Rcmp /breathalyzer
 

Got stopped yesterday for speeding East of town. Doing 120 in 110 . Officer asked for drivers licence etc and then pulled out a breathalyzer. I was shocked. Did right in the truck didnt have to get out of the truck.

Policy is that everyone has to blow on a stop under the new legislation.

Don't blow and get charged. If everyone has to blow then it is not arbitrary, and not an arbitrary detention and not a Charter violation.

Drewski

I’m no fan of any losses of freedom so to speak, but this is one thing I am definitely in favour of. I’ll gladly get delayed an extra 2 minutes on a traffic stop to help get a couple more drunk drivers off the road.

They check for marijuana impairment too correct?

I didn’t have to.

But the question is, compared to the old way where a cop might smell it on your breath and test you, does it actually?

Bet if they added a mandatory DNA sample to compare to their evidence banks, they might solve a few cold cases as well...

it's a slippery slope. Why not take our guns away as that will save lives.... how can you not support something if it means saving a life??

Guns serve a useful purpose, drinking and driving do not.

Drinking serves a social function for many.
Guns do not serve a useful purpose to many.
Drinking does not serve a purpose for many.
Guns serve a purpose to many.

It depends on you view of the situation.
Impaired driving is not acceptable, nor is killing a human.

Tell you what.. You give up your rights and keep your hands off of mine. This is a PATHETIC/STUPID/UNCONSTITUTIONAL/MORALLY WRONG procedure.

Anyone that goes along with these Gestapo ideas deserve every little piece of crap that that is coming down the pipe. You guys are just suckers that think this is ok in any fashion. Did you know that the cops can now demand a breath test on someone who may have been driving 2 hours ago? This is all disgusting.

I know more than one person who has completed their blowbox time and is back to their old ways so I can't argue with it.

One figures he should drive because he can't walk he's too drunk. The other argued that he had his constitutional rights infringed when the cop asked him to blow because he had cans rolling around in his box and floorboard.

By any chance have you ever told someone that, "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about?"

Great, cops will be right over to check every drawer in your house, go through all your electronics and do a anal probe on you.. JUST BECOUSE... But hey, if your not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about..............

No, I was referring to the fact that you've probably uttered that line in your life.

What’s even more disgusting is getting a knock on the door that your wife or child was killed by an impaired driver. Planning the funeral of someone you love who was taken far too early by something completely preventable is pretty damn disgusting. Seeing how it affects the rest of your family for years to come is disgusting.

I certainly can’t profess to speak for you, but I’m my opinion I’d be a lot more
Concerned if someone I loved was killed by an impaired driver that was pulled over 20 minutes earlier but for whatever reason the cop didn’t have reasonable grounds to make them blow than I would be with a 2 minute inconvenience of blowing if I get pulled over.

To liken it to guns......no one is saying don’t drink anymore than someone is saying we can’t own guns. If your drinking take a cab, if your shooting do it within the confines of the law. Unfortunately there isn’t a like comparison between guns and random breath tests as they are fundamentally different things, but owning a gun is more like holding a drivers license. You need to be licensed for both, pass tests to legally do both, etc. Then, there is a set of laws to abide by to do both legally......and law enforcement have ways of ensuring that we are legally doing both.

More people die or are injured from excessive speed and distracted driving than impaired drivers. But many more people continue to drive fast and distracted. Why is the punishment so different for each?

Got ya:scared0018: beep....beep...


Anything to get drunks or impaired slobs off the road.....:sHa_shakeshout:

Should not be.....loss of licence for one year.....and given a bicycle.....:scared0015:

you make a very good point .

Guns are an object like like alcohol,neither do any harm on their own. To do a fair comparison, banning firearms to prevent their misuse would be like banning alcohol to prevent drunk driving. And given that many more people are killed as a result of alcohol abuse, banning alcohol would actually save more lives.


So ban alcohol, problem solved.

I recently had to blow, at a check stop. He asked if I had anything to drink, answering honestly I told the officer that I had 2 glasses of wine with supper. (We were returning home from dining out).
I blew .02%. Perfectly legal.

Didn't need the lecture that followed, considering I hadn't broken any laws.

You cant target one group and condone others. Put police in unmarked vehicles and stop all the texting drivers, that'll save way more lives.

Don't get me wrong, I don't condone driving impaired, but I should be able to have a social drink without feeling like a criminal.

Craig

Sent from my SM-A505W using Tapatalk

As Drewski stated, the mandatory testing for all is constitutional.

Regarding the demand for a breath sample after the fact, there needs to be reasonable cause period. So a driver does a hit and run causing bodily harm to someone you know, makes it home before the police can track the vehicle down... Pretty good cause to take a breath sample at their residence would it not ? They are not going to 'target' anyone, take the tin foil off and limit your consumption while behind the wheel.

In 2016, 10,497 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for 28% of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

If you apply "liberal logic" or "LL"to the above statistics, then 72% of deaths are caused by people who are not drinking. "LL" shows that people should be required to drink before driving.

No. I am am not in favour of drinking and driving just showing how statistics can be misinterpreted.

If the goal is to save lives theres lots of ways our govt can do this. How about banning fast food. Theres a major obesity problem. How about a ban on smoking?? We already know this kills lots of people every year. We should take it a step further and ban phones in cars as distracted driving is the biggest issue on the road.

We can use the arguement that any new law is good because it saves lives... so why stop with the drinking and driving laws??

Using guns is the perfect analogy to this law as theres a huge segment of the population who are anti gun and who believe removing our gun rights will save lives.... it's already happening.

Think this bad? Just wait a few years.
 

At issue is the loss of "innocent until proven guilty". This flawed legislation effectively makes the presumption that everyone is guilty, and must prove their innocence by blowing under 0.05. Unlike another posters' comment, there is no requirement for Reasonable Cause, you are guilty...period.
While getting drunks off the road and stopping the carnage caused by impaired driving is a just and noble cause, this imperfect legislation is another step in the long torturous road to a socialist police state. Once society has accepted the idea that innocence is not the default state under current law, it will be easier for legislators to enact even more abhorrent laws in the future. They will argue that the precedent of guilty until proven innocent has existed since 2018, and can now be applied to other areas of societal control. :angry3:
Don't underestimate the enemy; they walk among us.

this road side test is not " guilty until proven guilty " . no more than checking the speed of all vehicles , even the ones that are not speeding .
i get what some of you are saying but there are a lot of things we need to do to prove we are not breaking the law . this is just one more . if you have insurance you still need to provide proof when asked . same for fishing license , drivers license , etc . roadside sobriety test is fine by me . checking up to two hours after driving , however , is going to have some uphill battles in court , as it should .

This.

My 21 yr old son has a GF who lives south of Spruce Grove. Coming home on the weekend at 1:30 am, the RC pulled him over at a red light in SG. Said his Tail lights were not working. Then proceeded to check his drivers licence and gave him a breathalyzer. Did advise him this was a new law and they have the right to ask for the test without cause. Drives an older Mazda 3 so you still have to turn on your headlights to see at night.

I'm fine with the breathalyzer check during the stop but his lights were working fine before, during and after. Clean record and not drinking so he was on his way pretty quick. He did nothing wrong but got stopped for being a young guy is my guess.

:party0052:

This type of law has already proven to be unconstitutional. In the 90's, a fella got pulled over between Canmore and Calgary for driving 5 km under the speed limit. He was a drug mule but the SCOC declared driving slow isn't reasonable cause. It will take some time but this will get struck down. Never let your freedoms go, doesn't mater the cause, if we let the state take away rights, we are just headed back to old times when the state ruled and the ppl are just a commodity. I feel for the loved ones who lost a family member by a drunk. But , in a democracy, there are some losses. An old story is how to boil a frog, don't just throw it in the hot water.....slowly turn up the temperature. Our politicians and major media are doing this....we need to "Stand on Guard" .