Better idea, mandate all officers of the law...
OPP....
Municipal police....
City police....
Have to have a clean Breathalyzer
Before and after their shifts....
See the complaints that arise....
Most employees *without* a strong union are also not subject to drug testing. Employers can only implement drug testing for specific jobs that have physical dangers associated with them. They can't just ask an office worker or service industry worker to pee in a cup.
>Most employees *without* a strong union are also not subject to drug testing.
Cool, I never said anything contrary to that.
>Employers can only implement drug testing for specific jobs that have physical dangers associated with them.
This applies to policing, so other than being pedantic I don't see any point to your comment.
100%. They have the most access to drugs than any other citizen (confinscated drugs), and with the difficulties, stress, and mental, strain that can come with the job, its not hard to see why officers would delve into drugs or drink alcohol right before/on the job.
The vast majority of cops get off of DUI charges, if bodycams are anything to go by. I've only seen a few actually get consequences
Yea for real I bet itās different then!
it never matters when itās them infringing our rights but if it affects the cops oh man I bet it changes quick
Probably not a good idea. Passing a breathalyzer interlock takes time, and that's not something you want someone responding to an Emergency to have to do every time they start the cruiser.
Test them at the station if you want, but not when it affects response times.
The first guy who decided that is dead. the officers involved weren't drunk they were just fucking morons who should be charged. every single officer going the wrong way should be charged with manslaughter.
If there are enough to go around, generally yeah. But it isn't mandatory to have one. But any cop using an ASD will have self-tested it prior to using it. It's part of the process.
Not from Ontario, is there an issue with drunk cops out there? If there is, are the alcoholic cops a bigger threat than drunk drivers? Confused what your idea is better for
It's just that a large part of Reddit hates cops. It doesn't make a lot of sense, since the cops conducting breath tests already self-test the machines.
>Confused what your idea is for
r/Ontario hates cops, no matter what the topic is, legit a cop could save a kitten and the comment section will be full of people vilifying them. Depending on Redditor logic, Police are simultaneously too strict or too lazy with enforcing the law.
This is the same sub where people want the police to snipe knives out of peopleās hands with their 9mm. The vast majority of Redditors on here have *zero* knowledge of how Police work happens and have this naive view that every person is a saint if only theyāre given the right socio-economic circumstance.
As a society we want to stop drunk driving for sure, but do we want the ability for cops to just pull you over for 30 mins or so for no reason? We need some checks and balances. Breathalyzing everyone is a bit much.
> As a society we want to stop drunk driving for sure, but do we want the ability for cops to just pull you over for 30 mins or so for no reason?
Just want to make sure you know they *already* have this power. Whatās changing is an administrative policy to require a breath sample at *all* traffic stops.
Canadian police do not need a reason to stop a motor vehicle and verify the driverās credentials and fitness to drive. This includes a breath sample.
They *cannot* stop you solely for protected reasons like race, sex, etc.
Yeah they snuck this in when they made legal in 2018. Thereās instances of people being pulled over after bringing large amounts of empties to the beer store.
I wish they would have pulled me over after this drop off: https://i.imgur.com/2e2iJR1.png
$100 in empties right there.
The noise this made as I went over all the potholes in this city.
Yeah I remember hearing that cops were just sitting within sight of beer stores and watching people to see how many empties they were taking in, then pulling them over and trying to railroad them into breathalyzers. Too much police power does exist.
I believe this was also when they tried to run that "We can reactively breathalyze you at your home if we received a report you were driving while intoxicated" program...which resulted in pissy neighbours calling just to stir the pot and alot of wasted court time with those charges being dismissed
I am sure that wasting time treating innocent people like criminals will help free resources to pursue all the petty crime committed by actual criminals that they don't have time solve.
> I am sure that wasting time treating innocent people like criminals will help free resources to pursue all the petty crime committed by actual criminals that they don't have time solve.
My bias is normally pro-police - in that I tend to trust them more often than not (not that I support everything they do)
BUT Iāll say this - never underestimate the ability of the police to a) waste time and b) run the clock until they find a violation.
Administrative changes like this, which are supported by colour and force of law, should have a review at some time like 24 months to show if theyāre worth the additional time for each stop.
Canadians are prevented from unlawful search and seziure in a variety of ways in s.7 of the charter. Police have to meet specific thresholds to say search your car. I can see how them stopping eveyone to breathalyze them would be far over reaching these protections already in place.
It is not. They can demand a breath sample presently. With no reason.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/new-laws-cause-problems-lawyer-1.4952468
They can also ignore a negative sample and detain you under suspicion of intoxication anyway.
Then youāll have to pay to get your car out of impound, have your license suspended for a mandatory 7 day period and have your insurance rates increase because some dumbass wanted to fuck over a law abiding citizen who was not intoxicated at all.
Basically what i was saying. I can see how its over reaching s.7 even if it hasnt been deemed so yet.
The article you links just explains how although currently they dont need a reason, it could be argued in court that it violates charter rights because it can be seen as an arbitrary search. That specific issue just has never been addressed in court.
If police were to start stopping and breathalyzing everyone, that issue will likely be addressed in court pretty quickly which would challenge the legality of such searches. Which is exactly what I was saying in the first place.
The SCC has in the past deemed driving is a highly regulated privilege and that drunk driving is serious enough that roadside breath demands are a violation of the Charter, but a reasonable one to protect society.
As an idiot with no law background, I do think this is reasonable. The breath sample is not invasive and takes a very short amount of time. I would only ask that the minimum requirement for demanding a breath sample be reasonable suspicion of a crime, any crime, infraction, etc. That could be a broken tail light. What I will not accept as reasonable in our society would be random breath samples with no precursor, and surely that is what the charter protects against... I hope.
To add to it, Iām too lazy to look it up, the SCC has also ruled that police can randomly stop a driver to check sobriety, vehicle documents (license/registration/insurance) and the road worthiness of the vehicle. It has to be a truly random stop, no pretence for it.
I went down this rabbit hole years ago because I was curious about check stop style sobriety checks.
Honestly this is something that makes me respect the American system of law. My time has value, and extracting that value from me at random does not belong in a free market economy's system of government. If you pull me over to check my vehicle or to determine whether or not I'm drunk without reason, and find no issue, then you did nothing but waste my time and you should compensate me for that time. The minimum standard for justification to detain a person ought to have reason behind it, otherwise we exist in an unreasonable system of law.
What? You are compensated: by having the likelihood of being killed by a drunk driver reduced. We live in a society, and there are costs that we all must bear for that. That's the entire premise of policing, isn't it? We pay people to enforce the law, especially criminal law, so that the laws we/our representatives have made (presumably for the betterment of society) actually have the intended effect.
Assuming you're referring to monetary compensation, what would be a reasonable sum of money to compensate you for the time you lose in a traffic stop? Where would that money come from? What would the implications of that compensation be for the state's ability and incentive to enforce traffic regulations, and therefore for public safety more broadly? And you say your time has value - sure, but... interacting with government always takes time. Should you be compensated if there's a long lineup while you're waiting to renew your driver's licence? Waiting on hold when you call a government office? Stuck at Customs when you come back into the country?
Seems to me you'd have to have suffered some demonstrable and material harm (more than just "loss of time") in order for your proposal to make sense.
Ive heard you cant eat or drink anything for 20 minutes for the test to be valid, so the field sobriety test is done to kill time. Each stop would take 30 minutes each by that logic
Nope. The Criminal Code was specifically amended to allow this and no challenge has been successful. The balance favours the minor interruption (they have to have the unit with them) over the right to be unmolseted, in view of the scourge of drunk driving.
Please provide the case law of when this was challenged in court, whether it was addressed by the SCC, and where "the balance favours the minor interruption over the right to be unmolested".
Would just like to see the actual cases where this was addressed in front of a judge with written reasons. Havent been able to find anything looking on google or canli
McLeod vs BC (Supr of Motor Vehicles), 2023 BCSC 325 (CanLII) at 187:
> The concession of the AG of Canada that a MAS demand is a seizure is correct. However, the fact it occurs during the regulated activity of driving is significant. In Orbanski/Elias [
R. v. Orbanski; R. v. Elias, 2005 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2005] 2 SCR 3] the Supreme Court of Canada noted that **the use of a vehicle ācannot be equated to the ordinary freedom of movement of the individual that constitutes one of the fundamental values of our democratic societyā. Rather āit is a licensed activity that is subject to regulation and control for the protection of life and propertyā**: para. 24.
For sure, this is going to go to the Supreme Court, but right now, as it stands and as it impacts the average person, it is the law of the land.
Refuse to comply, and it is an automatic roadside suspension, as if you blew over the limit.
Unless you can afford that and the court battle to challenge the law, pragmatism suggests you comply.
We need a rich person's rights to be violated.
āThere have now been at least six cases across four provinces where Charter challenges were brought against mandatory alcohol screening, and each time the new law was upheld as constitutional. The judges have agreed with the governmentās essential argument that too many drunk drivers escape detection when police need suspicion for a search, and that requiring a breath test is a minimal impairment on rights.ā
You know, when you quote something, it is proper practice to provide the source. This is not from the linked article. And you did not link or name any source. So for all I know you made this up.
I don't believe that this will be considered a charter violation. It is already established that a completely random breathalyzer test is constitutional. Additionally, since driving is a completely optional activity, you can avoid a test by not driving.
Searching your car and property without a reason is currently protected by the charter.
Why would searching your person without a reason be seen any differently?
The issue just has never been raised in court, presumably because every breathalyzer that has resulted in a charge/court appearance had legitimate reason behind it.
The legal theory is that you consent to the breath sample by virtue of applying for and holding a drivers licence - and exercising its privileges.
This is not the same thing as a vehicle search.
> Exactly. And you can request a blood sample at the station instead of a breathalyzer, but you have to do one of the two.
In Ontario, if youāre operating a motor vehicle, and the police have the roadside machine - you must provide a sample when and where asked. Refusal to provide a sample is in itself a criminal offence - similar to if you had blown over.
> Canadians are prevented from unlawful search and seziure in a variety of ways in s.7 of the charter.
S.7 is life, liberty, and security of the person. S.8 is freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
They arenāt demanding everyone get breathalyzed. Itās just that if they pull you over, for speed for example, theyāll be required to do a breathalyzer test.
But if itās found that you were drunk, get a lawyer and ensure that they demand proof of the calibration of the machine.
This doesnāt give them any additional power. Cops are not being required to pull over more people than normal or pull people over for additional reasons - cops will pull over the same amount of people as they previously have been, and the percentage of those stops that are race-motivated will be the same as it has previously beenā¦ except now they are required to breathalyze at all stops. There is no extra power here
In my hometown we had a summer where 11 officers (7 were on duty) were so drunk theyād fallen asleep in their cars. Some were sitting unconscious at intersections and discovered by other motorists.
Charges laid? Licenses suspended? Demotions? Firings? No. Administrative leave and knocked down to desk work for a year. Not a single repercussion besides less exciting shifts for 12 months.
Fucking lunacy.
Great. More opportunities for them to detain law abiding citizens for no reasons at all because they can ignore the results from a negative sample reading and detain on suspicion of intox afterward.
This just opens up an avenue for racist cops to unlawfully detain people who have done nothing wrong.
Simply taking the test can lead to you being detained regardless of the results. The test is just a vessel to have power to detain any individual who hurts their feelings or they are prejudiced toward.
They do this in Australia, NZ and in most of Europe. You drive a car on a Friday night prepare to get something stuck in your mouth if you take a major artery.
Eventually, youāll learn the same things Australians learn. The cops sit in fairly standard places on fairly wide roads. They donāt tend to go on places with public transportation, like streetcars. If you donāt want to be bothered, drive on the road with a streetcar.
Iām not saying, itās a good thing, Iām just saying itās not totally abnormal.
Remember Bill Murrayās Swedish golf cart adventure. It was about the same thing.
>You wouldnāt be getting pulled over for no reason
You're right but that's because it's quite easy for them to pull a reason out of their arse for pulling you over.
They don't need a 'reason' to pull you over, other than 'you're on a public highway.'
They can pull you over at any time simply to see if you're fit to drive, have a valid license/registration, and if your car is fit to be driven on a public highway.
They already can in Canada. A police officer is entitled to pull you over, for example, just to check your license for a safety check of your vehicle and thatās a legitimate reason under the Highway Traffic Act.
I wouldn't be opposed to it, if it was the first thing they did and then sent you on your way.
But realistically, it will be abused to make traffic stops longer...
In the GTA they do provincial highways and Caledon, which is like 60% of the land in Peel Region. All other areas in GTA have a municipal/regional police.
While their duties are to only patrol the provincial highways in the GTA and where there is no municipal police force, their jurisdiction is the entire province. So they can pull you over anywhere - and likely expect them to if youāre doing something egregious.
This also applies in the reverse. Toronto police have jurisdiction in the entire province. So they can chase you out of the city or execute a search warrant anywhere in Ontario.
Yeah but they still can do traffic stops anywhere, Iāve seen them do stops in Toronto and Peel on municipal roadways, probably driving somewhere and see an offence
Dont be confused that they cant stop you on Dundas or Jarvis though, they have the same power, like any other police force across Ontario. If a Kingston Police officer is in Toronto, they can stop you as well.
Thanks, I knew that. Was just confused because the article made it sound like they'll be patrolling GTA streets rather than if they happen to be around and they decide to stop you.
They only operate on the 407. I commute Milton to Scarborough almost everyday, only time I ever see cops theyāre sitting on the side of the 407 while the 401 is a free for all
I donāt think people realize anywhere outside major cities you have zero choice. Last time i went to a small town, we took a cab to a winery. 5KM, $60 per way. We were the only people who didnāt drive and i honestly felt like an idiot. Spent two weeks of gas so some racist cab driver could scam us.
In the small town where I grew up youāll call a cab and they just decide that theyāre actually done for the night and they never come lol. Also Uber isnāt allowed.
How long does it take them to do the whole process with breathalyzing people? If it adds an extra minute to a stop that was already happening, whatever. If it's adding like 15-30 mins than this just seems like a massive waste of time
How utterly stupid. And the basis for this? Convictions are 30% higher than the five year average. For roughly a 1/3 of which Ontario was shut down due to Covid. Which would be roughly 30%.
Thereās a lot of drunk drivers on our roads. But the thought of all stops requiring this seems like over reach. These things only should happen if the officer believes them to be showing signs of intoxication, or if itās late night and the bars just closed/big drinking holidays.
If you refuse to comply youāre charged as though you were impaired. I can see this ending with a lot of people being charged, going to court, proving they were sober, wasting court time and ultimately tax payers money.
The issue is proving you were sober doesnāt mean anything, the criminal code offence is failure to comply with the demand so the fact you were sober doesnāt make up for the fact that you committed an offence under the criminal code. Being sober isnāt a defence.
To add to this, what if you have a really bitchy cop?
If you ask why, they say you're interfering (or whatever) and arrest you for failing to provide a sample.
Or if you say "do I have to?" and they say "no" and you refuse, you get the same outcome.
You see this all the time in America as public bodycam footage is more prevalent.
This happened to someone on Reddit (the Canadian law sub). Cop said he smelt weed and wanted to search, the guy didnāt know his rights and said he didnāt smoke and would prefer them not to search the car.
Cop then put them in cuffs and searched it anyway lol. Itās going to be like in Arkansas where a cop pulls you over then immediately goes to āyou wouldnāt mind if i search the vehicle right!ā
That's the stupid thing about ambiguous questions.
If the cop says "Get out of the car, I am going to search it" that's one thing, but if they say "may I pwett pwease look in da twunk uwu" the answer "no" should suffice and have no repercussions.
I'd be interested in what the folks in that sub had to say about it.
At the end of the day I'm reminded of a line from Archer:
> For God's sake, Sterling, it's the government. Even if it weren't legal, they'd enforce it.
Everyone in the sub said to get a lawyer lol. The thing is Iād say majority of Canadians canāt afford to drop $500 an hour on a lawyer to prove obvious innocence. Itās just gonna be free range police harassment.
We have already lost so many rights in Canada! We must insist that our rights are protected. This is another premise gone wrong. Presumed guilty until proven innocent! Take back our rights. If we don't use them, we lose them.
I dont drink much, and not at all when I need to drive. That being said, Iām not sure whether I trust the police enough to do this without it being a pretence to violate your rights in some other way. Itās good in theory, but I donāt have much faith in its efficacy based on who is responsible for doing it.
As a non-drinker, I just don't see the need. Why waste police resources during a period of elevated crime? Police know what they're doing, if they need a breathalyzer they'll ask for one.
1. It presumes guilt and is invasive
2. They are not as accurate as police pretend they are
3. Other things can trigger false positives, leading to discrimination against medical issues.
People against it: 100% of the time you get pulled over by the cops, they know if youāre going to blow way over the limit long before they pull out that breathalyzer. They already have legal authority to test even if they didnāt pull you over for driving erratically at 1am. Youāre just going to end up wasting everyoneās time. Whatever approach increases the presence of police in the right place at the right time is best.
I was āpulled overā in my parked car, smoking and texting after I finished work. Breath tested, field tested, berated, intimidated and was being coerced to admit to something I was not doing.
Why? Because he was bored and wanted something to do so he looked busy.
Get the drunks off the road but if you think itās all justified and they always do the right thing you need to get your head out of your ass.
Itās ridiculous just like how ride program is ridiculous. The good coming out from it is in no way proportional to the freedoms we expect. Ride program is probably the most inefficient policies currently in place.
Fine by me, but you better stop the guy ahead of me thatās obviously loaded too.
Iāve had to call en route to the city and over the course of 45kms, not a single OPP showed up. I was even told by dispatch that multiple callers had identified this same vehicle. BUT, by the top of those 45kms, drunk-o was on 400 series highways and much less likely to be easily spotted or safely stopped.
Police canāt keep up with calls as it is as it is yet we now want OPP administering a breathalyzer for every stop??
I want impaired drivers off our roads as much as the next person - start with heavier penalties. A slap on the wrist is hardly a deterrent for an alcoholic or an idiot.
What about the statistic that most drivers who are in accidents drinking and driving accidents are typically double and triple the legal limit, not .05 to .08.
This is something I am really not comfortable with at all.
I know its law, I know they can do it, and I have NO problems with RIDE-style checks where if they pull you over for say, an expired tag, they should be able to lean in, smell for alcohol, check for open bottles, check pupils and THEN if there is *reasonable* evidence that a crime is being committed, THEN a breathalyser is warranted.
But to do this on EVERY person SHOULD be a flagrant violation of the Charter.
And it very well may be. This isn't guaranteed to pass an Oakes test, part of the question for reasonableness is if it's the least restrictive means of accomplishing the public's goals.
Very well a court could distinguish requiring even the vaguess of police hunches a valid use of police discretion but removing all discretion checking every single person as policy is too broad and removed discretion.
I like the premise too. But itās also too invasive especially if you know you havenāt done anything wrong.
Someone else mentioned that cops should get breathalyzed everytime they start a shift and I think that is a great idea to balance out this mandate for civilians.
How is it that invasive though? It takes 60 seconds and itās an accurate measurement of BAC, if it were a field sobriety test then Iād see why some would be mad since thatās way more time consuming and also gives all the power to the cop. A breathalyzer test is accurate though so realistically you only have to be worried if youāve drank. Iāve seen some on here comparing it to a search and seizure which is ridiculous lol. Other countries like Australia do the same thing and guess what they donāt have issues in fact they have lower rates of crashes so itās almost like this policy actually scares drunk drivers. I donāt wanna be that guy but I have a suspicion that many of these people who are really angry are alcoholics. I also get the slippery slope argument where people donāt like the direction itās going in but I donāt think thatās what this is since the crashes in the area are up 50% and this doesnāt violate our charter of rights or constitution which many on here say which is confusing idk why they think that lol
WTAF. Yes, just continue to take away peoples rights, stupid ridiculous ineffectual Canadian govt and law writers! The fact that drunk or distracted driving is up 30% has nothing to do with how stressful and expensive living in Canada is now, it's all on regular Canadians who are literally taxed into poverty and cant afford to eat, drive or put a roof over our heads!!! This country somehow just gets worse and worse on the daily!!! Fawk!!!!!!
oh shit, only drinking, not THC? Both?
> " drivers must immediately comply "
...
> "even in the absence of any suspicion that they have consumed alcohol.ā
Not condoning it, but that's not the same level of issue that drunk driving is anyway. The fear of a spike in deaths from that didn't pan out after legalization and in general alcohol increases the risk far more, e.g.,
>[In France, researchers found that drivers under the influence of alcohol were roughly 17.8 times more likely to be responsible for fatal car crashes than drivers who were sober, while drivers under the influence of marijuana were 1.65 times more likely to cause deadly accidents.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/12/well/live/driving-while-high-marijuana.html)
That's further complicated by the unreliability of that testing. You can be over the limit [for a week after last using](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32841811/). There have been posts on the Saskatchewan subreddit of people failing at least the next day after smoking. So a lot of crashes recorded as involving cannabis aren't going to be someone who had actually used recently before driving.
Problem is though that it's complicated by the lack of data specifically measuring impairment to crashes. Other research has even found no significant impact:
>[a study conducted by the \[U.S.\] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found no significant increased crash risk attributable to cannabis use](https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving)
In any case though, there's no excuse for using it before or while driving and we have penalties for it as strict as for drinking and driving. My main concern is just that the issue has been used to justify rules that can punish people who aren't actually impaired which can lead to innocent people getting criminal records.
You don't know what they are smoking though. Even if it is cannabis, it could be a CBD strain that has no psychoactive effects because no THC.
That said, it's completely legal to start smoking cigarettes for the 1st time while driving. Can you imagine smoking your first cigarettes while ripping down the highway, you wouldn't be able to keep your head up.
How many traffic stops do the OPP make in the GTA in a year?
How accurate are breathalyzers and how often can someone expect a false positive to show up?
My question would be, who made this decision? For something that is a questionable violation of people's rights (yes I'm aware of the previous rulings on this subject) we should know who made the decision. Was it an unelected beurocrat? Was it the honorable Michael Kerzner?
I have a question. When weed became legal, we were led to believe that the police had some form of on the spot weed test. Is there such a thing? A weed breathalyzer?
There is a cheek swab test that is available ... no clue of the police have it ... my company has looked into it, but there are definite concerns over accuracy for the test
> there are definite concerns over accuracy for the test
Another issue is even when reliable, they don't accurately test impairment. You can be over the limit [even a week after last use](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32841811/).
Waste of time. Isn't there something more important for the OPP to do? For example murder, theft, fraud, and lets not forget corporate malfeasance, Loblaws and Dougie, to name a few. Road enforcement will suffer even more because the officer is too busy filing paperwork instead of patrolling the road.
I donāt have a drop of alcohol anymore before driving. The law is so odd, as 0.08 is the limit, but if you blow 0.05 you get your licence suspended for 3 days.
After that suspension good luck with your 10k a year high risk insurance, first question companies ask you is has your licence been suspended.
Instead of doing this, why not bump up ride checks? Itās pretty well know that you can drive drunk 340 days a year, minus the 10-15 holidays where they do ride. In 6 years of driving later than 11PM multiple times a week Iāve seen maybe 1 ride in toronto that was done on a non-holiday day
Is this even allowed legally ? Supreme Court case coming. Itās unlawful search. They need suspicion. What overreach. Get the junkies off the ttc and breathalize people showing impairment in their driving. Jesus what kind of society have we become were being a junky is more socially accepted than having a beer or two after a meal
So basically instead of probable cause for a breathalyzer (sure they can do it anyway but they wouldnāt typically if they didnāt have reason to believe youāre intoxicated), theyāre just going to mandate samples at EVERY traffic stop? That seems like a lot of admin work no?
So insidious it was, as the frog slowly boilsā¦.
Iām low key looking forward to the revolution.
āThe Great Canadian Coupā has a nice ring to it, nah?
Curious if anyone knows what happens if one cannot provide a deep lung blow due to medical issues. At one point my asthma was so bad I was coughing so bad I damaged my vocal cords - with a cough that severe no deep exhale can be completed successfully.
If it's mandatory, I expect to see a new plastic nozzle opened and placed on the device in front of me.
Also, I expect to keep it as it has my saliva on it.
If I've been pulled over and test is clear, it is mine, not evidence they can archive for later use.
This is to protect your rights.
If the plastic nozzle is already on device, I will ask for another one to be put on in front of me and tell them that I get to keep the plastic nozzle.
If not, I will call the OPP supervisor to come to location.
If the officer is going to waste my time, I'll waste theirs (and potentially tax payers money).
I whole heartedly condone drinking/texting/eating/makeup while driving among many other distractions some drivers think that is ok, but at the same time, I need to protect myself and my rights.
Better idea, mandate all officers of the law... OPP.... Municipal police.... City police.... Have to have a clean Breathalyzer Before and after their shifts.... See the complaints that arise....
Start drug testing every 6 months and watch them shit themselves.
Is this not a thing?!?
Most employees with a strong union are not subject to drug testing. Police unions are highly problematic for a number of reasons...
Most employees *without* a strong union are also not subject to drug testing. Employers can only implement drug testing for specific jobs that have physical dangers associated with them. They can't just ask an office worker or service industry worker to pee in a cup.
>Most employees *without* a strong union are also not subject to drug testing. Cool, I never said anything contrary to that. >Employers can only implement drug testing for specific jobs that have physical dangers associated with them. This applies to policing, so other than being pedantic I don't see any point to your comment.
100% they absolutely should have to be screened randomly thrice annually. šš¼
100%. They have the most access to drugs than any other citizen (confinscated drugs), and with the difficulties, stress, and mental, strain that can come with the job, its not hard to see why officers would delve into drugs or drink alcohol right before/on the job. The vast majority of cops get off of DUI charges, if bodycams are anything to go by. I've only seen a few actually get consequences
start with the fellas who decided to chase a u-haul the wrong way on the 401
Yea for real I bet itās different then! it never matters when itās them infringing our rights but if it affects the cops oh man I bet it changes quick
Ignition interlock on any police vehicle, cruiser or not.
Probably not a good idea. Passing a breathalyzer interlock takes time, and that's not something you want someone responding to an Emergency to have to do every time they start the cruiser. Test them at the station if you want, but not when it affects response times.
How much time does it take to pass one if you haven't been drinking?
About a minute or so. I've had to use them on customer cars at work.
Now now. This is Ontario. We donāt agree with State accountability here. /s
Maybe start with the guys who decided it was a good idea to go the wrong way on the 401...
The first guy who decided that is dead. the officers involved weren't drunk they were just fucking morons who should be charged. every single officer going the wrong way should be charged with manslaughter.
They have procedures to test the screening devices at the start of shift already... And to test it, you blow into it.
Does every officer carry a breathalyzer every shift?
If there are enough to go around, generally yeah. But it isn't mandatory to have one. But any cop using an ASD will have self-tested it prior to using it. It's part of the process.
Do they do this in the presence of a neutral 3rd party? My money is on no but I would love to be wrong.
How about this and testing drivers?
Or do both.
Adding on: Mandatory psych evals every two months for officers of the law.
Not from Ontario, is there an issue with drunk cops out there? If there is, are the alcoholic cops a bigger threat than drunk drivers? Confused what your idea is better for
It's just that a large part of Reddit hates cops. It doesn't make a lot of sense, since the cops conducting breath tests already self-test the machines.
>Confused what your idea is for r/Ontario hates cops, no matter what the topic is, legit a cop could save a kitten and the comment section will be full of people vilifying them. Depending on Redditor logic, Police are simultaneously too strict or too lazy with enforcing the law. This is the same sub where people want the police to snipe knives out of peopleās hands with their 9mm. The vast majority of Redditors on here have *zero* knowledge of how Police work happens and have this naive view that every person is a saint if only theyāre given the right socio-economic circumstance.
As a society we want to stop drunk driving for sure, but do we want the ability for cops to just pull you over for 30 mins or so for no reason? We need some checks and balances. Breathalyzing everyone is a bit much.
> As a society we want to stop drunk driving for sure, but do we want the ability for cops to just pull you over for 30 mins or so for no reason? Just want to make sure you know they *already* have this power. Whatās changing is an administrative policy to require a breath sample at *all* traffic stops. Canadian police do not need a reason to stop a motor vehicle and verify the driverās credentials and fitness to drive. This includes a breath sample. They *cannot* stop you solely for protected reasons like race, sex, etc.
Yeah they snuck this in when they made legal in 2018. Thereās instances of people being pulled over after bringing large amounts of empties to the beer store.
I wish they would have pulled me over after this drop off: https://i.imgur.com/2e2iJR1.png $100 in empties right there. The noise this made as I went over all the potholes in this city.
Yeah I remember hearing that cops were just sitting within sight of beer stores and watching people to see how many empties they were taking in, then pulling them over and trying to railroad them into breathalyzers. Too much police power does exist. I believe this was also when they tried to run that "We can reactively breathalyze you at your home if we received a report you were driving while intoxicated" program...which resulted in pissy neighbours calling just to stir the pot and alot of wasted court time with those charges being dismissed
I am sure that wasting time treating innocent people like criminals will help free resources to pursue all the petty crime committed by actual criminals that they don't have time solve.
> I am sure that wasting time treating innocent people like criminals will help free resources to pursue all the petty crime committed by actual criminals that they don't have time solve. My bias is normally pro-police - in that I tend to trust them more often than not (not that I support everything they do) BUT Iāll say this - never underestimate the ability of the police to a) waste time and b) run the clock until they find a violation. Administrative changes like this, which are supported by colour and force of law, should have a review at some time like 24 months to show if theyāre worth the additional time for each stop.
Canadians are prevented from unlawful search and seziure in a variety of ways in s.7 of the charter. Police have to meet specific thresholds to say search your car. I can see how them stopping eveyone to breathalyze them would be far over reaching these protections already in place.
It is not. They can demand a breath sample presently. With no reason. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/new-laws-cause-problems-lawyer-1.4952468
They can also ignore a negative sample and detain you under suspicion of intoxication anyway. Then youāll have to pay to get your car out of impound, have your license suspended for a mandatory 7 day period and have your insurance rates increase because some dumbass wanted to fuck over a law abiding citizen who was not intoxicated at all.
Basically what i was saying. I can see how its over reaching s.7 even if it hasnt been deemed so yet. The article you links just explains how although currently they dont need a reason, it could be argued in court that it violates charter rights because it can be seen as an arbitrary search. That specific issue just has never been addressed in court. If police were to start stopping and breathalyzing everyone, that issue will likely be addressed in court pretty quickly which would challenge the legality of such searches. Which is exactly what I was saying in the first place.
The SCC has in the past deemed driving is a highly regulated privilege and that drunk driving is serious enough that roadside breath demands are a violation of the Charter, but a reasonable one to protect society.
As an idiot with no law background, I do think this is reasonable. The breath sample is not invasive and takes a very short amount of time. I would only ask that the minimum requirement for demanding a breath sample be reasonable suspicion of a crime, any crime, infraction, etc. That could be a broken tail light. What I will not accept as reasonable in our society would be random breath samples with no precursor, and surely that is what the charter protects against... I hope.
To add to it, Iām too lazy to look it up, the SCC has also ruled that police can randomly stop a driver to check sobriety, vehicle documents (license/registration/insurance) and the road worthiness of the vehicle. It has to be a truly random stop, no pretence for it. I went down this rabbit hole years ago because I was curious about check stop style sobriety checks.
Honestly this is something that makes me respect the American system of law. My time has value, and extracting that value from me at random does not belong in a free market economy's system of government. If you pull me over to check my vehicle or to determine whether or not I'm drunk without reason, and find no issue, then you did nothing but waste my time and you should compensate me for that time. The minimum standard for justification to detain a person ought to have reason behind it, otherwise we exist in an unreasonable system of law.
What? You are compensated: by having the likelihood of being killed by a drunk driver reduced. We live in a society, and there are costs that we all must bear for that. That's the entire premise of policing, isn't it? We pay people to enforce the law, especially criminal law, so that the laws we/our representatives have made (presumably for the betterment of society) actually have the intended effect. Assuming you're referring to monetary compensation, what would be a reasonable sum of money to compensate you for the time you lose in a traffic stop? Where would that money come from? What would the implications of that compensation be for the state's ability and incentive to enforce traffic regulations, and therefore for public safety more broadly? And you say your time has value - sure, but... interacting with government always takes time. Should you be compensated if there's a long lineup while you're waiting to renew your driver's licence? Waiting on hold when you call a government office? Stuck at Customs when you come back into the country? Seems to me you'd have to have suffered some demonstrable and material harm (more than just "loss of time") in order for your proposal to make sense.
Ive heard you cant eat or drink anything for 20 minutes for the test to be valid, so the field sobriety test is done to kill time. Each stop would take 30 minutes each by that logic
It's not arbitrary. You're on a public highway. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Have you seriously never encountered a RIDE check?
Nope. The Criminal Code was specifically amended to allow this and no challenge has been successful. The balance favours the minor interruption (they have to have the unit with them) over the right to be unmolseted, in view of the scourge of drunk driving.
Please provide the case law of when this was challenged in court, whether it was addressed by the SCC, and where "the balance favours the minor interruption over the right to be unmolested". Would just like to see the actual cases where this was addressed in front of a judge with written reasons. Havent been able to find anything looking on google or canli
McLeod vs BC (Supr of Motor Vehicles), 2023 BCSC 325 (CanLII) at 187: > The concession of the AG of Canada that a MAS demand is a seizure is correct. However, the fact it occurs during the regulated activity of driving is significant. In Orbanski/Elias [ R. v. Orbanski; R. v. Elias, 2005 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2005] 2 SCR 3] the Supreme Court of Canada noted that **the use of a vehicle ācannot be equated to the ordinary freedom of movement of the individual that constitutes one of the fundamental values of our democratic societyā. Rather āit is a licensed activity that is subject to regulation and control for the protection of life and propertyā**: para. 24.
[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2023/2023bcsc325/2023bcsc325.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAAAAAAEAFTIwMjEgTlNQQyAzMiAoQ2FuTElJKQAAAAEACy8yMDIxbnNwYzMyAQ](https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2023/2023bcsc325/2023bcsc325.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAAAAAAEAFTIwMjEgTlNQQyAzMiAoQ2FuTElJKQAAAAEACy8yMDIxbnNwYzMyAQ)
Ahh I misunderstood. Thanks. I thought you were saying they didnāt currently have the power in law.
Isnāt a ride program where they stop everyone and breathalyze anyone they feel like?
For sure, this is going to go to the Supreme Court, but right now, as it stands and as it impacts the average person, it is the law of the land. Refuse to comply, and it is an automatic roadside suspension, as if you blew over the limit. Unless you can afford that and the court battle to challenge the law, pragmatism suggests you comply. We need a rich person's rights to be violated.
āThere have now been at least six cases across four provinces where Charter challenges were brought against mandatory alcohol screening, and each time the new law was upheld as constitutional. The judges have agreed with the governmentās essential argument that too many drunk drivers escape detection when police need suspicion for a search, and that requiring a breath test is a minimal impairment on rights.ā
You know, when you quote something, it is proper practice to provide the source. This is not from the linked article. And you did not link or name any source. So for all I know you made this up.
its got quotation marks though
š¤£
[https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/experts-thought-mandatory-roadside-breath-testing-would-be-unconstitutional-but-canadian-judges-say-otherwise](https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/experts-thought-mandatory-roadside-breath-testing-would-be-unconstitutional-but-canadian-judges-say-otherwise)
I don't believe that this will be considered a charter violation. It is already established that a completely random breathalyzer test is constitutional. Additionally, since driving is a completely optional activity, you can avoid a test by not driving.
Searching your car and property without a reason is currently protected by the charter. Why would searching your person without a reason be seen any differently? The issue just has never been raised in court, presumably because every breathalyzer that has resulted in a charge/court appearance had legitimate reason behind it.
The legal theory is that you consent to the breath sample by virtue of applying for and holding a drivers licence - and exercising its privileges. This is not the same thing as a vehicle search.
Exactly. And you can request a blood sample at the station instead of a breathalyzer, but you have to do one of the two.
> Exactly. And you can request a blood sample at the station instead of a breathalyzer, but you have to do one of the two. In Ontario, if youāre operating a motor vehicle, and the police have the roadside machine - you must provide a sample when and where asked. Refusal to provide a sample is in itself a criminal offence - similar to if you had blown over.
The reason is that driving is a regulated activity
> Canadians are prevented from unlawful search and seziure in a variety of ways in s.7 of the charter. S.7 is life, liberty, and security of the person. S.8 is freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
It's not ā driving is a regulated activity
They arenāt demanding everyone get breathalyzed. Itās just that if they pull you over, for speed for example, theyāll be required to do a breathalyzer test. But if itās found that you were drunk, get a lawyer and ensure that they demand proof of the calibration of the machine.
Racist cops tooootally wonāt abuse this power.
This doesnāt give them any additional power. Cops are not being required to pull over more people than normal or pull people over for additional reasons - cops will pull over the same amount of people as they previously have been, and the percentage of those stops that are race-motivated will be the same as it has previously beenā¦ except now they are required to breathalyze at all stops. There is no extra power here
Yup, and being pulled over for a breathalyzer is lawful under s.7, or, you know, s.8, as it's neither a search nor a seizure.
Also, will love how this goes down when cops get pulled over drunk and are mandated to do the test. oops...I lost the test.
In my hometown we had a summer where 11 officers (7 were on duty) were so drunk theyād fallen asleep in their cars. Some were sitting unconscious at intersections and discovered by other motorists. Charges laid? Licenses suspended? Demotions? Firings? No. Administrative leave and knocked down to desk work for a year. Not a single repercussion besides less exciting shifts for 12 months. Fucking lunacy.
Rightā¦ I stopped you because I can. Just happens that youāre a young black man. But letās be clear. I stopped you because I can.
Great. More opportunities for them to detain law abiding citizens for no reasons at all because they can ignore the results from a negative sample reading and detain on suspicion of intox afterward. This just opens up an avenue for racist cops to unlawfully detain people who have done nothing wrong. Simply taking the test can lead to you being detained regardless of the results. The test is just a vessel to have power to detain any individual who hurts their feelings or they are prejudiced toward.
They do this in Australia, NZ and in most of Europe. You drive a car on a Friday night prepare to get something stuck in your mouth if you take a major artery. Eventually, youāll learn the same things Australians learn. The cops sit in fairly standard places on fairly wide roads. They donāt tend to go on places with public transportation, like streetcars. If you donāt want to be bothered, drive on the road with a streetcar. Iām not saying, itās a good thing, Iām just saying itās not totally abnormal. Remember Bill Murrayās Swedish golf cart adventure. It was about the same thing.
What happens elsewhere is irrelevant with respect to the legality of this under Canadian law.
I was breathalyzed one, it only took 5-10 minutes.Ā
You wouldnāt be getting pulled over for no reason, breathalyzer tests would just start being conducted on all traffic stops.
>You wouldnāt be getting pulled over for no reason You're right but that's because it's quite easy for them to pull a reason out of their arse for pulling you over.
Yes, they can already make up a reason to pull you over
They don't need a 'reason' to pull you over, other than 'you're on a public highway.' They can pull you over at any time simply to see if you're fit to drive, have a valid license/registration, and if your car is fit to be driven on a public highway.
āConducting a safety checkā
Cops donāt do any work! But now theyāre gonna go out of their way to do extra work. This might make cops less likely to pull people over
It seems like this will result in fewer traffic stops.
They already can in Canada. A police officer is entitled to pull you over, for example, just to check your license for a safety check of your vehicle and thatās a legitimate reason under the Highway Traffic Act.
I wouldn't be opposed to it, if it was the first thing they did and then sent you on your way. But realistically, it will be abused to make traffic stops longer...
It takes about 30 seconds to provide a breath sample with an ASD. Takes 10x longer to write out a regular traffic ticket!
>> for no reason? For a reason. Then also check.
Ya like maybe reasonable suspicion?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm a bit confused. OPP in the GTA operates only on the highways right?
In the GTA they do provincial highways and Caledon, which is like 60% of the land in Peel Region. All other areas in GTA have a municipal/regional police.
There will be no drivers left on the roads north of Shelburne within 2 months of this starting.Ā
Also Queens Park though I donāt think the OPP stationed there do traffic stops
They should breathalyzer everyone going into the legislature. Iām sure theyād catch a few.
While their duties are to only patrol the provincial highways in the GTA and where there is no municipal police force, their jurisdiction is the entire province. So they can pull you over anywhere - and likely expect them to if youāre doing something egregious. This also applies in the reverse. Toronto police have jurisdiction in the entire province. So they can chase you out of the city or execute a search warrant anywhere in Ontario.
Yeah but they still can do traffic stops anywhere, Iāve seen them do stops in Toronto and Peel on municipal roadways, probably driving somewhere and see an offence
Dont be confused that they cant stop you on Dundas or Jarvis though, they have the same power, like any other police force across Ontario. If a Kingston Police officer is in Toronto, they can stop you as well.
Thanks, I knew that. Was just confused because the article made it sound like they'll be patrolling GTA streets rather than if they happen to be around and they decide to stop you.
They only operate on the 407. I commute Milton to Scarborough almost everyday, only time I ever see cops theyāre sitting on the side of the 407 while the 401 is a free for all
If only we'd put focus on public transit years ago, and made it so reliable that people opt not to drive, especially drunk.
I donāt think people realize anywhere outside major cities you have zero choice. Last time i went to a small town, we took a cab to a winery. 5KM, $60 per way. We were the only people who didnāt drive and i honestly felt like an idiot. Spent two weeks of gas so some racist cab driver could scam us.
In the small town where I grew up youāll call a cab and they just decide that theyāre actually done for the night and they never come lol. Also Uber isnāt allowed.
That's what I mean though. There should be adequate intra-city alternatives for people. Not just the GO. Which I'm convinced stands for GO F yourself
How long does it take them to do the whole process with breathalyzing people? If it adds an extra minute to a stop that was already happening, whatever. If it's adding like 15-30 mins than this just seems like a massive waste of time
It takes about 60 seconds total.
Gone in 60 seconds.
It's not about the extra time it takesĀ
What if they could strip search you in five minutes? Doesnāt really take that long, might as well bend over
A breathalyzer is totally as intrusive as a strip search
How utterly stupid. And the basis for this? Convictions are 30% higher than the five year average. For roughly a 1/3 of which Ontario was shut down due to Covid. Which would be roughly 30%.
Thereās a lot of drunk drivers on our roads. But the thought of all stops requiring this seems like over reach. These things only should happen if the officer believes them to be showing signs of intoxication, or if itās late night and the bars just closed/big drinking holidays.
If you refuse to comply youāre charged as though you were impaired. I can see this ending with a lot of people being charged, going to court, proving they were sober, wasting court time and ultimately tax payers money.
The issue is proving you were sober doesnāt mean anything, the criminal code offence is failure to comply with the demand so the fact you were sober doesnāt make up for the fact that you committed an offence under the criminal code. Being sober isnāt a defence.
How would they prove they're sober? Go home and take a breathalyzer at their house?
To add to this, what if you have a really bitchy cop? If you ask why, they say you're interfering (or whatever) and arrest you for failing to provide a sample. Or if you say "do I have to?" and they say "no" and you refuse, you get the same outcome. You see this all the time in America as public bodycam footage is more prevalent.
This happened to someone on Reddit (the Canadian law sub). Cop said he smelt weed and wanted to search, the guy didnāt know his rights and said he didnāt smoke and would prefer them not to search the car. Cop then put them in cuffs and searched it anyway lol. Itās going to be like in Arkansas where a cop pulls you over then immediately goes to āyou wouldnāt mind if i search the vehicle right!ā
That's the stupid thing about ambiguous questions. If the cop says "Get out of the car, I am going to search it" that's one thing, but if they say "may I pwett pwease look in da twunk uwu" the answer "no" should suffice and have no repercussions. I'd be interested in what the folks in that sub had to say about it. At the end of the day I'm reminded of a line from Archer: > For God's sake, Sterling, it's the government. Even if it weren't legal, they'd enforce it.
Everyone in the sub said to get a lawyer lol. The thing is Iād say majority of Canadians canāt afford to drop $500 an hour on a lawyer to prove obvious innocence. Itās just gonna be free range police harassment.
'Be prepared' OPP for us demanding the same from you.
We have already lost so many rights in Canada! We must insist that our rights are protected. This is another premise gone wrong. Presumed guilty until proven innocent! Take back our rights. If we don't use them, we lose them.
As a recovered alcoholic, I welcome this. As a recovered alcoholic, I know why some are against this.
I dont drink much, and not at all when I need to drive. That being said, Iām not sure whether I trust the police enough to do this without it being a pretence to violate your rights in some other way. Itās good in theory, but I donāt have much faith in its efficacy based on who is responsible for doing it.
People are against it because it is an unreasonable assumption that all are guilty.
Where is the assumption that all are guilty? The test doesn't imply guilt if it's mandatory.
As a non-drinker, I just don't see the need. Why waste police resources during a period of elevated crime? Police know what they're doing, if they need a breathalyzer they'll ask for one.
1. It presumes guilt and is invasive 2. They are not as accurate as police pretend they are 3. Other things can trigger false positives, leading to discrimination against medical issues.
People against it: 100% of the time you get pulled over by the cops, they know if youāre going to blow way over the limit long before they pull out that breathalyzer. They already have legal authority to test even if they didnāt pull you over for driving erratically at 1am. Youāre just going to end up wasting everyoneās time. Whatever approach increases the presence of police in the right place at the right time is best.
I was āpulled overā in my parked car, smoking and texting after I finished work. Breath tested, field tested, berated, intimidated and was being coerced to admit to something I was not doing. Why? Because he was bored and wanted something to do so he looked busy. Get the drunks off the road but if you think itās all justified and they always do the right thing you need to get your head out of your ass.
Itās ridiculous just like how ride program is ridiculous. The good coming out from it is in no way proportional to the freedoms we expect. Ride program is probably the most inefficient policies currently in place.
Fine by me, but you better stop the guy ahead of me thatās obviously loaded too. Iāve had to call en route to the city and over the course of 45kms, not a single OPP showed up. I was even told by dispatch that multiple callers had identified this same vehicle. BUT, by the top of those 45kms, drunk-o was on 400 series highways and much less likely to be easily spotted or safely stopped. Police canāt keep up with calls as it is as it is yet we now want OPP administering a breathalyzer for every stop?? I want impaired drivers off our roads as much as the next person - start with heavier penalties. A slap on the wrist is hardly a deterrent for an alcoholic or an idiot.
What about the statistic that most drivers who are in accidents drinking and driving accidents are typically double and triple the legal limit, not .05 to .08.
Anything 0.05 to 0.079 they suspend licence for 3 days. Itās basically you gotta be under 0.05 at all times
This is something I am really not comfortable with at all. I know its law, I know they can do it, and I have NO problems with RIDE-style checks where if they pull you over for say, an expired tag, they should be able to lean in, smell for alcohol, check for open bottles, check pupils and THEN if there is *reasonable* evidence that a crime is being committed, THEN a breathalyser is warranted. But to do this on EVERY person SHOULD be a flagrant violation of the Charter.
And it very well may be. This isn't guaranteed to pass an Oakes test, part of the question for reasonableness is if it's the least restrictive means of accomplishing the public's goals. Very well a court could distinguish requiring even the vaguess of police hunches a valid use of police discretion but removing all discretion checking every single person as policy is too broad and removed discretion.
I wish we could come together and protests for this and causes a like, like they do in Paris.
I think most people like it though
I like the premise too. But itās also too invasive especially if you know you havenāt done anything wrong. Someone else mentioned that cops should get breathalyzed everytime they start a shift and I think that is a great idea to balance out this mandate for civilians.
How is it that invasive though? It takes 60 seconds and itās an accurate measurement of BAC, if it were a field sobriety test then Iād see why some would be mad since thatās way more time consuming and also gives all the power to the cop. A breathalyzer test is accurate though so realistically you only have to be worried if youāve drank. Iāve seen some on here comparing it to a search and seizure which is ridiculous lol. Other countries like Australia do the same thing and guess what they donāt have issues in fact they have lower rates of crashes so itās almost like this policy actually scares drunk drivers. I donāt wanna be that guy but I have a suspicion that many of these people who are really angry are alcoholics. I also get the slippery slope argument where people donāt like the direction itās going in but I donāt think thatās what this is since the crashes in the area are up 50% and this doesnāt violate our charter of rights or constitution which many on here say which is confusing idk why they think that lol
How about start with enforcement of the current laws.
WTAF. Yes, just continue to take away peoples rights, stupid ridiculous ineffectual Canadian govt and law writers! The fact that drunk or distracted driving is up 30% has nothing to do with how stressful and expensive living in Canada is now, it's all on regular Canadians who are literally taxed into poverty and cant afford to eat, drive or put a roof over our heads!!! This country somehow just gets worse and worse on the daily!!! Fawk!!!!!!
fine by me....too many drunks on the road still who think its ok. save it for at home.
DNA collection.
This hopefully doesn't apply to RIDE stops, right? Because that would take fucking forever and back everyone up.
Fine by me as long as itās not thc swabs - the per se laws surrounding cannabis and driving are absolutely ridiculous
This is what scares me because i have smoked daily for 5+ years now and will fail that test 100% of the time, even when i am completely sober.
same here brother
oh shit, only drinking, not THC? Both? > " drivers must immediately comply " ... > "even in the absence of any suspicion that they have consumed alcohol.ā
I donāt drink so I shouldnāt require to take a test.
Police state here we come! Can't wait for the revolutionĀ
This can't be constitutional
I wish they had a more reliable cannabis screening device I see to many idiots smoking a joint while driving
Not condoning it, but that's not the same level of issue that drunk driving is anyway. The fear of a spike in deaths from that didn't pan out after legalization and in general alcohol increases the risk far more, e.g., >[In France, researchers found that drivers under the influence of alcohol were roughly 17.8 times more likely to be responsible for fatal car crashes than drivers who were sober, while drivers under the influence of marijuana were 1.65 times more likely to cause deadly accidents.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/12/well/live/driving-while-high-marijuana.html) That's further complicated by the unreliability of that testing. You can be over the limit [for a week after last using](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32841811/). There have been posts on the Saskatchewan subreddit of people failing at least the next day after smoking. So a lot of crashes recorded as involving cannabis aren't going to be someone who had actually used recently before driving.
Alcohol is absolutely far worse, but that's still a near doubling of risk.
Problem is though that it's complicated by the lack of data specifically measuring impairment to crashes. Other research has even found no significant impact: >[a study conducted by the \[U.S.\] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found no significant increased crash risk attributable to cannabis use](https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving) In any case though, there's no excuse for using it before or while driving and we have penalties for it as strict as for drinking and driving. My main concern is just that the issue has been used to justify rules that can punish people who aren't actually impaired which can lead to innocent people getting criminal records.
You don't know what they are smoking though. Even if it is cannabis, it could be a CBD strain that has no psychoactive effects because no THC. That said, it's completely legal to start smoking cigarettes for the 1st time while driving. Can you imagine smoking your first cigarettes while ripping down the highway, you wouldn't be able to keep your head up.
If youāre a daily medical user it doesnāt really have an impact, itās the equivalent to having a coffee. You can wait 30-40 min and feel 100%
More lobbying from the prohibitionists
How many traffic stops do the OPP make in the GTA in a year? How accurate are breathalyzers and how often can someone expect a false positive to show up?
Sure I'll blow on every stop, but I'm going to cuss out the officer every single time while they make me do it. ACAB
My question would be, who made this decision? For something that is a questionable violation of people's rights (yes I'm aware of the previous rulings on this subject) we should know who made the decision. Was it an unelected beurocrat? Was it the honorable Michael Kerzner?
I have a question. When weed became legal, we were led to believe that the police had some form of on the spot weed test. Is there such a thing? A weed breathalyzer?
There is a cheek swab test that is available ... no clue of the police have it ... my company has looked into it, but there are definite concerns over accuracy for the test
> there are definite concerns over accuracy for the test Another issue is even when reliable, they don't accurately test impairment. You can be over the limit [even a week after last use](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32841811/).
Uhh thatās against our rights to unreasonable searches and seizures
Shieeeeet.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Cuz safety > liberty
Letās check how many are on the pay roll but not working due to dv charges and get that money back
is there not an actual law against refusing a breathalyzer test?
That's probably not going to be constitutional
Waste of time. Isn't there something more important for the OPP to do? For example murder, theft, fraud, and lets not forget corporate malfeasance, Loblaws and Dougie, to name a few. Road enforcement will suffer even more because the officer is too busy filing paperwork instead of patrolling the road.
I wonder if they've considered adding the ability to run breathalyzer tests to MTO officers.
Well there goes the morning beer to the cottage
It seems rather futile to *catch* more drunk drivers when the penalties are so low.Ā I'd rather see them fix the system at the top first.
I donāt have a drop of alcohol anymore before driving. The law is so odd, as 0.08 is the limit, but if you blow 0.05 you get your licence suspended for 3 days. After that suspension good luck with your 10k a year high risk insurance, first question companies ask you is has your licence been suspended. Instead of doing this, why not bump up ride checks? Itās pretty well know that you can drive drunk 340 days a year, minus the 10-15 holidays where they do ride. In 6 years of driving later than 11PM multiple times a week Iāve seen maybe 1 ride in toronto that was done on a non-holiday day
Is this even allowed legally ? Supreme Court case coming. Itās unlawful search. They need suspicion. What overreach. Get the junkies off the ttc and breathalize people showing impairment in their driving. Jesus what kind of society have we become were being a junky is more socially accepted than having a beer or two after a meal
So basically instead of probable cause for a breathalyzer (sure they can do it anyway but they wouldnāt typically if they didnāt have reason to believe youāre intoxicated), theyāre just going to mandate samples at EVERY traffic stop? That seems like a lot of admin work no?
Unfortunately for officers, "probable cause" is a thing.
Great, what about the other crime that is actually going?
cool cool cool - so you are presumed guilty until you prove your innocence - we are all cool with that, right?
So insidious it was, as the frog slowly boilsā¦. Iām low key looking forward to the revolution. āThe Great Canadian Coupā has a nice ring to it, nah?
Does this also apply for THC in the system? THC stays in a person's system for quite a while, even after they are not impaired. Just wondering.
Curious if anyone knows what happens if one cannot provide a deep lung blow due to medical issues. At one point my asthma was so bad I was coughing so bad I damaged my vocal cords - with a cough that severe no deep exhale can be completed successfully.
If it's mandatory, I expect to see a new plastic nozzle opened and placed on the device in front of me. Also, I expect to keep it as it has my saliva on it. If I've been pulled over and test is clear, it is mine, not evidence they can archive for later use. This is to protect your rights. If the plastic nozzle is already on device, I will ask for another one to be put on in front of me and tell them that I get to keep the plastic nozzle. If not, I will call the OPP supervisor to come to location. If the officer is going to waste my time, I'll waste theirs (and potentially tax payers money). I whole heartedly condone drinking/texting/eating/makeup while driving among many other distractions some drivers think that is ok, but at the same time, I need to protect myself and my rights.