Calgary police begin mandatory alcohol screening at Checkstops

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

This doesn't bother me at all, I like to drink but I leave my vehicle at home if I know I will be, other than a limit of 1 glass of wine if I am out for dinner. Those are just the rules I set for myself. I'm fine with a tinny bit more screening at road side if it save some lives for sure.

The constitutional issue is a separate matter. I personally don't see this as some sort of slippery slope. Driving isn't a right it is only a privilege. Alcohol limits your ability to drive safely, so I think screening is appropriate. I don't see this moving to illegal searches as that is a separate issue that isn't really linked to your ability to operate a vehicle. That would be more of an issue of searching private property. Just my opinion.

Just for clarity sake, are you saying a bodily search is ok (that's what a breath sample is), but a property search (popping he trunk and going through your glove box) is not?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

This doesn't bother me at all, I like to drink but I leave my vehicle at home if I know I will be, other than a limit of 1 glass of wine if I am out for dinner. Those are just the rules I set for myself. I'm fine with a tinny bit more screening at road side if it save some lives for sure.

The constitutional issue is a separate matter. I personally don't see this as some sort of slippery slope. Driving isn't a right it is only a privilege. Alcohol limits your ability to drive safely, so I think screening is appropriate. I don't see this moving to illegal searches as that is a separate issue that isn't really linked to your ability to operate a vehicle. That would be more of an issue of searching private property. Just my opinion.

I agree with you and operate under similar rules as in your first paragraph. If I’m driving I limit myself to 1 just to ensure safety of myself and others. If I plan to or end up having more I have other transportation options.

As for your second paragraph I totally disagree. I have a feeling if the government ends up winning the inevitable charter challenge then other similar type laws will come down the pipe in the name of safety. Whether it’s a real worry or not will be determined.

I also don’t know how much these new rules will actually do in the name of safety and reducing drunk driving collisions.

[Muta]

More annoying 'big brother' stuff in my opinion, but I understand why they're doing it. I'm not chancing it anymore, just Uber whenever I drink now. Not worth the hassle.

Also, 0.05 is rather low, IMO. I've blown 0.07 under the old rules, and drove just fine (and obviously allowed to pass through). You just have to know your limits. That said, I'm for in-car breathalyzer machines if that ever became a standard.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I agree with you and operate under similar rules as in your first paragraph. If I’m driving I limit myself to 1 just to ensure safety of myself and others. If I plan to or end up having more I have other transportation options.

As for your second paragraph I totally disagree. I have a feeling if the government ends up winning the inevitable charter challenge then other similar type laws will come down the pipe in the name of safety. Whether it’s a real worry or not will be determined.

I also don’t know how much these new rules will actually do in the name of safety and reducing drunk driving collisions.

As far as it being a real worry, look at the countries that have had the mandatory rule for 5, 10, even 20 years. What slippery slope have they gone down? What related laws have occurred that you think could conceivably occur here? Which is those places comparable to Canada in culture and liberal freedom would you be afraid of becoming?

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Just for clarity sake, are you saying a bodily search is ok (that's what a breath sample is), but a property search (popping he trunk and going through your glove box) is not?

I think people trying to equate blowing into a straw to someone sticking their fingers up your ass is disingenuous at best.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

As far as it being a real worry, look at the countries that have had the mandatory rule for 5, 10, even 20 years. What slippery slope have they gone down? What related laws have occurred that you think could conceivably occur here? Which is those places comparable to Canada in culture and liberal freedom would you be afraid of becoming?

Hard to measure against other countries as really the USA is the only country that is fairly similar to Canada in most aspects.

What other countries have such laws? I never had heard of it till now.

I mean you could look around the world and be like well there’s no way Canada could screw up developing their natural resources. Just look at the rest of the world.. yet here we are.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

Everywhere I've read, including this thread, debates what 0.05 actually is.

Is there somewhere to buy a good quality breathalyzer?

I'd really like to have a better idea of what 0.05 feels like. It's a little scary if that's only two beers in an hour for most. I feel like it wouldn't be since the 0.05 mark is meant to target when people's motor skills are effected.

I was actually looking at Best Buy site yesterday for them, they are all over the place for prices, and I am thinking you probably get what you pay for.

Am seriously considering getting one, this .03 drop sucks.

Here is an old thread that might have some info in it.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=165835

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

I think people trying to equate blowing into a straw to someone sticking their fingers up your ass is disingenuous at best.

That's fair, you believe some bodily search and violation is ok, but others is not.

Other people believe that without just cause no agent of the government should be able to violate a person's body.

What I was looking for was clarification, well that and for the people spouting facts to cite sources. When did we stop doing that here?

[Johnny199r]

I actually have no problem with it on a personal level. I don't drink, I could care less if I have to blow into a straw.

[Patek23]

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.

LOL

What a terrible and counter productive way to enforce this law now then if that becomes the norm. Take your first 5 drivers to hit and make them blow (and check liscense and registration now) while 20 other cars go through unchecked seems like the most ass backwards way to keep drunk drivers off the road. Now even if your loaded with open bottle in your hand even you have potentially only a 20 percent chance of being even checked. I haven’t seen one yet since this law was put in place but a friend went through one on Tuesday and said it was quite similar to what you said basically a few cars pulled over and everyone else just cruising through.

[ben voyonsdonc]

I personally prefer Police focusing on the behaviour of the drivers to determine probable cause - particularly with the legalization of cannabis. Someone with cannabis in their system (even above the government limits) may not actually be impaired due to the body’s slow processing of the substance. However, with recent legislation, the federal government has officially removed the need for probable cause to pull over a driver and test them. This wouldn’t be as problematic if cannabis behaved in the body similar to alcohol and was processed at a linear rate but it doesn’t. This could lead to an entire group of people (particularly medical marijuana users) getting criminal records and damaging their careers and reputations without even being impaired.

[monkeyman]

Were drunk drivers passing through check stops because cops were unable to detect they were drunk and not issuing a breathalyzer really a big problem? maybe the answer is not mandatory Breathalyzer tests, but better training?
Anyway, violating the rights of many is never the answer. I suspect this will be challenged, end up cost the government millions to defend and eventually squashed.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Hard to measure against other countries as really the USA is the only country that is fairly similar to Canada in most aspects.

What other countries have such laws? I never had heard of it till now.

I mean you could look around the world and be like well there’s no way Canada could screw up developing their natural resources. Just look at the rest of the world.. yet here we are.

Australia, New Zealand, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and about 30 other countries.

This really doesn’t have anything to do with developing natural resources, that’s a weird thing to bring up. What this does have to do with is the fact that there are many liberal democracies where this law has existed, some for decades, and the studies have shown that this law is directly related to a sharp decline in deaths related to impaired driving. And I don’t know which of those countries you’d want to look at, many of which have the best quality of life on the planet, and think “oh, that’s an Orwellian state! How dangerous!”

You can even see it in this thread, people are already saying “you know what, I’m not even going to risk it” and that part of what this law does: it creates a culture shift where people don’t want to drink and drive, not just because it’s stupid, but because the risk is that much higher.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

I actually have no problem with it on a personal level. I don't drink, I could care less if I have to blow into a straw.

Yes but the state is compelling you to do so. The state is willing to engage in force to ensure compliance. That's a big deal, and you being flippant about it is not good.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

I personally prefer Police focusing on the behaviour of the drivers to determine probable cause - particularly with the legalization of cannabis. Someone with cannabis in their system (even above the government limits) may not actually be impaired due to the body’s slow processing of the substance. However, with recent legislation, the federal government has officially removed the need for probable cause to pull over a driver and test them. This wouldn’t be as problematic if cannabis behaved in the body similar to alcohol and was processed at a linear rate but it doesn’t. This could lead to an entire group of people (particularly medical marijuana users) getting criminal records and damaging their careers and reputations without even being impaired.

Actually, they still need probable cause to pull you over, that hasn’t changed.

Checkstops already created an exception, and are still the only exception, but the police cannot pull an individual driver over without cause. This law also doesn’t require mandatory sample for drugs, only the alcohol test is mandatory

There is a pretty comprehensive write up on the justice.gc.ca website that would be helpful for most people to get proper info..

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Actually, they still need probable cause to pull you over, that hasn’t changed.

Checkstops already created an exception, and are still the only exception, but the police cannot pull an individual driver over without cause. This law also doesn’t require mandatory sample for drugs, only the alcohol test is mandatory

There is a pretty comprehensive write up on the justice.gc.ca website that would be helpful for most people to get proper info..

C-46 gives the police the ability to test anyone regardless of whether they showed signs of impairment or not while driving. That, to me, removes probable cause from the equation.

I was speaking to a police officer and he mentioned that the CPS was discussing testing every single person that they pull over for any reason.

[Winsor_Pilates]

I guess this is becoming Canada's 2nd amendment debate.

Personally, the benefits and minor inconvenience are worth the demonstrated reward.
I understand the "protect our rights" argument, but we always give up certain rights for what we deem the greater good or safety of society. It's really just a matter of where you draw that line.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Winsor_Pilates, for alcohol, I see it as less of an issue as the processing of the substance is so predictable. For cannabis, I see it as a massive problem that could actually cause people who are not even impaired to be arrested.

[wwkayaker]

The government doesn’t need to infringe on the rights of all people. If the government wants to end drinking and driving, make the penalty a lifetime driving ban.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

C-46 gives the police the ability to test anyone regardless of whether they showed signs of impairment or not while driving. That, to me, removes probable cause from the equation.

I was speaking to a police officer and he mentioned that the CPS was discussing testing every single person that they pull over for any reason.

Yes, they can test you for any reason if they pull you over (for alcohol). But outside of checkstops, they still require probable cause to pull you over.

They cannot pull an individual over without probable cause, that hasn't changed.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/...cfa/qa-qr.html

What is mandatory alcohol screening?
Mandatory alcohol screening authorizes officers to demand that a driver provide a roadside breath sample on an approved screening device, whether or not they suspect that the driver has recently consumed alcohol. This would be done after the person has been lawfully stopped pursuant to existing authority (common law or provincial highway traffic act).