Random Breathylizer Tests Considered For Canada

"In the European Union, they demand that their countries, as part of membership for road safety, have sophisticated random breath testing because of the difference it's made in lives saved," he told CBC News.

Murie said the change would allow police at roadblocks to conduct about three times as many breathalyzer tests because they would not need to spend time determining whether there is "reasonable" suspicion a driver has been drinking.

The issue for civil libertarians, however, is that changing the law to allow random testing would be a violation of a person's right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

"It has no real place in a democratic society," said Richard Rosenberg of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

"Giving police power to act on a whim is not something we want in an open democratic society."


( I don't know how to snippet so this is the besat I can do)


www.cbc.ca...

I actually agree with this giving police more powers.
I hate drunk drivers and I agree that the police should have more powers in this area as it will save a few lives hopefully.

I know a few people who should not have a license because of their abuse of alcohol and these are the people that need to get caught.

Rights??
Does a drunk driver have the right put others lives at stake??

I don't see anything wrong with it other than the angry drivers stuck in a line up trying to get to/home from work. I don't drink myself so I'm obviously biased towards this being okay. I can also see it being dangerous too because if someone knew they were drunk they might try to speed through the block or turn around which could cause accidents.

This wouldn't survive a civil liberties case.

One has the right to not incriminate oneself.

I agree with you about the drunk drivers that shouldnt be doing it . but lets look a little deeper into this, so if this passes they can now pull YOU over for no reason . just to test you and see if you have been drinking, with no more of a thought then "hey wonder what that guys hiding" what a waist of time if you ask me . here in bc there are already a shortage of police and for them to be waisting time on pulling randoms over for no reason. at least with the rule as it is now you have to have some reason (weaving in and out of traffic, speeding, ect ect ) with the new rule they dont need that . and it does infringe on peoples rights, like i said i dont agree with the D&D either but there has got to be a better way then interfering with people for no reason. maybe you will change your mind when you forget the cream for the mash potatoes your cooking and think ahh ill just run to the store quick.. then get pulled over for 30 minutes while they test you.
well maybe if people know that they can pull you over for no reason to check you for booze, they will stop doing it?
whats next .. we can now do raid style break ins on random homes to see if theres a grow op going on?
where is the line?

We have random breath testing at checkpoints in New Zealand, it's called 'The Booze Bus' by some. They are usually done late at night when there is hardly any traffic on the roads so it doesn't cause much / if any disruption. There is a huge teen binge drinking problem in this country and anything to prevent unnecessary road deaths is worth it in my opinion.

The only people who will complain about this are 1.) drinkers and 2.) arrogant people who can't spare a few minutes to be tested. There is a lot of angst towards the police on ATS (seems to be mostly USA) and I'm sure some will see it as invasion of rights or they'll think the police are out to get them and all this crap.

[edit on 5/10/09 by dmorgan]

Originally posted by Aeons

One has the right to not incriminate oneself.

Society as a whole has a right to be safe from the few who put our lives at risk.
They incriminate themselves the minute they touch booze and get behind the wheel.
Whats there to fear??

reply to post by DrumsRfun


Giving more power to police is a bad idea.

Don't get me wrong I despise drunk drivers with a passion. I lost my best friend to a drunk driver, and almost lost my life to one.

What I despise more though is those who try to take away our liberties by playing on our fears.

This isn't about giving 'rights' to drunk drivers this is about taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens.

If I haven't committed a crime why should I be subjected to an invasion of my privacy?

I'm sure the police need to find more ways to catch 'criminals' to increase revenue and this seems to be a backdoor attempt at that.

Where does it stop? How many civil liberties are you willing to give up so you can feel safe?

Originally posted by Aeons
This wouldn't survive a civil liberties case.
One has the right to not incriminate oneself.

We have had the RIDE programme (Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere) in Ontario for quite some time now. Spot checks generally pick up around Christmas, but I really have no problem with it. Mind you, these days, I believe the limit is now about one drink for the average person...more will get you a temporary suspension even if you're under the legally impaired figure.

I am OK with it as long as it only focuses on booze (well, and drugs)...it is not a blanket permit to stop and check you out. The carnage due to drinking and driving warrants extraordinary measures, as long as it is not abused.

If I recall, I heard from relatives in the former East Germany that there was NO drinking and driving allowed at all...get busted, and you lose your licence for life.

Not a bad idea...

reply to post by lucentenigma


I am of the opinion that only people who can afford it have rights so I kinda look at it as I don't really have many rights to begin with.
I just went thru this with someone (a former ats member)
He was beat up by the cops because they entered his home while he was in his bedroom and he tried to get them out and make a citizens arrest on them....all of a sudden they beat the crap out of him and he thought he had rights and went to court...he can't afford to have rights and that was proven today.They had the wrong house and in the end my buddy got hozed.(and beaten to a pulp)

Usually I am against giving the police more rights but this time I actually agree and its not my fears they are playing on its more my hatred for drunk driving.
Do we really have rights or are they just priveledges?

Originally posted by DrumsRfun

Originally posted by Aeons

One has the right to not incriminate oneself.

Society as a whole has a right to be safe from the few who put our lives at risk.
They incriminate themselves the minute they touch booze and get behind the wheel.
Whats there to fear??

Spare me the “If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about."

That is a fallacy based on faulty premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong.

It's not about having something to hide it's about innocent people being unlawfully targeted as 'drunk drivers'.



[edit on 5-10-2009 by lucentenigma]

[edit on 5-10-2009 by lucentenigma]

Why not build something into cars that automatically senses the driver's state of well being and starts the car only if everything checks out?

Besides intoxication it should analyze sleepiness, anxiety, anger, giddiness, horniness and basically anything that could impair driving.



I suppose it would be kind of hard to test for stupidity tho.

reply to post by lucentenigma


Yes I realized just now that I have heard that before when they were talking the patriot act.

Still...how would you combat the problem then in spite of this?
Also,the patriot act is very different then trying to stop drunk driving.

Originally posted by lucentenigma

Spare me the “If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about."

That is a fallacy based on faulty premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong.

It's not about having something to hide it's about innocent people being unlawfully targeted as 'drunk drivers'.

As much as I hate people who drive drunk, I agree with you here. I don't have an answer to stopping drunk driving other than harsher penalties, but I don't feel this should impinge on me in any way.

At a ride stop, the officer leans in to talk to you and they are well trained to observe whether or not you have had anything to drink. I have been stopped in these lineups before and have never had any problems.

To force me to take a breathalyzer is not only humiliating to me, it is basically stating that I have done something wrong. If however, the officer smells alcohol on my breath, by all means test me. That is the way it is done now.

I am strongly against this, just as much as I am driving drunk.

In Ontario as punishment they make install a device that will not let the car start if you have been drinking. you could have a friend breath into it for you and start the car but that is dumb(just let the friend drive you home). they should install these in all cars and be done with the problem. If you do in fact get caught drinking and driving, loss of privilege for life. However I disagree with pulling people over for no reason, we are already ruled enough.

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
reply to post by lucentenigma

 

Yes I realized just now that I have heard that before when they were talking the patriot act.

Still...how would you combat the problem then in spite of this?
Also,the patriot act is very different then trying to stop drunk driving.

Like Wayne mentioned there are devices out there.

I know in Florida they usually make anyone on probation for drunk driving have an breathalyzer ignition lock installed on their vehicle.

In Florida they are pretty strict, my friend had his licensed automatically suspended for almost a year when he was charged with DUI. It's was pretty ridiculous because he doesn't drink but he smarted off to the cop. He had to take manadory breathalyzers every day until trial. Ended up beating the charge, he had a epileptic seizure when they pulled him over but the great state of Florida considered him guilty as charged before he went to trial. That's what we deal with down here. Anyways I'm rambling....

I think everyone should have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty (my point of the ramble was to let people know that it's the other way around these days), but once they are proven guilty of drunk driving they should be required to have one of these devices.

I also think that increasing the penalty's for drunk driving would be a helpful deterrent.

You constantly hear of people on probation for their 4th or 5th DUI, that's ridiculous IMO.

So in a nutshell once your proven guilty of DUI you need to prove that you innocent to drive (breathalyzer ignition lock) and we need a lot stiffer penalty's for drunk drivers especially repeat offenders.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by lucentenigma]

Originally posted by DrumsRfun

Originally posted by Aeons

One has the right to not incriminate oneself.

Society as a whole has a right to be safe from the few who put our lives at risk.
They incriminate themselves the minute they touch booze and get behind the wheel.
Whats there to fear??

It violates one of the most basic tenants of law in the First World.

There must be reasonable reasons. Existence isn't a reasonable reason.

I hate to be bursting any bubbles here, but this law will not change a thing, except infringe on the rights of the overwhelming majority, for the benefit of the very few. The police already have the power to pull over and administer the breath test on drivers, even if they have not done anything wrong. All they have to do is allege that the driver was driving erratically, switched lanes abruptly without signaling, etc.

Why don't we just leave it as is and trust the fine individuals in law enforcement to use their better judgment and discretion as to who they can pull over and test? Isn't that what they have been trained to do? Giving them the power to pull people over indiscriminately only increases the chances of this thing becoming a witchhunt and will inevitably lead to more abuses of power (like we don't have enough already?).

Such a law is in direct violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (#8 and #9 on the following link). When you start chipping away at people's rights, you're headed down a very slippery slope (see the USA and their BS laws).

laws.justice.gc.ca...-ga:l_I-gb:s_2

So let's keep these laws for the United Police States of America. Americans are accustomed to being treated like crap and being told what to do. On the other hand, innocent law abiding Canadians aren't and have no interest in being treated like lowlife criminals.

reply to post by Aeons


So the question then would be does the rights of the victim of a drunk driver get outweighed by the rights of a suspect.
Giving up some rights in order to curb drinking and driving might be a good medium in my opinion.

reply to post by DrumsRfun


I totally disagree with this. Why would they bother to breathalyze people if they aren't exhibiting behaviour that points to them being drunk? Just because?
Are people gonna get pulled over and breathalyzed, only to be found to be sober, and then have some other bs charge put on'em, just so time isn't wasted?....It's amazing what they've defined as illegal over the years, they can always get you with somethin'.