Word on the street says you do :sHa_sarcasticlol::sHa_sarcasticlol:

:scared0015:

And that is one reason this law is unlikely to survive a charter challenge. It gives police the right to pull over any young guy for no reason ....... especially young guys who are not the right colour.

If it survives the present challenges, which I think it won't, I think you will see some very interesting statistics being gathered as to who the police actually pull over and who they don't.

[QUOTE=Jamie;3993345]Tell you what.. You give up your rights and keep your hands off of mine. This is a PATHETIC/STUPID/UNCONSTITUTIONAL/MORALLY WRONG procedure.

^^^ This 1000%.
I have zero sympathy for drink and driving and less for erosion of freedoms.

Nailed it!

In this case, the young male was pulled over because he was driving at night without taillights. As I understand it, the PoPo still needs a reason to pull you over, but once you’re stopped they can request a breath test without cause.

No, they don't need a reason to pull you over with the new legislation, that is one of the issues.

In the first charter challenge launched by the elderly lady, , the officer admits to pulling over and demanding a breath test from every customer who drove away from a liquor store in the morning.

Just to be clear, they were on and working :) Coming from an acreage south of Spruce Grove can be pretty dark without your lights on. It was a good teaching moment as he now knows you can be randomly stopped.

Wrong. You should read up on the law.

Don't forget the new DNA sample we will have to provide as well, it's really going to help clearing up all the backlog of old cases involving *pick your crime*.....

But if it saves just one life, we shouldn't complain about an arbitrary imposition on our basic rights and freedoms.

Oh wait, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is already toothless and arbitrary. We don't have any right to warrantless search if we are gun owners, and property rights are not enshrined....basically anything you think you own you don't as it is.

George Orwell was a prophet before his time. He must have had a dream about Canada.

Well that my friend is such a perfect example of an oxymoron that it could be used in an English text book. How do you expect them to tackle drunk driving if they're not allowed to pull people over?

Comprehension is a great skill.
I’ve never said “they shouldn’t be allowed to pull you over”.
I believe “they” should be expected to form a reasonable suspicion before “they” breach your charter rights and curtail your freedom of movement to carry on “their” investigation.
Is that too much to ask?
Or should we all just lay down and agree the state knows best, do to us as you will...

Again, feel free to give up your rights, I’ll hang on to mine thank you.

It's really simple Folks, ZERO drinks if you are going to drive...how much more simple can that get?? If I've had 1 drink, I'm NOT driving even though I drive way better after a few :sHa_sarcasticlol:
When I plan to go out for dinner downtown YEG, I hire a cab even if it's a $5 fare and TIP the driver $10 to make it worth it to him. All in all that's $30 in travel expenses, cheaper than the wine I'll purchase :)

They are allowed to pull over at will, no reason needed.
On way home from a Oiler game last year my wife was pulled over twice for “random” alcohol checks on gateway blvd. each pull over lasted less than a minute as they were trying to pull over as many vehicles as they could on that span of road.
The officer explained it as “it’s basically a series of individual check stops, with no fixed location”

A real case of drunk backyarding
 

"It won't happen" they said, "the police wouldn't do that" they said". :thinking-006:
The useful idiots defending this draconian law should be made to cover the legal costs of innocent citizens that are charged. Meanwhile, members of our "legal system" happily bill innocent customers for their services.
Probably not the first case, nor the only case, but it has been completed.
https://calgarysun.com/opinion/colum...4-0a2e61a4f2e2

Excerpt from Brian Lilley's column:
Another fine example of our police and legal system at work. :angry3:

So.. The real question that wasn't answered in the ad, where was she coming from before the party?

#2.. Does anybody know how much you'd have to drink to blow 0.08 after 2 hours of drinking? Honest question.. Obviously it varies by person, but there has to be some science.

Too many variables. One beer will make a small woman blow over. A person can drink a lot in 3 hours.
Ok I see what you mean now... again, variables. Some people metabolate alcohol fast and some slow.
2 guys can drink the same thing all night and pass out. One wil wake up completely sober and the other can wake up pinned still.

you have that right in 3 hours things can get crazy just not right for them to have this kind of power

When I was in high school, I remember there being formulas for how much you can drink and what it would put you blood alcohol at.
I wonder if that's still in the curriculum?

In Aus, to remain under .05 for an average sized man the rule was 2 "standard" drinks in the first hour and 1 standard drink each hour afterwards. Alcohol drinks all have the quantity of standard drinks printed on the container (I think a 5% beer can was 1.4 standard drinks to give an idea of what a "standard" drink equates to)
Not an exact science and to be used as a guideline only, obviously not drinking at all is safest if you're going to drive

When the 'Check-stop Program' was first introduced, the courts acknowledged that it was an infringement on Canadian's rights, to be pulled over and questioned, without cause - however, it was thought that Canadians would overlook this infringement for the 'greater good' - getting drunk drivers off the road. Stopping people at random had to be done under a designated 'Check Stop', permitted only in a defined location and for a specific period.
I recall a number of years ago, police being severely reprimanded for abusing the purpose of Check-Stops, when they used one to stop everyone attending a notorious motorcycle club rally, and stating publicly that they did so to 'gather intelligence on who was riding with who'. No matter how beneficial that intelligence gathering may have been, that was not the purpose for which Canadians have permitted the infringement of their rights in approving the Check Stop program. Judges, watchdogs, and the public agreed.
This new legislation enabling police to pull over and detain anyone, anywhere, and at any time is doing an end-run around our rights - without public debate, and it seems without judges or politicians looking out for our rights and freedoms. It used to be that Canada was a country where you could just get in your car and drive from one end to the other, and if you followed all laws, you could not be stopped, questioned, required to show papers, or detained. -That's no longer the case. IMO far too much is left up to the discretion of police officers.

Could not agree more . The powers too be will push and abuse till we bust . It has happend over and over again throughout history .

I’ll bet these numbers are a lot higher for distracted driving. I think if your caught for distracted driving you should lose your license for 5 yrs.

This ^^^^^

Leave your car at home son don't take your car to town

x2

:)


Take the cannoli, leave the car.

double post:(

^^^ This 1000%.
I have zero sympathy for drink and driving and less for erosion of freedoms.[/QUOTE]

Your lack of understanding about your rights is the reason the Nazi's and The Bolshevik's got elected. You sir, are clearly an idiot. And I personally having lost people to D&D know what is involved, but I still place our rights above that.

[/QUOTE]

Your lack of understanding about your rights is the reason the Nazi's and The Bolshevik's got elected. You sir, are clearly an idiot. [/QUOTE]

Must our disagreements always devolve into this?

No one to blame but each person behind the wheel that has before, does now, and continues to drive impaired or distracted.

It is a well known fact by everyone, that driving impaired or distracted can have devastating consequences.

And in 2019 this is still a great concern.

Why?

Why is this such a problem when everyone knows how bad it can be?

You can’t blame the government for responding with laws and sanctions on the people, when the people can’t conduct themselves appropriately.

Some see this a deterioration of your rights.

I see it as protecting my rights.

The rights I have to get in my vehicle and go from point A to B, without the worry that the idiot beside me can be impaired or distracted and thus causing an accident and permanently changing my life or ending it.

That’s the freedom I want.
Protection from those who continue to do what they want, regardless of the consequences of their actions.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

I don't have a huge issue with being asked to blow, what I do have the issue with is being punished with no right to a trial. When we lose the right to a trial, and are pronounced guilty by a police officer, rather than a judge, the legal system is badly broken.