwkayaker]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I’d rather 1000 drunk drivers go free than give up one iota of our protected rights.

This is unquestionably a slippery slope and the expansion of police powers, while reducing our right to presumed innocence, is deeply concerning.

Why not let them search your car without probable cause? Spy on your phone records, photos and texts? Search your house? Browser history? Bank statements?

Surely if we increased our monitoring levels we could prevent all kinds of crime, not just drunk drivers.

I agree 100%!

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by slots881

I drove through one the other night. About 5 Police officers on either side occupied with cars. I drove straight through and wasn't stopped. Looks like they will breathalize who they can but let the traffic get through if they are busy.

This is actually what’s funny to me. They clearly won’t have the resources to breathalyzer every car without creating massive traffic jams.

So they’ll be forced to be more selective, except now they’ve eliminated the prescreening which took 2 seconds.

I can’t help but feel like they’ll actually catch less people than before. I don’t trust any stats put out by MADD so I’d like to see some stats from an unbiased source on the outcome of this legislation.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

The argument is already lost. The irony is that the moment the regulation is enacted, it becomes legal. The proper way would be for any government to have such legislation publicly discussed, publicly reviewed, publicly debated and then constitutionally challenged before the Supreme Court, as a matter of due course. Canadian Civil Liberties Association could be the right organization to represent the public on this. But no, our elected officials would much rather do it in a rush by mandate and then wait for someone to challenge it individually, at their own expense. Very cowardly.

Best case is that it winds up in front of the Supreme Court around election time. That would throw a nice wrench into the Liberal's plans to use this as a tough on crime piece. Add it to the list of legislation tabled or passed that shows they don't care about substance, but are looking for opportunities to pander to small groups they think will garner a few votes.

[OMG!WTF!]

How painfully predictable. They're running around trying to breathalyze everybody, finally realize it's impossible to get to everyone and then they go back to randomly testing people but without checking for probable cause because there's a huge line up and they need to rifle people through. Hmm.

[corporatejay]

This coupled with the new 0.05 BAC leve sh9uld have people running for the hills.

One more thing can someone link the study that says mandatory breathalyzers prevents DUI deaths?

[wwkayaker]

Medicine Hat Police Service executed an afternoon checkstop the other day. 155 drivers had to do the breathalyzer. 2 people were shown to have consumed alcohol but nobody exceeded BAC limits. Obviously the police were not exercising good judgement as everybody through the checkstop was tested. To test everyone is a waste of time, money and resources.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

This coupled with the new 0.05 BAC leve sh9uld have people running for the hills.

One more thing can someone link the study that says mandatory breathalyzers prevents DUI deaths?

Arguments over this aside, I’d like to here a cognisant argument over why 0.05 BAC level limit is bad. Have you been that drunk before? It’s pretty drunk, no way someone should be driving a vehicle in good conscience.