Discussions

There is a new law concerning drinking and driving in Canada. People should be extremely concerned with this law. You can be charged with drinking and driving up to two hours after you have parked your vehicle! Yes, you are guilty in the eyes of the law even though you did nothing wrong.  
 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/canadians-could-now-be-charged-with-drunk-driving-even-if-not-drunk-lawyers-warn-1.4975008?cmp=rss  
 
I'm in agreement that drinking and driving is wrong and needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, some people just don't understand this and continue to drive when they shouldn't, but this law is not the answer.  
 
As an example, you get home from work completely sober at 5:30 PM and have several drinks right away. If the police show up at your door before 7:30, you could now be charged with drunk driving as you would now be over the legal limit. Or you go to the bar or a party, same thing.  
 
This law needs to be changed or removed as it is going to lead to wrongful charges.

Why are the police just gonna randomly show up at my house at 730??  
 
I think more like the end of the article...fear mongering....

As governments get more desperate for revenue, they seem to be finding more and more creative ways to fundraise.  
 
Creating a new class of 'could have done something wrong' criminals is a great way to create a bunch of legalized servants.  
 
If you do get charged for drinking AFTER driving, you'll enjoy a complementary stay of 5 months 3 squares in jail (3 squares i:ncluded) and can learn social skills through joining a chain gang. A sure reward for drinking AFTER! driving.  
 
Welcome to living in a post-democratic society.

While I agree that the wording used in the article sounds ominous and charges laid as described by the lawyers should be challenged., The Exception clause included in the actual bill wording should, at least partially, alleviate concerns.  
http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-46/royal-assent  
 
As for allowing officers more leeway in demanding samples, I think that is positive.

How can you say something like that after all we know about impaired driving. I don't think there are many eBrandon followers out there that are not or have not been touched by impaired driving. We have all had some family member, friend, co-worker, or just someone we know, killed, injured or arrested, as a result of impaired driving. To say that it is a money grab by the government is bold and untrue. It's about getting alcohol impaired and drug impaired drivers off the road.  
 
The article posted starts out with some lame lawyer, trying to make a name for himself and spouting out a bunch of garbage and trying to put a negative spin on something that may save lives. If anyone honestly thinks the police are going to show up at your door, ask if you have driven in the last 2 hours and arrest you for impaired driving, then please contact me, I have your income tax refund and just need your bank information. For any criminal convection, you need or the police need to prove that you had intent to commit a crime. A few drinks at home after driving sober from work has no intent to commit a crime.  
 
What the legislation is trying to do, is stop the lame *ss lawyers from mounting a defense buy saying -yes my client failed the breathalyzer test by being double the legal limit, but that alcohol wasn't in his blood stream at the time he was stopped by police, it was still in his stomach- (some 2 hours ago). The legislation is for people already in custody for impaired driving and trying to find a loop hole by delaying the breath test for 2 hours.

The two hours post driving a conveyance is ONLY if a reasonable person would expect the police to be looking for you. Example: involved in a Hit and Run or Flight from Police. The police will NOT be knocking on random doors checking people.  
If you do not drink and drive, you will NEVER have a problem. Period.  
I for one am proud of our government for taking a firmer stand against impaired driving that has proven year after year to take so many lives.

What’s to stop a pissed off spouse or individual make a claim you’re driving erratic. Big time infringement of rights if they can come to your home or anywhere else for that matter two hours after you’ve been driving? How many people here get home from work and have a beer or two? What about road rage? Just report the car upsetting you and they can be charged in their home...or anywhere else for that matter two hours later. Sounds like we are closer to being a communist country every day.  
 
Edited by royg, 2019-01-13 18:51:18

What about the infringement of rights of all the lives lost, including young children, due to drunk driving??? If you aren't doing anything, don't worry about it.

I'm sure you have a good reason for being so emotional about this, however you're confused as to what's at stake here. The sweeping powers that BillC46 offers up to your fellow humans who are paid to enforce the law, leaves far too much open to abuse of that power.  
 
Nobody is questioning the fact that drunk driving is wrong and threatens everyone who shares the road.  
 
However, If I get home after work on a hot friday afternoon and I want to have a couple of beers and listen to some tunes after a hard week at work. I don't want humans with badges to have the right to walk onto my property, demand a breathalyzer sample, and charge me on the spot with impaired driving 2 hours after I parked the car after driving home sober.  
 
This law allows that to happen.  
The police are just people with badges. They are flawed, and they are egotistical. Bill C46 will inevitably be abused, and innocent people will pay for it with their freedoms and constitutional rights.  
 
I'm sorry if you've lost someone close to you because of an impaired driver. However, my friends, neighbours, family and I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's mistake with our freedom and constitutional rights.  
 
That's the point.

Roy/Melvin: I can promise you no human with a badge is going to roll into your backyard while your listening to Nickleback after a long week of work on a hot July afternoon while you are indulging in a few ice cold silver bullets.  
 
Fear mongering at its finest!!

https://www.facebook.com/notes/constable-mark-smith/no-police-are-not-going-to-randomly-walk-into-homes-or-restaurants-to-conduct-br/2350096365210524/  
 
In this he tries to justify it by going with the worst case scenario where someone has hit a vehicle and was seen running away and witness described them to police.  
 
Then take out the element of a witness and then what if my car was stolen but I didn't realize/report it yet then the thief crashes it at a time I am drinking at home. Even though this situation would be rare and suspicious it leaves you as a citizen to prove your innocence in court which is a big violation of rights.  
 
Also do they specify what "sufficient evidence" is at any point. At first you think it will be clear cut like that worst case. Although most likely it won't be easy and we are then bypassing a warrant based on less then 2 hours worth of his investigative skills. Would eventually the call in a drunk driver anonymous line where it's an unquestionable witness that can't be brought up in court is enough to be "sufficient evidence."  
 
Honestly seems like people are too close to the issue here to express a unbiased opinion automatically assuming worst case you have to think of where the line becomes blurry.

You may be surprised to know that Police could always demand a sample from you with sufficient evidence, even if you are at home or in a bar! This is called conducting an impaired driving investigation.  
 
Police in Canada have always been legally entitled to request a sample of breath after the fact, this is not something new folks.

of anything that the police can do to keep drug or alcohol impaired drivers off our streets! Same for the drivers texting.

Tell me about it. It's only January 16th and I've already had the police traipse into my home 3 times for no reason while I'm watching Netflix in bed and request a breath sample. Not to mention twice now they've randomly stopped me while grocery shopping for breath samples. It's like they have nothing better to do than to ask random citizens for samples all the time! Pesky.  
 
I understand the fearmongering of police "abusing" their power, but c'mon. Unless there's a reason to do so, no cop is going to just come and give you a random breath sample on a slow night. It's giving them the tools to try to do their job, which IMO is just fine. They still have plenty of boundaries they have to play within. Unlike the criminals, who have none.

Couldn’t agree more!

I agree - complete fear-mongering. If this law scares you, then you proably drive drunk.  
 
I'm sure it would take more than just one person to report you driving erratically for the police to show up at your door: and I am also sure they would take the contact info of the person reporting it. Spite would not work in this case: otherwise anyone could report anyone else and have the police spinning in circles over a tantrum -  
NOT very likely, lmao.  
 
Edited by Cee Jay 55, 2019-01-16 20:41:04

You say that it would take more then one call and you'd have to take contact info but that isn't the case. It would be similar to crime stoppers and cases like the following.  
 
https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/woman_gets_four_years_in_huge_drug-smuggling_case38266234.html  
 
the part before it cuts you off to pay for it explains this situation in which a woman was stopped and searched over an anonymous crime stoppers tip alone. She fought this as the crime stoppers tip couldn't be verified meaning the warrant would then not hold up in court meaning all evidence found because of it should be then thrown out. She lost to a an anonymous tipster who claimed to overhear her on her phone discussing something even after they proved she hadn't even made a call within the time frame of the bus ride.  
 
This would be the same situation as it's already been made precedent and wouldn't be hard to extend to another tip line.  
 
Edited by darkg, 2019-01-16 21:54:11

a possible drunk driver would probably have to testify in court. Same goes for any other law breaking, if you witness and report then you must attend court.  
 
The only ones worried about this are the ones who drink and drive.

No there is other areas that raise concern other then just drunk drivers.  
 
Say they allow anonymous calls to justify "sufficient evidence."  
 
It also says they can come into my residence to do this which raises the concern of searches afterward whether or not they find anything from the breathalyzer.  
 
Because based on the following site:  
https://www.legalline.ca/legal-answers/can-the-police-enter-and-search-your-home/  
 
This would classify as an "entry in emergency" type one where they can follow someone into a home if they believed the person has just committed an offence. Which then entitles them to search and sieze other areas of their house in those situations.  
 
So now on a an anonymous call or less then 2 hours of investigation. They can do a search on my house with a much less strict warrant process as well.  
 
Edited by darkg, 2019-01-16 22:42:03

Please stop spreading misinformation and fear mongering.  
 
From your own link, see attached photo- police can NOT search your home if they enter in an emergency situation.  
 
They can only seize anything illegal that they can see in plain sight. That means if they're in your living room they can't go looking in your bedroom or head down to the basement just because they're in your house for a breath sample. Searching and seizing what is in plain view are two entirely different concepts.  
 
So really, unless you're a criminal who likes to leave illegal items and/or evidence of a crime out in plain view all the time, you wouldn't need to worry about having the police charging your for anything else if they enter your home in an "emergency situations".  
 
Edited by TheQuietOne, 2019-01-17 08:23:20