Calgary police begin mandatory alcohol screening at Checkstops

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

They deleted that tweet and replaced it with this one:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1147501093687046144

Justice Canada must know how stupid this law is when they can't even admit what it actually makes illegal.

Too bad that’s not how they’ve been applying it. Wasn’t there just a case in BC where the cops lied their way into someone’s home and then charged her after demanding a test when she wasn’t in care and control?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Too bad that’s not how they’ve been applying it. Wasn’t there just a case in BC where the cops lied their way into someone’s home and then charged her after demanding a test when she wasn’t in care and control?

Lowrie had just had lunch and one drink in a local pub and had returned to her sister’s home and had two more beers as she was sitting in the back yard, Lowrie said.

“I had been home for well over two hours. It was a beautiful day, we were sitting at the pool. We weren’t going anywhere,” Lowrie said Thursday.

When police called, they told her they had some sensitive information to tell her and she thought they wanted to relay some bad news, Lowrie said.

When they arrived at about 6 p.m., they asked her to provide a breath sample into a roadside screening device, Lowrie said.

“I had been home for over two hours,” Lowrie said. “Five cops showed up. I didn’t think that many cops showed up for a murder scene. It was intimidating. They were all female cops, wouldn’t let me put two cents worth in.”

“They’re making it like I was drunk when I was driving and I wasn’t. I had one drink at the pub. I don’t drink and drive. I haven’t had a speeding ticket or parking violation in 25 years. I’ve never been in trouble with police,” Lowrie said.

Frightening over reach. This still cost the woman $3,500 in legal fees etc.

https://www.nanaimobulletin.com/news...e-her-at-home/

[transplant99]

Why was the offence of driving over the legal limit (the "over 80" offence) broadened so as to capture drivers who were at or over 80 "within two hours of driving"?
The offence of "operating at or over 80 within two hours of driving" eliminates the bolus drinking defense by changing the time frame within which the offence can be committed. It is no longer relevant that the person's blood alcohol concentration may have been below 80 mg at the time of driving.

What is the bolus drinking defence and why was it eliminated?
"Bolus drinking" refers to situations where a driver claims that, although they consumed alcohol just before or during driving, they were not over the legal limit while driving because the alcohol was not fully absorbed until the time of testing. This defence rewards the risky behaviour of drinking immediately before or during driving in the hopes of arriving at a destination before being too drunk to drive or being at the offence level.

The new law changed the timeframe of the offence (i.e., to being at or over the offence level within two hours of driving). Therefore, the argument that alcohol was still being absorbed has become irrelevant

.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/...46-qr_c46.html

So...if you drank enough to be legally impaired but it didn't actually make you impaired yet....you shall still be deemed as impaired....even though you are not.

I mean...just a mind boggling stupid piece of legislation.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

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

Until one of those drunk drivers runs over someone in your family.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Until one of those drunk drivers runs over someone in your family.

Thanks but I'll take the small risk of that over giving up my rights.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Thanks but I'll take the small risk of that over giving up my rights.

I'm sure you will. Until it happens to you.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I'm sure you will. Until it happens to you.

Education is the problem with drunk drivers, not lack of enforcement

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I'm sure you will. Until it happens to you.

This legislation isn’t stopping anything.

You could use “yeah but what if it happens to you!?” All the way to a totalitarian state. The other side of the argument is much more frightening.

[jayswin]

Unbelievable that some people think that way.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

https://twitter.com/user/status/1147501093687046144

So I have read this tweet about 5 times now and I am still confused. They say that it is a myth police can use mandatory alcohol screening to come into your house and demand a breath sample within 2 house of your driving home, which completely contradicts their earlier tweet. Then, they provide three "facts" that do not refute or even address the supposed myth. Meanwhile, there are stories about people falling prey to the so called myth that would only re-affirm that it's not a myth at all. Am I missing something or is all of this mind-numbingly stupid?

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Ark2

So I have read this tweet about 5 times now and I am still confused. They say that it is a myth police can use mandatory alcohol screening to come into your house and demand a breath sample within 2 house of your driving home, which completely contradicts their earlier tweet. Then, they provide three "facts" that do not refute or even address the supposed myth. Meanwhile, there are stories about people falling prey to the so called myth that would only re-affirm that it's not a myth at all. Am I missing something or is all of this mind-numbingly stupid?

The use of "mandatory alcohol screening" seems very deliberate and is factually correct, but still seems misleading because it doesn't address when the can demand a sample at your home.

If they want to screen you at home within that two hour window, they need grounds to do so, so if your neighbor sees you swerving down the road and calls the cops. They can't just show up at random homes and ask for a sample because you drove within the last two hours.

If you get pulled over, keep in mind they don't need to see you do anything illegal to do so, they can compel a breath sample.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yeah, no, no concern of overreach here. We just have Justice Canada lying to Canadians about what is and isn't against the law. Totally fine! Nothing to see here, folks.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The use of "mandatory alcohol screening" seems very deliberate and is factually correct, but still seems misleading because it doesn't address when the can demand a sample at your home.

If they want to screen you at home within that two hour window, they need grounds to do so, so if your neighbor sees you swerving down the road and calls the cops. They can't just show up at random homes and ask for a sample because you drove within the last two hours.

If you get pulled over, keep in mind they don't need to see you do anything illegal to do so, they can compel a breath sample.

So they need grounds to obtain a breath sample if you are already home, but not if you are in your car? Does that make any sense? Also, what are these grounds? Would being spotted driving home from a restaurant that serves alcohol be sufficient grounds? I am not much of a drinker, so this likely does not affect me personally, but I can't understand how such a law could be passed when it is so unclear.

[Titan]

So, in trying to understand this, if I am at a pub and have a beer, then get in my truck and as I am driving a bee gets in the truck or I spill some water or I drop a cigarette and my driving is erratic for a moment, someone sees this and calls the police and says I am drunk, and I get home and start doing shots with my buddies and the police show up 1 hour and 55 minutes after I get home and compel me to blow and I am now way over .08, I can be convicted of impaired driving? In what possible way is this sane?

[zamler]

It's designed to prevent carnage in the streets, obviously.

[The Yen Man]

Even crazier is if you were the DD, and didn't have ANYTHING to drink prior to getting behind the wheel, but you then drink after you get home. You could potentially be charged with having absolutely no alcohol in your system when operating a vehicle, just based on someone who thought you did.

[4X4]

Well if it can save even one life, everyone should be willing to get arrested like this. Am I doing this right?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Titan

So, in trying to understand this, if I am at a pub and have a beer, then get in my truck and as I am driving a bee gets in the truck or I spill some water or I drop a cigarette and my driving is erratic for a moment, someone sees this and calls the police and says I am drunk, and I get home and start doing shots with my buddies and the police show up 1 hour and 55 minutes after I get home and compel me to blow and I am now way over .08, I can be convicted of impaired driving? In what possible way is this sane?

Here’s another one. You’re throwing a BBQ at your house and one of your neighbours hates you. You remember last minute you need x item, run out, grab it and come back. Upon return you start drinking with your friends. Maybe you have that friend who suggests “catching up with a shot”. 2 hours later the cops show up and ask you to accept a breathalyzer test. Neighbour said they saw you drinking and driving. DUI.

Sure, the story is an extreme example and a rare situation. But it highlights a huge flaw. This situation shouldn’t be allowed.

For the record I couldn’t be more against drunk driving. I don’t have a single friend who even pushes it, because those people have been weeded out over time. I don’t tolerate it.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by zamler

It's designed to prevent carnage in the streets, obviously.

It's to protect the bees.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Well if it can save even one life, everyone should be willing to get arrested like this. Am I doing this right?

Even better...it USED to be the narrative, "if you don't do anything wrong, you have no reason to worry about it".

Now?

Not so much.