Field sobriety tests

[ssyd]

https://globalnews.ca/news/4739507/e...stop-campaign/

Saw this story on the news tonight and we got talking about checkstops and field sobriety tests.

First off, I don't care about the new mandatory testing without probable cause. It's never taken much for an officer to claim probable cause to give a field test so this news doesn't concern me one bit.

My real question for the LEOs here is this: If I know I am sober and I know I have crappy balance, can I (politely) ask to go straight to a breathalyzer instead of dancing a newfie jig while touching my nose on the side of the road?

[spoiledsaskhunter]

you can explain and ask, and probably be accommodated, but it's not your call in the end...….may as well try the field sobriety test and go in if you fail.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by ssyd

https://globalnews.ca/news/4739507/e...stop-campaign/

Saw this story on the news tonight and we got talking about checkstops and field sobriety tests.

First off, I don't care about the new mandatory testing without probable cause. It's never taken much for an officer to claim probable cause to give a field test so this news doesn't concern me one bit.

My real question for the LEOs here is this: If I know I am sober and I know I have crappy balance, can I (politely) ask to go straight to a breathalyzer instead of dancing a newfie jig while touching my nose on the side of the road?

If they say no, just exaggerate your actions. Instead of your nose, stick it in your belly button. Do the moon walk for the straight line walk and finish off with a wet Willy. You’ll likely make good money on YouTube if recorded...

[Au revoir, Gopher]

Beware of the Scottish sobriety test...

https://youtu.be/2FxEI45o5nQ

ARG

[Grizzly Adams]

This could really extend the lines at Check Stops. ? First threshold is evidence of apparent impairment, why take it past that ?

Grizz

[Talking moose]

This is the best.... lmao
https://youtu.be/9tXREbvXKeA

[WSMLEO]

Field sobriety tests in Alberta are only used for drug impaired driving, not alcohol. With alcohol it stays the same in that if an officer has reasonable and probable grounds to arrest you for impaired driving by alcohol, they will and then you are taken to give breath samples. If officers have reasonable suspicion that you are driving and that you have alcohol in your body (pretty low threshold to meet), they can demand a breath sample into a screening device. Based on the results of the screening device, they may develop grounds to believe you are impaired and arrest you and take you to get evidentiary breath samples. The only thing changing with this is that after December 18, officers no longer need to develop reasonable suspicion and can demand a sample into a screening device from anyone driving.


As far as any fears of getting charged with impaired for having bad balance, this would not happen. Like with alcohol screening devices, in order to conduct field sobriety tests on somebody, Police need reasonable suspicion that a person is driving after consuming a drug. This is not changing after December 18 and Police will continue to have to meet this threshold prior to doing field sobriety tests. As a result, Police will already have a nexus of some sort to a drug prior to doing a sobriety test ( person is driving and was observed smoking a joint or maybe a person is stopped and police find a crack pipe with indicia of recent use in the driver's pocket.


If a person fails the field sobriety test, they are then evaluated by a drug recognition expert. If after this evaluation, the DRE believes the person is impaired by a drug, Police may demand blood. The blood is drawn and the person is released without charges. Once the blood tests come back, if the results confirm the presence of the drug suspected by the DRE, the person is then charged with drug impaired driving.

As you can see, there is no way you could get charged for simply having bad balance or simply doing poorly on the field sobriety tests.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by ssyd

https://globalnews.ca/news/4739507/e...stop-campaign/

Saw this story on the news tonight and we got talking about checkstops and field sobriety tests.

First off, I don't care about the new mandatory testing without probable cause. It's never taken much for an officer to claim probable cause to give a field test so this news doesn't concern me one bit.

My real question for the LEOs here is this: If I know I am sober and I know I have crappy balance, can I (politely) ask to go straight to a breathalyzer instead of dancing a newfie jig while touching my nose on the side of the road?

Absolutely all you got to say is that you have a health/medical concern ref balance and that you could possibly get hurt so over to the breathalyzer.
Your not being difficult and safety is all involved concern.

[Dewey Cox]

Do they actually ask you to say the alphabet backwards?
I'm quite sure I can't do that.
Many years ago I was pulled over late at night and he asked me to say the months of the year backwards.
I said "Well, I guess I'm going to jail."
He said "Just give it a try"
And to my surprise I did it.
But I can't do the alphabet backwards.
But maybe if you can, it means you're on performance enhancing drugs?

[Savage Bacon]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cox

Do they actually ask you to say the alphabet backwards?
I'm quite sure I can't do that.
Many years ago I was pulled over late at night and he asked me to say the months of the year backwards.
I said "Well, I guess I'm going to jail."
He said "Just give it a try"
And to my surprise I did it.
But I can't do the alphabet backwards.
But maybe if you can, it means you're on performance enhancing drugs?

Ya I'd be in trouble. The only way I know how to say the alphabet the proper way is by singing it in my head.
LMNOP

[fordtruckin]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cox

Do they actually ask you to say the alphabet backwards?
I'm quite sure I can't do that.
Many years ago I was pulled over late at night and he asked me to say the months of the year backwards.
I said "Well, I guess I'm going to jail."
He said "Just give it a try"
And to my surprise I did it.
But I can't do the alphabet backwards.
But maybe if you can, it means you're on performance enhancing drugs?

SFST’s are standardized and I never received any training asking people to recite the alphabet backwards. If they ask my guess is it’s part of a divided attention task something done to get you trying to do 2-3 simple tasks at once. If your intoxicated you have a real hard time divinding your attention to complete them. For example asking someone for their drivers license and how their day is going or where they are off too. Usually they can’t concentrate enough to carry on the conversation while looking for the license or vice versa.

I WAS trained before any SFST task to ask is there any medical condition that would prevent you from ..... if there is then I would ask if you wish to proceed or opt out of that test. Last thing I want is someone eating the curb while I’m out with them. Hell many times if people were failing I’d tell them to stop, take a deep breath and relax. Many people just get real nervous and can’t give clues to intoxication when they aren’t.

[BCSteel]

So basically everyone is guilty of impaired driving until they prove themselves innocent.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by BCSteel

So basically everyone is guilty of impaired driving until they prove themselves innocent.

It has been that way for far more than 30 years she re have you been?
You can refuse to blow but you will be charged with refusing to blow a breathylizer .
Cat

[BCSteel]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

It has been that way for far more than 30 years she re have you been?
You can refuse to blow but you will be charged with refusing to blow a breathylizer .
Cat

The difference now will be that there is not even the veil of your constitutionally protected right of assumed innocence because there is no longer any "suspicion" of guilt necessary.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by BCSteel

The difference now will be that there is not even the veil of your constitutionally protected right of assumed innocence because there is no longer any "suspicion" of guilt necessary.

They really didn’t need any before “ the suspect was swerving / had swerved “etc.......
Cat

[6.5 shooter]

Chip, Chip, chip one freedom at a time welcome to Canada.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by BCSteel

So basically everyone is guilty of impaired driving until they prove themselves innocent.

Basically they are taking back the roads from idiots who think it is there right to drive impaired. Which is a good thing.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by ssyd

My real question for the LEOs here is this: If I know I am sober and I know I have crappy balance, can I (politely) ask to go straight to a breathalyzer instead of dancing a newfie jig while touching my nose on the side of the road?

Id take the sobriety test, not wanting to be bothered being taken down to the station, possibly having my car towed and impounded, innocent or guilty you end up paying for that part. If you refuse it's just about as bad a charge as an impaired charge. The other part is you cause an officer to be taken off the street to to do that when he could be catching real impaired drivers, just so you can protest and make a point. They don't make you walk the line and count backwards these days so your balance shouldn't be an issue, you blow into a portable breathalizer, if your under the limit away you go, if your over they take you down to the station.

[ssyd]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Id take the sobriety test, not wanting to be bothered being taken down to the station, possibly having my car towed and impounded, innocent or guilty you end up paying for that part. If you refuse it's just about as bad a charge as an impaired charge. The other part is you cause an officer to be taken off the street to to do that when he could be catching real impaired drivers, just so you can protest and make a point. They don't make you walk the line and count backwards these days so your balance shouldn't be an issue, you blow into a portable breathalizer, if your under the limit away you go, if your over they take you down to the station.

Fair enough, yeah it's probably better to do the Charleston for them and hope you pass. I wasn't implying this was any kind of protest. Just trying to avoid being falsely accused of something.

[Ken07AOVette]

Haha just realized.

The sky is falling.

Chicken littles getting worked into a frenzy worrying about a possible check stop some time in the future.

My little smile for the night.

I went to a funeral today for man that lived a great life, was adored by his family and friends as witnessed by 400+ people in the gym of a town with a population of 180.

There are bigger things to worry about and certainly much worse to fight over.

Have a great night everyone.

[tri777]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

Haha just realized.

The sky is falling.

Chicken littles getting worked into a frenzy worrying about a possible check stop some time in the future.

My little smile for the night.

I went to a funeral today for man that lived a great life, was adored by his family and friends as witnessed by 400+ people in the gym of a town with a population of 180.

There are bigger things to worry about and certainly much worse to fight over.

Have a great night everyone.

^^ This !!
You sir have just passed the
AO Road side Reality Check Breathalyzer, continue & proceed forth.

[WSMLEO]

This is going to be my last post as I've realized some of you just need something to complain about and will do so no matter what facts are presented to you. Its unfortunate because I truly believe that all levels of government, both in criminal law and other aspects of our lives, truly do step on and trample our rights. This just isn't one of them. Its unfortunate because when you cry that the sky is falling, in regards to things that you don't bother to educate yourself about and make incorrect arguments on. It really devalues such efforts when it really matters.

This thread has gone all over the place and it seems like every time one issue is reasonably explained away, some people try and create a new one. Here are some fun facts.


The following has been law and been determined to be constitutional and has been this way since before most of us were born:


- Police can stop you, completely at random, for no other reason than to check your sobriety. They can detain you until they are satisfied that you are in fact sober enough to drive. - Supreme court approved

- Police can seize your vehicle from public highways, without a trial. There are a plethora of reasons that your vehicle can be removed from a highway and seized, impaired driving is but one of many. Highways are government property and unless you follow the rules (in the case of Alberta under the TSA) your vehicle can be seized. You have no recourse at the time of this seizure, a judge is not going to come to your traffic stop and render a decision. However there are always appeal processes. If Police incorrectly exercise their power under the law to seize vehicle, they can face significant consequences. - There have been many appeals, its determined constitutional, its a risk you take putting your private vehicle on a public highway... make sure you are compliant with the rules.


- If you refuse to cooperate with a lawful demand for breath samples, you are arrested and charged. - Again, Appeals have confirmed this is constitutional


Many arguments I am seeing are in relation to the above mentioned issues. Well these are not new, this has been around for a long time. Literally the only thing changing is the removal of the reasonable suspicion(an extremely low threshold) for breath testing. How is this different than it being mandatory to produce a driver's licence, or mandatory to produce insurance. A Police officer, with no other reason, can stop you for the purpose of checking your insurance, and if you don't produce it, your vehicle can be seized and you receive a ticket.

I see a lot of complaints about peoples "rights" and it seems that some people believe that in Canada, their rights come from some internal moral code which dictates which rights they have, based on their feelings. Your rights are based in law, specifically in the Canadian Constitution, which contains the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The rights you have are spelled out in this document. Somehow I missed the section about having a right to your public roadways without interruption or regulation. It's well accepted that there are rules that must be followed, mandatory breath testing will now be one of those rules.

I also find it ironic that many of the people complaining about their rights being stripped away are the same ones that incessantly complain about the Canadian Justice System (rightfully so) and the inordinate amount of "rights" that criminals have, getting away with crimes despite being career, recidivist criminals based on "loopholes" and other charter breaches, despite overwhelming evidence against them. I can't seem to keep it straight, do we have too many rights or not enough? Impaired driving is by FAR the most litigated type of criminal code offence, I think by now we've got it pretty well figured out what is constitutional and what isn't.

In relation to your link Elkhunter…. I'm not sure why you are posting about British Columbia's provincial sanction program. Its irrelevant for several reasons.

1. That is BC, this is Alberta... their laws are different than ours, quite significantly so actually.
2. Alberta Police use different ASD's than the ones quoted in your article as being defective
3. Your own quote shows that "part" of BC's law was deemed unconstitutional, not the entire thing, BC was forced to change their laws to comply with this ruling.
4. If you had searched for a more relevant article, you probably would have found that in fact, an appeal was launched to challenge the constitutionality of Alberta's provincial impaired driving laws and "part" of the laws in Alberta, were in fact deemed unconstitutional as well. However, the vehicle seizures and immediate roadside sanctions were not in this part. These items were deemed constitutional and the only issue, which has since been rectified was the fact that Alberta issued an indefinite licence suspension to a person charged with Impaired driving and this was only lifted once the case was concluded in criminal court. This law has since been altered to place a finite amount of time on the suspension (90 days). Other than this piece of the legislation, Alberta laws have withstood scrutiny and been found constitutional.
5. As I previously mentioned, the concerns about BC's sanctions hold no weight in Alberta as our Provincial laws are not at all the same as those in BC. Our laws were actually made after BC's and after seeing what was and wasn't determined to be constitutional there.


I will agree with you that no instrument or device could ever be trusted to be 100% accurate or 100% reliable, nor could any person. That's why Alberta has a provision that allows for a second test with a different device if you feel your test wasn't accurate. This is in an effort to remove any reasonable doubt.

Those of you saying that the new laws will immediately be struck down as unconstitutional...…. I suppose time will tell. What I can tell you, is that our legal system is based on British Common Law, the same as many other commonwealth countries, including Australia and Ireland. Coincidentally, both of those countries introduced mandatory alcohol screening many years ago. In both countries, a significant increase in the detection of impaired drivers was noted following these laws. A significant decrease in impaired driving followed this significant increase in detection. Both countries have ruled these laws to be constitutional.

I guess in closing I will say that I am no fan of our current federal or provincial governments. In fact, I don't think I can find a single thing they have done that I agree with. The one exception I can find that the liberals actually got right, was this law. I suppose they had some help as this legislation was written by Robert Palser, a senior prosecutor with the Alberta Provincial Crown. I've had the opportunity to meet him several times and he is unequivocally an absolute genius and Albertans are lucky to have him.


The bottom line is this. If you aren't over the legal alcohol limit, you won't face any punishment. If you are, this makes it a bit more likely that you will be detected and face appropriate consequences. The change is very minor and will be unnoticeable to the vast majority. Most of the complaints fielded in this thread, have been about things that have been in effect for many years, and have been established as not being a violation of your rights. I guess I will reiterate, driving is not a right, and you are free to do as you wish on your private property. However, if you wish to drive on public highways, you have to abide by the rules, which will now include mandatory breath testing.

[BCSteel]

The amount of support towards a totalitarian state is pretty pathetic. Living under authoritarian rule is the lowest common denominator. Almost every choice is taken away from you therefore your personal responsibility and personal accountability is at an absolute minimum. Everyone passes the buck onto the government who doles out punishment to suit their agenda.

Freedom and personal liberty are far more work. Everyone becomes responsible and accountable for their own actions at all times. Unfortunately this is extremely frightening to the majority of people, but it doesn't need to be that way. They've been indoctrinated to believe they need a big government. They've been brainwashed to believe that only the government can protect them. The relentless propaganda makes them parrot and support their own slavery.

Canada is suffering a death of a thousand cuts, and it's own citizens are holding the knife.

[Talking moose]

^ pretty much.

[ssyd]

Originally Posted by BCSteel

The amount of support towards a totalitarian state is pretty pathetic. Living under authoritarian rule is the lowest common denominator. Almost every choice is taken away from you therefore your personal responsibility and personal accountability is at an absolute minimum. Everyone passes the buck onto the government who doles out punishment to suit their agenda.

Freedom and personal liberty are far more work. Everyone becomes responsible and accountable for their own actions at all times. Unfortunately this is extremely frightening to the majority of people, but it doesn't need to be that way. They've been indoctrinated to believe they need a big government. They've been brainwashed to believe that only the government can protect them. The relentless propaganda makes them parrot and support their own slavery.

Canada is suffering a death of a thousand cuts, and it's own citizens are holding the knife.

Wow that is melodramatic. As Canadians we have no idea what it is like to live in a totalitarian state. Show this thread to any Saudi, Iranian, Russian or pretty much anyone who has lived in a country that's been invaded by the Americans. They'll laugh at you. Canada couldn't be farther from an authoritarian state.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by ssyd

Wow that is melodramatic. As Canadians we have no idea what it is like to live in a totalitarian state. Show this thread to any Saudi, Iranian, Russian or pretty much anyone who has lived in a country that's been invaded by the Americans. They'll laugh at you. Canada couldn't be farther from an authoritarian state.

Really? Think about it! A cop with a hard on for you can make your life pretty miserable on a whim. To far left for me.

[traderal]

A big thanks to wsmleo for joining in on the conversation and speaking freely and providing a much needed balance to opinions. Probably leads to frustration on his part but I would rather leo's chime in than just lurk on this forum.
Even with a reduction of alcohol limits for driving there doesn't seem to be a shortage of inebriated drivers. And we won't sidetrack this thread with speeders in the left lane.

[Unregistered user]

They lowered the blood alcohol limits in AB because they weren't getting enough people at 80mg to make it worthwhile. BTW warrant-less searches of your home's gun storage area have been around since the cretien era.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

Really? Think about it! A cop with a hard on for you can make your life pretty miserable on a whim. To far left for me.

What's all the hub bub about.....just blow and go

[silver]

I imagine this will go on until some one is stopped for no reason and charged and that person has enough money and a low BS tolerance to take it to the supreme court. Then we will know.

Back in the 70s and early 80s, a cop could stop you for no reason, just a routine check. Then some thing happened, a court case probably, and after that the cop had to have a reason to stop you.

Mean while the lawyers get richer.