Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 01-10-2019, 11:23 AM   #321
OMG!WTF!
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
so, it's true?

If there is no reason for you to believe you will be required to give a breath sample you can drink all you want at home within 2 hours of driving. I'm not sure how cops will pursue this but it seems to me that if you are in fact innocent you will not be convicted and likely not even charged or detained.
OMG!WTF! is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2019, 01:53 PM   #322
RogerWilco
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
so, it's true?
Not in the manner that the misleading article is trying to persuade the reader to believe. The way the article presents it is pretty much a strawman.


The article would be more accurate if it stated that:

"Canadaís revised laws on impaired driving could see police demand breath samples from people in bars, restaurants, or even at home, within two hours of committing a major crime with their vehicle".


And of course the police would have to prove the two hour time line so I imagine you would have to commit a fairly major crime in which a time stamp could be verified for this to hold.
RogerWilco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2019, 02:04 PM   #323
Swarly
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Swarly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerWilco View Post
This is the point, if you do something bad with your car and take off, don't go home to drink it off.
right, so instead of the SOP being to get your car home and slam some booze so they can't prove you were drunk at the time, there will now be an extra step after getting your car parked at home, run to the neighborhood bar and hole up for over 2 hours.
Swarly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2019, 02:36 PM   #324
MoneyGuy
Franchise Player
 
MoneyGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

What happens if you come home and then start drinking? Cops show up because a neighbour doesnít like you and called in a complaint that he saw you weaving as you drove into your garage. You were fine when you drove home but youíve since had a few drinks and are intoxicated. Usually itís innocent until proven guilty but this may be the opposite.
MoneyGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2019, 03:24 PM   #325
corporatejay
Franchise Player
 
corporatejay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Exp:
Default

This law is unsupportable by anyone who purports to care about a free and democratic society. There is simply no justification for it, none.
__________________
corporatejay is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
Old 01-10-2019, 03:28 PM   #326
RogerWilco
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneyGuy View Post
What happens if you come home and then start drinking? Cops show up because a neighbour doesnít like you and called in a complaint that he saw you weaving as you drove into your garage. You were fine when you drove home but youíve since had a few drinks and are intoxicated. Usually itís innocent until proven guilty but this may be the opposite.
Once again, pretty sure you would have had to do something like run into your neighbors house with your car for this to happen. A lot of you are turning this into something that it is not and not intended to be.
RogerWilco is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RogerWilco For This Useful Post:
Old 01-10-2019, 03:36 PM   #327
DuffMan
Franchise Player
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 127.0.0.1
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerWilco View Post
Once again, pretty sure you would have had to do something like run into your neighbors house with your car for this to happen. A lot of you are turning this into something that it is not and not intended to be.
slippery slope?
__________________
Pass the bacon.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2019, 03:38 PM   #328
RogerWilco
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
slippery slope?
Yeah, in peoples minds it sure is.

Last edited by RogerWilco; 01-10-2019 at 03:40 PM.
RogerWilco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2019, 03:52 PM   #329
corporatejay
Franchise Player
 
corporatejay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerWilco View Post
Once again, pretty sure you would have had to do something like run into your neighbors house with your car for this to happen. A lot of you are turning this into something that it is not and not intended to be.
Is it or is it not a law that allows the state to take evidence from me even though I've done nothing wrong AND THEY HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE I HAVE.

It is, and that's wrong.
__________________
corporatejay is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
Old 01-10-2019, 03:58 PM   #330
Envitro
First Line Centre
 
Envitro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Saddledome, Calgary
Exp:
Default

Too many people are of the mindset that "if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide".

I don't like the trend of slow erosion of civil liberties and civil rights. Little by little, that's how you end up with a "papers please" type of society.
Envitro is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Envitro For This Useful Post:
Old 01-10-2019, 04:00 PM   #331
OMG!WTF!
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corporatejay View Post
Is it or is it not a law that allows the state to take evidence from me even though I've done nothing wrong AND THEY HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE I HAVE.

It is, and that's wrong.

Yeah it is but that's a different thing than what Wilco and everybody is talking about now. The law sucks for sure. But cops can't walk into a bar and demand breath samples and then arrest everyone for dui as the article a couple pages ago suggests. It's not like that.
OMG!WTF! is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
Old 01-10-2019, 04:20 PM   #332
RogerWilco
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corporatejay View Post
Is it or is it not a law that allows the state to take evidence from me even though I've done nothing wrong AND THEY HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE I HAVE.

It is, and that's wrong.
I have just been addressing the article that was linked a couple of pages back, not the law in general.

I personally don't find the new law allowing police to administer a breathalyser at a traffic stop all that intrusive, but I can understand why some may feel it is. If it is constitutional or not is a different story altogether, but that isn't a sword I feel strongly enough about to die on.

Independent of that, I do feel it is reasonable to test someone's blood alcohol for a certain period of time after they have committed a major crime with a vehicle. This is the part that the posted article has turned into the police being able to arrest everyone in a bar with a car parked outside strawman.
RogerWilco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 03:26 PM   #333
Diemenz
First Line Centre
 
Diemenz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Exp:
Default

Wow there is some crazy arm chair lawyers in this thread that don’t quite understand how and what has changed. Just to be clear the police could always do this.......before this law. The only thing that has changed is the 2 hour intoxication window. Please don’t get lead astray from terrible Calgary sun reporting and their inability to properly do research.

Here is a post that might help explain it.

“No - Police are not going to randomly walk into homes or restaurants to conduct breath tests.”
CONSTABLE MARK SMITH∑FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 2019

Police in Canada can now demand breath samples in bars and at home!
You may have seen the above headline in your social media feed the past few days and I wanted to provide some clarification around this legislation update.
To begin – Police are not going to randomly walk into homes or restaurants to conduct breath tests.
The title and stories basically make it sound like police will be randomly walking into bars and homes to demand a sample of your breath and lay charges if you fail. The wording is designed to be sensational and make it sound like we have sweeping new powers, the fact is we can’t and don’t want to just walk into your home to test you for alcohol for no reason.
Most people are surprised to know that we could always investigate you for impaired driving if we found you sitting at a bar or at home after driving. What is important to note is that we can’t just do a random check without having evidence that you were recently operating a motor vehicle. So we are not, and have no interest in just randomly showing up to your home or bar and testing you. Trust me, we have better things to do with our time.
There is a time and a place for this however, and you may be surprised to know that we could always demand a sample from you with sufficient evidence, even if we found you at home or in a bar. This is called conducting an impaired driving investigation. As police officers we get paid to be suspicious and conduct inquiries to determine whether an offence was committed. The below is an example of an impaired driving investigation where a breath demand after the fact may be requested:
John Doe crashes a car and flees the scene. He runs into a home or bar to try and avoid prosecution and is witnessed by members of the public or police. We find Mr Doe at home or in the bar and through our investigation we determine Mr Doe was operating the vehicle and is under the influence of alcohol. This type of investigation could include gathering witness statements, reviewing security camera footage, and collecting physical evidence found at the scene. In this case we demand a breath sample from Mr Doe as part of that investigation. This process is not new and has not changed.
What has changed is that the law now states that you can’t be over the legal limit within two hours of operating a vehicle. This change was designed to mitigate some of the common defenses utilized by impaired drivers. For example, claiming they were sober when they were driving and got drunk between exiting their vehicle and being arrested by the police. This is often what happens in cases of hit and runs similar to the example I shared above.
These legislative amendments actually changes very little procedurally for Police but still requires the investigating officer to articulate enough grounds to prove the person was operating the vehicle impaired within the past two hours.
In conclusion, police in Canada have always been legally entitled to request a sample of breath after the fact, this is not something new.
Please understand that we will only be enforcing these changes as part of an impaired investigation and all the circumstances for each individual case will be taken into consideration prior to laying of any charges. And no, we won’t be randomly walking through bars or up to homes to request a test. It would only be part of an impaired investigation and even then the evidence needs to be present and significant to successfully lay a charge in this manner.
The best and safest rule still remains: Don’t drink & Drive.
Constable Mark Smith & Constable Chris Martin
Calgary Police Service
__________________
PSN: Diemenz
Diemenz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Diemenz For This Useful Post:
Old 01-13-2019, 10:17 AM   #334
OMG!WTF!
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Wow there is some crazy arm chair lawyers in this thread that don’t quite understand how and what has changed.
It's not really the armchair lawyers you should be calling out. The article was full of actual lawyers raising the issue incorrectly. As well our own cp legal team was initially raising the same concern.
OMG!WTF! is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 10:52 AM   #335
RogerWilco
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemenz View Post
Wow there is some crazy arm chair lawyers in this thread that donít quite understand how and what has changed. Just to be clear the police could always do this.......before this law. The only thing that has changed is the 2 hour intoxication window. Please donít get lead astray from terrible Calgary sun reporting and their inability to properly do research.

Here is a post that might help explain it.

ďNo - Police are not going to randomly walk into homes or restaurants to conduct breath tests.Ē
CONSTABLE MARK SMITH∑FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 2019

Police in Canada can now demand breath samples in bars and at home!
You may have seen the above headline in your social media feed the past few days and I wanted to provide some clarification around this legislation update.
To begin Ė Police are not going to randomly walk into homes or restaurants to conduct breath tests.
The title and stories basically make it sound like police will be randomly walking into bars and homes to demand a sample of your breath and lay charges if you fail. The wording is designed to be sensational and make it sound like we have sweeping new powers, the fact is we canít and donít want to just walk into your home to test you for alcohol for no reason.
Most people are surprised to know that we could always investigate you for impaired driving if we found you sitting at a bar or at home after driving. What is important to note is that we canít just do a random check without having evidence that you were recently operating a motor vehicle. So we are not, and have no interest in just randomly showing up to your home or bar and testing you. Trust me, we have better things to do with our time.
There is a time and a place for this however, and you may be surprised to know that we could always demand a sample from you with sufficient evidence, even if we found you at home or in a bar. This is called conducting an impaired driving investigation. As police officers we get paid to be suspicious and conduct inquiries to determine whether an offence was committed. The below is an example of an impaired driving investigation where a breath demand after the fact may be requested:
John Doe crashes a car and flees the scene. He runs into a home or bar to try and avoid prosecution and is witnessed by members of the public or police. We find Mr Doe at home or in the bar and through our investigation we determine Mr Doe was operating the vehicle and is under the influence of alcohol. This type of investigation could include gathering witness statements, reviewing security camera footage, and collecting physical evidence found at the scene. In this case we demand a breath sample from Mr Doe as part of that investigation. This process is not new and has not changed.
What has changed is that the law now states that you canít be over the legal limit within two hours of operating a vehicle. This change was designed to mitigate some of the common defenses utilized by impaired drivers. For example, claiming they were sober when they were driving and got drunk between exiting their vehicle and being arrested by the police. This is often what happens in cases of hit and runs similar to the example I shared above.
These legislative amendments actually changes very little procedurally for Police but still requires the investigating officer to articulate enough grounds to prove the person was operating the vehicle impaired within the past two hours.
In conclusion, police in Canada have always been legally entitled to request a sample of breath after the fact, this is not something new.
Please understand that we will only be enforcing these changes as part of an impaired investigation and all the circumstances for each individual case will be taken into consideration prior to laying of any charges. And no, we wonít be randomly walking through bars or up to homes to request a test. It would only be part of an impaired investigation and even then the evidence needs to be present and significant to successfully lay a charge in this manner.
The best and safest rule still remains: Donít drink & Drive.
Constable Mark Smith & Constable Chris Martin
Calgary Police Service
It is pretty much the entire media that seems to have not even read the wording of the law and is proactively spreading false information. Even Rob Breakenridge is spreading the false information this weekend.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4838386/c...s-way-too-far/
RogerWilco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 11:04 AM   #336
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

The officer stated what the Police will do not what they are allowed to do.

Now if you get in a car accident and were sober then go to the bar and have a few drinks and the police end up investigating because the person you got in the collision with is changing their story to try to get out of being at fault. The Police could brethylize you at the bar and if you blow over despite not being impaired at the time of the collision would be guilty.

So while the police need a reason to demand a breath sample in the scenario they admit the reason for the law in article.

They are trying to get around a defense used by people who are charged
With a DUI. So the law has changed so that when they are unable to prove a person was operating a vehicle while intoxicated they have a different offence they can charge them with.

This is analogous to the Care and Control of vehicle laws which have been used to convict people who state they were just sleeping in their cars until sober.

So while this law is designed to convict more drunk drivers eventually it will be used to convict a person who wasn’t.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 11:08 AM   #337
Diemenz
First Line Centre
 
Diemenz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Exp:
Default

Wow that article is terrible. But it gets clicks which is really all the media care about.

On a related note that reporter did zero bloody homework. The police could have issued a breathalyzer test before the changes for that traffic stop because the empty bottles constitute reasonable cause. “Hi officer I know my car smells like a frat house on Saturday morning but I’m just returning bottles I swear”. An officer would not be doing their job if they did not investigate. And in addition why was he pulled over? Did the police use their smell radar gun to determine there was alcohol aroma from the vehicle or did the driver commit a traffic violation leading to the stop. That was left out of the article I see however.

Piss poor reporting.
__________________
PSN: Diemenz
Diemenz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 11:33 AM   #338
corporatejay
Franchise Player
 
corporatejay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Exp:
Default

There's a lot.of actual lawyers in this thread too.
__________________
corporatejay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 12:15 PM   #339
OMG!WTF!
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
The officer stated what the Police will do not what they are allowed to do.

Now if you get in a car accident and were sober then go to the bar and have a few drinks and the police end up investigating because the person you got in the collision with is changing their story to try to get out of being at fault. The Police could brethylize you at the bar and if you blow over despite not being impaired at the time of the collision would be guilty

That's not true. If you've reported the accident your obligation is done. There would be no reason for you to believe you would be required to take a breathalyzer test in the following 2 hours. So you would be not guilty. There has to be a reason for you to believe you would be required to give a breath sample.



You would have to not report the accident, essentially flee the scene and then you could be asked for the breathalyzer...and rightly so.
OMG!WTF! is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 12:42 PM   #340
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
That's not true. If you've reported the accident your obligation is done. There would be no reason for you to believe you would be required to take a breathalyzer test in the following 2 hours. So you would be not guilty. There has to be a reason for you to believe you would be required to give a breath sample.

You would have to not report the accident, essentially flee the scene and then you could be asked for the breathalyzer...and rightly so.
So you are saying that it’s okay if a sober person leaves the scene of an accident and goes to the bar to drink that charging then with a DUI without evidence that they were drunk.

And are you 100% sure of when Police are required to be called at the time of an accident? Because if you are wrong you could get a DUI.

Do you think you would be making the same argument that a person would never get a DUI from sleeping in their car when care and control was added.

Last edited by GGG; 01-13-2019 at 12:44 PM.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:52 AM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016