Calgary police begin mandatory alcohol screening at Checkstops

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Ducay

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

You weren't tested on your ability to scream expletives at other drivers?

[GGG]

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?

Do you have to be able bodied to drive? We have plenty of handicapped spots in parking lots designed for people who aren’t able bodied.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you have to be able bodied to drive? We have plenty of handicapped spots in parking lots designed for people who aren’t able bodied.

We had a guy come and speak at our high school who didn’t have arms, and drove there in his pickup truck. License plate said “Toes”. It was one of the most incredible things I’ve ever seen. Guy played the piano.

[PugnaciousIntern]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you have to be able bodied to drive? We have plenty of handicapped spots in parking lots designed for people who aren’t able bodied.

Yup. Things like not being able to shoulder check, see, etc are all reasons doctors are legally obligated to withdraw licenses. Handicap parking for walking and handicap driving are different.

Of course it all depends what your definition of Able Bodied is, but it certainly is at least partly addressed currently.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Ducay

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

Was your core flexibility checked so you could do an effective shoulder check? Was your reaction time tested so you wouldn't be a hazard for stopping? Was your breathing ever tested to make sure you can safely operate a vehicle?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Was your core flexibility checked so you could do an effective shoulder check? Was your reaction time tested so you wouldn't be a hazard for stopping? Was your breathing ever tested to make sure you can safely operate a vehicle?

You are arguing that you need to be able to blow a brethylizer to drive?

It’s sounds like she had some kind of prosthetic that didn’t allow her to build pressure in her mouth. I suspect some of the following Cancer treatments could cause this

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.canc...g/surgery.html

Why is this even a discussion? If she wasn’t able to drive the police should have charged her with being unfit to drive. She wasn’t therefore the police did not find her unable to drive.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by GGG

You are arguing that you need to be able to blow a brethylizer to drive?

It’s sounds like she had some kind of prosthetic that didn’t allow her to build pressure in her mouth. I suspect some of the following Cancer treatments could cause this

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.canc...g/surgery.html

Why is this even a discussion? If she wasn’t able to drive the police should have charged her with being unfit to drive. She wasn’t therefore the police did not find her unable to drive.

If you are incapable of performing all tasks of driving, including proving sobriety, you should not be allowed to drive. I'm not OK under any circumstances sharing the road with drunk drivers and if her medical condition does not allow her to be tested as per our societal standard, I would not be willing to risk my life, anyone in my family's life or any pedestrians life because of one persons medical condition. Especially when our government subsidizes alternative transportation for disabled people.

Maybe a stipulation on her licence that says she cannot perform a breathalyzer and will consent to a urine or blood sample upon request of an officer?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

If you are incapable of performing all tasks of driving, including proving sobriety, you should not be allowed to drive.

Maybe a stipulation on her licence that says she cannot perform a breathalyzer and will consent to a urine or blood sample upon request of an officer?

#### that, proving sobriety through a roadside breath sample has no bearing on your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. Therefore you are proposing discrimination on the basis of a disability when reasonable accommodation can be made. It’s also not up to the disabled person to accommodate the police or state. The state is required to provide that reasonable accommodation.

Why don’t we get rid of ramps on sidewalks at intersections. If you can perform all the tasks of walking including being able to step down a curb you should not be able to walk.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by GGG

#### that, proving sobriety through a roadside breath sample has no bearing on your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. Therefore you are proposing discrimination on the basis of a disability when reasonable accommodation can be made. It’s also not up to the disabled person to accommodate the police or state. The state is required to provide that reasonable accommodation.

A urine or blood sample as an alternative is discrimination? Is that not reasonable accommodation?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

A urine or blood sample as an alternative is discrimination? Is that not reasonable accommodation?

Not without probable cause and certainly not something that she should have to get put on her license. Detaining someone until they pee in a cup or getting a nurse to draw blood seems like a huge invasion of privacy when their is no probable cause. And in this case the Police do not appear to have offered any kind of alternative.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by GGG

Not without probable cause and certainly not something that she should have to get put on her license. Detaining someone until they pee in a cup or getting a nurse to draw blood seems like a huge invasion of privacy when their is no probable cause. And in this case the Police do not appear to have offered any kind of alternative.

I appreciate your stance, our societal privileges should be guarded, but I anecdotally cant agree with you. I hope you never lose someone close to you from a drunk driver like I did. I buried an aunt of mine from an accident where the other driver was drunk.

My own experiences have taught me that the safety of the many is more important than the right of the individual.

This woman, assuming her licence was revoked due to health issues, is not stranded. There are taxpayer funded programs for disabled people to get around. My grandpa (who lost his daughter) opted into this program as this woman probably should as well.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by GGG

Not without probable cause and certainly not something that she should have to get put on her license. Detaining someone until they pee in a cup or getting a nurse to draw blood seems like a huge invasion of privacy when their is no probable cause. And in this case the Police do not appear to have offered any kind of alternative.

Car accident details, gruesome:

NSFW!

And to get a little graphic here, when my aunt was buried, her head was so far caved in it was beyond reconstruction. About half of it was able to be restructured, but the other half wasn't.

What they did was put a teddy bear beside where the rest of her skull should have been. Now imagine that is your kid in that coffin with a bear propped against their nose to hide what happened.

That is what my grandparents dealt with.

Would you be able to say to yourself "oh its ok they were drunk, they had a lung issue and they dont need to follow the same rules as everyone else and prove sobriety?

I hope you never see what I have.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Car accident details, gruesome:

NSFW!

And to get a little graphic here, when my aunt was buried, her head was so far caved in it was beyond reconstruction. About half of it was able to be restructured, but the other half wasn't.

What they did was put a teddy bear beside where the rest of her skull should have been. Now imagine that is your kid in that coffin with a bear propped against their nose to hide what happened.

That is what my grandparents dealt with.

Would you be able to say to yourself "oh its ok they were drunk, they had a lung issue and they dont need to follow the same rules as everyone else and prove sobriety?

I hope you never see what I have.

I would say that when this person entered a check stop or was pulled over without cause and the police demanded a breath sample when no other probable cause was found and the police was informed that a medical condition prevented the person from providing the breath sample and that through this conversation the officer detected no signs of impairment and the police let that person on their way that the risk was reasonable that the individual was not impaired. . If alcohol was smelt or the person had other signs of impairment then I would expect the police would use that evidence to demand a blood sample.

What I don’t accept is that suspending her license for 3 months for refusing a breath sample meets the states obligations for accommodating people with disabilities.

I don’t see how the above situation plays out differently by detaining and getting a blood or urine sample or her being unable to drive.

What you and your family went through is horrible but old ladies who survived cancer aren’t where your fight is.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

If you are incapable of performing all tasks of driving, including proving sobriety, you should not be allowed to drive.

Proving that you have not committed a crime, in the absence of any evidence or reason to suspect that you have, is not a "task of driving". It's not a part of anything in a free and democratic society, whether motor vehicles are involved or not.

Your personal experience has clearly impaired your ability to reason on this topic.

[GioforPM]

It's been over 20 years since law school, and I don't practice in the area, but even back then there were cases on incapacity to blow and use of alternate measures.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's been over 20 years since law school, and I don't practice in the area, but even back then there were cases on incapacity to blow and use of alternate measures.

Perhaps Feats of Strength?

If you can defeat the arresting officer in hand-to-hand combat you'll be allowed to go free?

[powderjunkie]

Laws are only as good as the people that follow them and/or the people that enforce them. Thankfully, for most people, ~99% of law enforcement respond pretty reasonably ~99% of the time. IMO, the exact words in the criminal code aren't going to make much of a difference to the <1% of situations where 'reasonable' is lacking.

Evaluating bizarre/singular examples are not the best way to evaluate whether a law makes sense or is fairly written. To some extent, these one-off situations are a bit of necessary evil, as it's pretty tough for legislators to account for every single possible scenario - as necessary, these ambiguities are clarified by the courts. We should each be more worried about being struck by lightning than becoming one of the guinea pigs who have to experience the sliver of unanticipated draconian application of a law.

At the end of the day, all of our laws, charter of rights and freedoms, social norms, and even the idea of 'fairness' are nothing more than shared myths that we all believe in. For the most part, these are universally beneficial to all, but the cost is, that in the course of our lifetimes we will each experience between 0 and 1 totally insane, unfair, ridiculous situations that result in major inconvenience or hardship to our lives.

Additionally, we'll each be 'hard-done-by' another ~5-50 times where the sum of these myths don't apply 'fairly' to us as individuals. It could be that we've done absolutely nothing wrong, but face minor consequences (a totally incorrect parking ticket that costs your $40 or a bunch of time straightening out, or a lack of enforcement on your neighbour for never shovelling their walks or playing loud music late at night, or yes, spending 5-30 minutes to prove that you're not driving while impaired).

Or, it could be that we've done something 'technically wrong', but the consequences seem disproportionate and unfair (a speeding ticket for 4kph over the limit, or losing your license for some period of time because you drove after 1 strong beer). These are simply a cost of being in society - sometimes we pay our $400 and move on, sometimes we have to spend a couple hours going down to see a JP to quash a bad ticket, sometimes we have to simply accept that we can't control our neighbours behaviour, and sometimes we have to leave a burning bag of dog poop at their doorstep to create our own moment of justice.

The good news is that we each have a lot of control over whether we find ourselves at the low or high end of my arbitrary ranges, based on how strictly we follow laws, and how we behave when interacting with law enforcement and other members of society. A bit of silliness is inevitable, but we all have the power to limit it, by simply not being A-holes.


I qualified my second sentence with 'for most people' for good reason - your odds of running into an unreasonable situation shoot way up if you're 'driving while black' or 'walking while aboriginal' (perhaps double or triple the ranges above). Unfortunately, the only way to reduce the disproportionate occurences seems to be the passing of time, though sometimes we find ways to accelerate that progress.

[Minnie]

If this was a year ago, my capacity to exhale for a breathalyzer would have been impaired due to the lung disease I had been diagnosed with in early March, then being hospitalized with the flu a month later. I could drive just fine but my FEV/FEVC wasn't great & I suppose the chances of not being able to forcefully blow into a breathalyzer machine could have been impaired enough for them to give me the side-eye & I imagine I could have ended up with the same issues the woman in the article has faced. I was not impaired to drive, just my forced expiratory volume was impaired. A year on, my FEV/FEVC is mostly normal though it declines some when I have a serious cold. I'd have been perfectly willing to do any other testing they'd require, though with an identified disability/physical impairment, there should have been something for this woman and for me, that was an inbetween of losing her license/vehicle. I suppose I should ask my pulmonologist for a letter outlining my occasional issues with forced expiratory volume, etc. Who knows if it would do any good though.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Minnie

I suppose I should ask my pulmonologist for a letter outlining my occasional issues with forced expiratory volume, etc. Who knows if it would do any good though.

I'd say it would do a lot of good. It would explain why you are having issues submitting a breath sample; and it would also show that a doctor has determined that your medical condition does not adversely affect your ability to drive.

(Not that I'm trying to double down on my previous stand.)

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Locke

Perhaps Feats of Strength?

If you can defeat the arresting officer in hand-to-hand combat you'll be allowed to go free?

Uh, no. Blood tests.

True story: In law school a friend and I did the Johnny Fever "take a shot, blow, repeat" test in a criminal law class with a tech from the police dept.