Random breathalyzer tests considered for Canada - DO YOU AGREE?

Do you agree?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 23 46.0%
  • No!

    Votes: 27 54.0%

  • Total voters
    50

anonanon

Vancouver Blond Expert
Aug 29, 2006
1,228
4
0
Downtown Vancouver
Random breathalyzer tests considered for Canada

Last Updated: Monday, October 5, 2009 | 9:37 PM ET Comments1842Recommend326
CBC News

The federal justice minister is considering a new law that would allow police to conduct random breathalyzer tests on drivers, regardless of whether they suspect motorists have been drinking.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving says the federal government is considering adopting random breathalyzer testing, following the June 2009 recommendation of a House of Commons justice committee.Mothers Against Drunk Driving says the federal government is considering adopting random breathalyzer testing, following the June 2009 recommendation of a House of Commons justice committee. (CBC)

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson raised the prospect recently at a meeting of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, according to MADD chief executive Andrew Murie.

If random testing were to be adopted, it would be a major change to Canada's 40-year-old breathalyzer legislation, which stipulates that police may only administer a test if they suspect a driver has been drinking.

In June, a House of Commons parliamentary committee recommended changing the legislation to allow for random testing, arguing it is an effective deterrent.

The change would also bring Canada in line with a number of other countries in Europe and countries like Australia, which have adopted similar measures.

Murie said its biggest selling point is that it improves road safety, with drunk driving fatalities dropping 36 per cent in Australia after legislation was introduced, and 23 per cent in Ireland when it made the change.


Tests could infringe on civil liberties

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson introduced legislation in 2008 that compelled drivers stopped by police to take a roadside test, such as walking a straight line.Justice Minister Rob Nicholson introduced legislation in 2008 that compelled drivers stopped by police to take a roadside test, such as walking a straight line. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

"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."

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh, the former attorney general of British Columbia and a member of the House justice committee, said the question of whether any legislation would be allowable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would come down to implementation.
Constraints on police power needed: MP

"It remains to be seen what the actual legislation is when the minister brings it forward because we want to make sure that it's appropriately constrained and it's not too much of an infringement on civil liberties," Dosanjh told CBC News.

Dosanjh said the charter does allow for constraints on rights when they are deemed reasonable, but said he would need to see how those constraints are implemented before judging any future legislation.

"For instance... I wouldn’t want the east side of Vancouver monitored more than the west side of Vancouver because there is a clear economic division in the city," he said.

"We want to make sure that areas are not unnecessarily excessively focused on and that's why I think that we need to make sure that the legislation is properly drafted with appropriate constraints and guidelines for the police," he said.

But Dosanjh pointed out that driving is not a right itself, but rather a privilege subject to licences given by government authorities.

Nicholson could not be reached for comment.
 

DQ Guy

Ice cream man
May 2, 2008
1,437
10
0
The monster under your bed
Whats next..

They can pull you over for the hell of it and give you cavity searchs for fun?:eek:

Search your home because they want to?

With out cause or reason, there should be no need for this.
If I'm not driving like a drunk what gives them the right to pull me off to the side.

An besides, even if you havn't had a drink. things like mouth wash can set them off.
 

festealth

Resident Troll
Sep 8, 2005
276
0
0
What a waste of time.

Wouldn't it just be simplier if they just have cops stationed outside bars, clubs, pubs, restaurants and then put up road check?

I'm starting to think that MADD and other "special interest" groups are getting a bit too powerful as a lobby group...
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,652
839
113
Only problem I see with it is the potential for abuse by the cops, and abuse it they will.
 

gpchillin

New member
Apr 20, 2008
129
0
0
Grande Prairie
Makes no real difference a cop is already allowed to ask you to blow and if you refuse they can take you to jail for refusing so what really is the difference ? As for a reason to pull you over they already can pull you over whenever they want because they just say they suspect you to be driving drunk.

They can already put up check stops where ever they want and ask you your business and to check your license and registration and again ask you to blow because they smell booze.

I'm not sure how a new law would be any different then the ones we have now.
 

bcneil

I am from BC
Aug 24, 2007
2,089
0
36
I don't understand what the difference is than now?

I have gone through a roadblock, and had to give a breathalizer.
I was coming home from work, and hadn't been drinking.
But if the cop thinks you have, thats it.

So before they could only give you the breathalizer if they think you may have consumed alcohol. Now they can give you one, when they don't believe you have consumed?
 

Lilithlovesme

Ruining men since 2003...
Mar 29, 2008
279
1
0
Edmonton
www.lustforlilith.com
I'm not allowed to vote on this poll but put me down for a HELL YES!

As a previous poster pointed out, driving is a privilege and should be treated as such. I don't see this as being any more abusive than a company that hands out random drug tests to ensure worker safety.

I used to work in a children's trauma ward. Most of the children in there had debilitating brain injuries and a large percentage of those children were victims of vehicle accidents where alcohol was a factor. We don't hear about those cases on the news, we typically only hear about the ones where there is a death. There are so many accidents that happen everyday due to alcohol and we don't hear about them because they are not sensational enough to make the news but the people they leave behind are often unable to live normal lives anymore.

So yes, test, test, and test some more. The more random and aggresive the better.
 

anonanon

Vancouver Blond Expert
Aug 29, 2006
1,228
4
0
Downtown Vancouver
So before they could only give you the breathalizer if they think you may have consumed alcohol. Now they can give you one, when they don't believe you have consumed?
As I read it, yes.

So theoretically if the cop is doing his job, you won't get nailed because you used mouthwash.
A ha! But do you think this will come into effect on that cold rainy night when you get pulled over? I don't think so.

Let's face it. If the cop wants to pull you over, he will. Not much you can do about it. Anything in the name of public safety. It's not funny, but anyone citing "safety" or "security" can do whatever they want these days....
 

oppai

ilikeasianswithbigtitties
Oct 6, 2002
1,160
9
38
I don't have a problem with this one. In many countries there is zero tolerance for drinking, as in any alcohol level over 0.00 can get your license yanked and car towed. If you have been drinking you shouldn't be driving. NOW, to go along with this they also need a far better transit system in place.
 
Aug 15, 2006
621
3
18
I'm not allowed to vote on this poll but put me down for a HELL YES!

As a previous poster pointed out, driving is a privilege and should be treated as such. I don't see this as being any more abusive than a company that hands out random drug tests to ensure worker safety.

I used to work in a children's trauma ward. Most of the children in there had debilitating brain injuries and a large percentage of those children were victims of vehicle accidents where alcohol was a factor. We don't hear about those cases on the news, we typically only hear about the ones where there is a death. There are so many accidents that happen everyday due to alcohol and we don't hear about them because they are not sensational enough to make the news but the people they leave behind are often unable to live normal lives anymore.

So yes, test, test, and test some more. The more random and aggresive the better.
To me it is too much like "Eenie meenie miny moe I think there is a drug lab in THAT house" and then they come in and go through your house at random. If you are not swerving, haven't run a red light, have signalled your lane changes etc they should not be able to pull you over randomly. I'm not talking about road blocks, just random pulling over.
We live in a free society and we need to be very careful about giving up too much of our freedom. It's exactly how the Nazi's and Hitler started, by gradually taking away freedoms. The police can already pull anyone over pretty easily, they really don't need this extra power. Heck they can pull you over for going 1km/h above the limit. Maybe you stopped a little abruptly at the light.
 

anonanon

Vancouver Blond Expert
Aug 29, 2006
1,228
4
0
Downtown Vancouver
Drinking and driving is bad yes, and it shouldn't be done. Even if this passes, well, your still going to have drunken drivers driving around. Sadly no amount of enforcement by LEO will fully stop this...:(
 

CJ Tylers

Retired Sr. Member
Jan 3, 2003
1,643
1
0
46
North Vancouver
Now this change I actually oppose... if the cop has reason to ask you to take a breathalizer test, fine... but random testing is as degrading and assinine as random drug testing. The idea is that you treat everyone as guilty until proven innocent (by the test).

That doesn't fly with me... our justice system assumes innocence.
 

anonanon

Vancouver Blond Expert
Aug 29, 2006
1,228
4
0
Downtown Vancouver
I find it interesting to note that this poll is currently spilt right down the middle, 12 a side...
 

dickincider

Member
Apr 17, 2008
63
6
8
My parents were killed by a drunk

Well, I feel as if I have a right to comment here, both my mother and father were killed by a drunk driver (at the same time) when I was younger, and it caused me a whole hell of a lot of grief. While I don't drink much myself, and never, ever drink and drive, I am a believer in the rights and freedoms given to canadians and think that "random" testing is ubsurd. The current laws allow any law enforcement officer to pull over, inspect, or test anyone who they may consider possibily drinking. I have been tested after only one beer, and a few times while completely sober. I don't think that removal of our rights and freedoms as free citizens in a free country is the solution to this huge problem, and believe me, I am passionate about drinking and driving. I think there are many better solutions, such as education, check stops at late night drive thru's (as implemented in alberta, where a cop takes your mcdonalds order) road blocks (where a cop can determine if you have or have not been drinking) but I even though I am a victim of drunk driving, and I don't ever drink and drive, I think as canadians we need to make sure our rights and freedoms are not comprimised by politicians..

-Dickincider
 

Mick

New member
May 23, 2007
12
4
3
My thoughts exactly.

Checkstops, I'm ok with. You stop, speak with an officer. He observes your speech, behaviour, and scent. If he has reason to believe you have been drinking, he will "ask" you to submit to a test, and you will be obligated to comply.

New checkstops, where everyone is required to submit to testing, without any duty on behalf of the officers to honestly assess folks, is offensive.

The first scenario allows police to effectively screen drunks, with less hassle and more importantly less treatment of citizens as cattle.
 

burnabyjoe

New member
Sep 23, 2009
12
0
0
Random breathalyzers on our roads would be an unnecessary infringement of Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure). The question is, would it be saved by Section 1 (limitations clause)? I don't believe it would. Let's look at a (rough) hypothetical Oakes Test.

This legislation is an arbitrary and over-inclusive fishing expedition that will allow the police to stop anyone they see fit and conduct a visual/smell search of their car before giving them a breathalyzer. The removal of the requirement for reasonable grounds for stoppage is unacceptable in this case. The potential for abuse is enormous.

As for the balance between public safety and the infringed right, the evidence from other countries provides prima facie justification, but i'm not entirely certain which way our courts would fall. But given their reluctance to support fishing expeditions like this (see R. v. A.M., [2008] 1 S.C.R. 569; 2008 SCC 19) I don't see how this is would pass. Drivers have a reasonable expectation of privacy that shouldn't be violated except under reasonable suspicion.

I have yet to hear someone give a rational reason why removing "reasonable suspicion" from a police officer's checklist before they stop you is a good thing. The last thing I want is police officers who feel they have the power to stop/search any vehicle they see fit.
 

Urquell

Member
Jul 2, 2009
130
0
16
For me it's not about the random testing for drunkenness, which I don't really have a problem with, and frankly don't see how it could be enforced much more than now without a considerable bit more manpower than they have now, which they can't afford. It makes the whole thing almost academic.

When I look beyond that though, and see the precedent that this could set for other types of enforcement legislation down the road, it scares the Hell out of me. Random personal searches? random entry into "suspicious" homes? Random car searches? Do we really a force with the legal power to do anything they want to on a whim? Just because they don't like your face, your race or your perceived economic status? It could take years, or a generation, but the early steps for things like this tend to be "little" things for the public "benefit"

Hell No! in other words.

And MADD, however lofty its goals, is an extremist group, completely inflexible and completely intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them.
 

freebird

Member
Aug 16, 2003
126
0
16
65
Remember how photo-radar started? It was one or two vans that were to be set up in school zones- now it has evolved into a money generating cash cow that the police and municipalities can't live without. This is just one more reason that cops will use to pull law abiding people over - now they won't have to use the "you had a broken tail light excuse."
 

anonanon

Vancouver Blond Expert
Aug 29, 2006
1,228
4
0
Downtown Vancouver
When it comes down to it, we all know that drinking and driving is bad. Some choose to do it most don't. I know it's bad, you know it's bad, but it's the guy coming down the street who doesn't.

This consideration will possibly help the police screen better with regards to drunks, but also normal, legit, law abiding citizens will be harrased. This is, IMO the foot in the door for random vehicle/house searches. Random detainment. Not to sound like a nut or anything lol! :p
 
Vancouver Escorts