Calgary police begin mandatory alcohol screening at Checkstops

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Envitro

I wasn't saying that they need a reason to pull you over, don't get me wrong. I was just saying that they shouldn't have to pull out the breath test machine for every routine traffic stop. Asking for documentation and asking for bodily fluids/vapors is not the same.

Just saying that asking for a breathalyzer for every traffic stops is a tad extreme, and a slippery slope.
Reminds me of the Dave Chapelle joke during routine stops "Spread your cheeks and lift your sack"... I don't think we need to get to that place.

But if we can save just one life isn't it worth being mildly inconvenienced for a couple mins and having a sore a--hole for the next couple days? Won't somebody think of the children!!

/obvious sarcasm

[Locke]

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.

- Benjamin Franklin

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

- Thomas Jefferson

[Aleks]

https://www.costco.ca/BACtrack®-S80-....10354611.html

These usually go on sale every now and then. I have the previous version of this, and have had it for years. I've sent it in for recalibration and they've always sent me a new one . These are DOT compliant so they are accurate and nice cheap insurance for knowing where you are. Just always take care of it (don't leave it freezing or baking in your car), and absolutely wait 20min before blowing, it wont be accurate if you don't. I will confirm what was said here, 0.05 you know you shouldn't be driving, you feel unsteady, etc. 0.08 makes it hard to navigate doorways, you are bombed. I should state I am not in favor of this law, for many of the reasons already argued and stated

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Aleks

https://www.costco.ca/BACtrack®-S80-....10354611.html

These usually go on sale every now and then. I have the previous version of this, and have had it for years. I've sent it in for recalibration and they've always sent me a new one . These are DOT compliant so they are accurate and nice cheap insurance for knowing where you are. Just always take care of it (don't leave it freezing or baking in your car), and absolutely wait 20min before blowing, it wont be accurate if you don't. I will confirm what was said here, 0.05 you know you shouldn't be driving, you feel unsteady, etc. 0.08 makes it hard to navigate doorways, you are bombed. I should state I am not in favor of this law, for many of the reasons already argued and stated

I would keep in mind that it is +/- 0.005% accurate at a BAC of 0.05%, meaning that you might blow at 0.05% at a checkstop with a reading of 0.045% on this device. I think most would consider that too impaired to drive, but that is certainly my opinion.

[activeStick]

I heard that you can refuse to blow and face a $5000 fine instead, but you only get to do this once. The second time you refuse comes with some sort of charge. Not sure if this is true?

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by krynski

I would keep in mind that it is +/- 0.005% accurate at a BAC of 0.05%, meaning that you might blow at 0.05% at a checkstop with a reading of 0.045% on this device. I think most would consider that too impaired to drive, but that is certainly my opinion.

All roadside screeners (including police units) have a margin of error, heck some only give you red/yellow/green. That's why you get retested with an intoxilyzer or intox II worth thousands afterwards (which are also fuel cell testers, just like the BACtracks). If you're wanting to play within 0.005% of legal, you should re-evaluate what you want out of your device and your goals that particular night, and how much of an gambling man you are. This is a legally acceptable (considered professional grade) screening device, at a reasonable price that will tell you everything you need to know about your state of intoxication, how you handle and process ETOH. My solution to your problem would be just don't drive at 0.045 and avoid that complication altogether.

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by activeStick

I heard that you can refuse to blow and face a $5000 fine instead, but you only get to do this once. The second time you refuse comes with some sort of charge. Not sure if this is true?

like, a get out of jail free card? Very unlikely

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It is not true.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Locke

- Benjamin Franklin

- Thomas Jefferson

Yeah, but what about...

"Won't somebody please think of the children!"

- Helen Lovejoy

[DuffMan]

More info

It may sound unbelievable, but Canada’s revised laws on impaired driving could see police demand breath samples from people in bars, restaurants, or even at home. And if you say no, you could be arrested, face a criminal record, ordered to pay a fine, and subjected to a driving suspension.

You could be in violation of the impaired driving laws even two hours after you’ve been driving. Now, the onus is on drivers to prove they weren’t impaired when they were on the road.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...ir9?li=AAggNb9

[OMG!WTF!]

I don't believe that article. I read the law a while ago so don't remember the exact wording. But you can't get a DUI for drinking at home after you've driven. That's fear mongering. The law states something like if you drink after driving knowing you have to do another breathalyzer then you could be charged. If you have no warning of a follow up breathalyzer there's no way you can be charged.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I don't believe that article. I read the law a while ago so don't remember the exact wording. But you can't get a DUI for drinking at home after you've driven. That's fear mongering. The law states something like if you drink after driving knowing you have to do another breathalyzer then you could be charged. If you have no warning of a follow up breathalyzer there's no way you can be charged.

Having a BAC of 80 or more within two hours of operating a conveyance (paragraph 320.14(1)(b))

Is now a law. Now what this exactly means I am not sure, but I read an article that said if someone reports someone from your house driving erratically then the police can show up and breathalyze you and the "well I got home and slammed a bunch of booze" no longer works.

[OMG!WTF!]

I think that always was a law. I this is the important section...

(5) No person commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if

(a) they consumed alcohol after ceasing to operate the conveyance;

(b) after ceasing to operate the conveyance, they had no reasonable expectation that they would be required to provide a sample of breath or blood; and

I'm sure cops would try charging you and screwing up your whole life for no reason. But I don't think any right thinking judge would convict someone for legitimately drinking at home after not drinking and driving. That's crazy. But even putting the onus on someone to prove they were not drinking and driving is crazy. I really think the line about not knowing you were going to have to produce a breath sample is key.

[DuffMan]

"Now, the onus is on drivers to prove they weren’t impaired when they were on the road. "

Not sure how one does this

[Frank MetaMusil]

Haha this is going well....

Returning bottles to the Beer Store? Beware of possible breath test by police

“I felt like I was violated in a way. They shouldn’t have that right to pull a person over unless there is a good sign the person is doing something wrong,” said Art, who was not using a cellphone, hadn’t been speeding or violating any traffic rules.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

"Now, the onus is on drivers to prove they weren’t impaired when they were on the road. "

Not sure how one does this

You could get a toxicologist to examine your statement and show your blood alcohol matches with what you said you had been drinking and when you drank it. Prohibitively expensive though I'm sure.



I think the cops would also have to show you had reason to believe you were going to have to give a breath sample. Like you were fleeing the scene of an accident or your passenger told on you and you fled home to slam beers.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

You could get a toxicologist to examine your statement and show your blood alcohol matches with what you said you had been drinking and when you drank it. Prohibitively expensive though I'm sure.



I think the cops would also have to show you had reason to believe you were going to have to give a breath sample. Like you were fleeing the scene of an accident or your passenger told on you and you fled home to slam beers.

I don't see this mentioned anywhere in the legislation that I read.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

"Now, the onus is on drivers to prove they weren’t impaired when they were on the road. "

Not sure how one does this

Remember all those 'slippery slope' arguments that were soundly mocked? Well now here we are discussing how individuals are now responsible for 'proving their innocence.'

That was quick.

It doesnt even take into consideration that a Cop has all of the tools and resources handy and ready at their disposal. They want to fire a quick breathalyzer? Sure. No problem. Costs them nothing and they're on the clock getting paid.

Average person? Even if you're innocent you're looking at paying legal fees, toxicologist fees, time off work and on and on it goes.

Merely on the casual whims of the Police.

[Fuzz]

It seems with this, and marijuana testing that we have gone from proving impairment(which is dangerous) to proving use, which does not necessarily correlate with impairment. I think they are losing the plot, here.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I don't see this mentioned anywhere in the legislation that I read.

The law just says that to be convicted of dui after exiting the vehicle two hours prior, you have to have known that you will be required to give a breath sample sometime in the next two hours. So absent any conclusive toxicology report that says you were drinking two hours earlier while you had been driving, you would not be convicted for drinking at a bar or at home and not driving. What would cause you to know that you would be expected to give a breath sample? Fleeing an accident, fleeing a traffic stop and hiding in your basement chugging beer. It's meant to curtail that sort of excuse. I don't see it being a tool for cops to wreck your life for no reason but it's spooky none the less. If toxicology reports are valid, you should be able to prove you were not drinking at the time of driving and that you had no reasonable expectation of giving breath samples. However it should absolutely be the crown that has to prove your guilt via that report.