Canada Kicks Ass
As predicted, Canada’s new impaired driving law is trampling

REPLY

1  2  Next



xerxes @ Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:31 pm

As predicted, Canada’s new impaired driving law is trampling civil liberties

$1:
Well, we can’t say we weren’t warned.

It’s been about six months since changes took effect to Canada’s impaired driving laws, and already we’re seeing the exact sorts of miscarriages of justice that critics had warned about. If these abuses are no longer hypothetical and we can no longer shield ourselves behind the veneer of them being unlikely to occur, the question then becomes Canadians’ overall comfort level with these practices.

As much as we should be concerned about impaired driving, we should be and can be simultaneously concerned about the powers granted to police and how these powers are being used — or misused. Charter rights cannot be thrown aside in the fight against impaired driving or any other crime.

Moreover, though, if Canadians lose faith in the law or the law enforcement officers tasked with enforcing it, we may ultimately be doing the fight against impaired driving more harm than good.

Ultimately, it may have to fall to the courts to rein in this law and its detrimental impact on Canadians’ civil liberties. But it shouldn’t have to come to that. Rather than wait for Canadians to have to suffer an infringement of their Charter rights and then launch a constitutional challenge, the government could simply acknowledge that its law went too far and make the needed changes. Alternately, the other parties could pledge to do so if they’re elected this fall.

The experience of Nanaimo, B.C., resident Lee Lowrie is an example of why change is needed. Police no longer need a reasonable suspicion of impairment or alcohol consumption before demanding a breath sample and there is now a two-hour window for police to demand someone blow into a breathalyzer. The obvious concern raised by many experts was that someone who arrives at a destination and consumes alcohol in those ensuing two hours could register a fail on the breathalyzer, even though they had not actually driven drunk.

That’s exactly what happened to Lowrie. She had been traveling to Williams Lake with her boyfriend, and the pair stopped in Maple Ridge. After having lunch at a pub — which included a cocktail each — they headed to Lowrie’s sister’s house where the three sat poolside and enjoyed some cold beers.

Strangely, Lowrie received a call from the RCMP stating they needed to talk to her about an important personal matter, so understandably she eagerly greeted the officers when they arrived — more than two hours after she herself had arrived at the house. But to her shock and horror, they were there to demand a breath sample from her, claiming they’d received a report that she’d been driving erratically.

Lowrie’s explanation about the beer she had consumed since arriving fell on deaf ears. She was forced to blow and she registered a fail. Immediately, she was handed a 90-day licence suspension and a 30-day vehicle impoundment, which left her trapped in a community where she did not live.

Even though she eventually prevailed in court, Lowrie estimates the whole ordeal cost her over $3,500 in legal fees and transportation costs. Unfortunately, the case did not collapse because of the law’s obvious Charter issues. Rather, the case fell apart because Lowrie recorded the conversation with officers and that account conflicted with the account filed in the police officers’ paperwork.

In other words, this exact scenario could happen again. And again.

Meanwhile, there is a constitutional challenge being launched by a Victoria, B.C., woman over the law’s mandatory breathalyzer provisions. Seventy-six-year-old Norma McLeod had her licence suspended and vehicle impounded after police concluded she was refusing to provide a breath sample, despite showing no signs of impairment. McLeod, though, is a mouth cancer survivor and has COPD; she physically could not blow hard enough and she had a doctor’s note to back that up. None of that mattered, however. And we’ve heard of other similar cases, too.

How many more Lee Lowries and Norma McLeods are Canadians prepared to accept before we demand that the government put a stop to this? Protecting our streets and protecting our civil liberties doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive.

We can and we must fix this.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5341109/canada-impaired-driving-law-civil-liberties/

   



rickc @ Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:00 pm

This story has been picked up in the States as well.

   



BartSimpson @ Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:07 pm

$1:
Even though she eventually prevailed in court, Lowrie estimates the whole ordeal cost her over $3,500 in legal fees and transportation costs. Unfortunately, the case did not collapse because of the law’s obvious Charter issues. Rather, the case fell apart because Lowrie recorded the conversation with officers and that account conflicted with the account filed in the police officers’ paperwork.

***

We can and we must fix this.


That'll be fixed because the next time the cops show up to rape your rights they'll beat the fuck out of you if you try to record them lying to you. [B-o]

   



CDN_PATRIOT @ Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:13 pm

No warrant, no entry. Simple as that.


-J.

   



BartSimpson @ Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:19 pm

CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:
No warrant, no entry. Simple as that.


-J.


The truth is that ninety-nine times out of a hundred they can outright murder you and get away with it knowing their own department is almost certainly going to cover for them.

Breaking and entering is then no big deal...they'll just invent a probable cause like saying they smelled drugs or that they imagined someone was screaming...and then they'll do whatever the fuck they want and you'll be powerless to stop them.

   



Freakinoldguy @ Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:58 pm

This law has already been defeated in court so it isn't going to last much longer especially when people see the cost associated with a trial for every time the jack booted thugs break down your door under the pretense of protecting society. :roll:

   



PublicAnimalNo9 @ Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:04 pm

Did you expect much else from a leftist piece of shit? It's the perfect pretense to see if you have any unlicenced or improperly stored firearms.

   



PublicAnimalNo9 @ Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:20 am

Look, most of you know that my back was broken by a drunk driver. In fact I learned a couple of years ago that it had been broken in 3 places, not just one.
I have a stupendously low opinion of drunk drivers. I think they've been a scourge on the roads for far too long while the penalties have been far too lenient. Sadly, my father was one of them.
But this "law" is a CLEAR violation of basic civil rights. Even as a "victim" of a drunk driver I find this law to be appalling. Especially when I've seen cops still arrest people who registered zero on a breathalyzer because they really weren't drinking.

   



bootlegga @ Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:44 am

xerxes xerxes:
As predicted, Canada’s new impaired driving law is trampling civil liberties

$1:
Well, we can’t say we weren’t warned.

It’s been about six months since changes took effect to Canada’s impaired driving laws, and already we’re seeing the exact sorts of miscarriages of justice that critics had warned about. If these abuses are no longer hypothetical and we can no longer shield ourselves behind the veneer of them being unlikely to occur, the question then becomes Canadians’ overall comfort level with these practices.

As much as we should be concerned about impaired driving, we should be and can be simultaneously concerned about the powers granted to police and how these powers are being used — or misused. Charter rights cannot be thrown aside in the fight against impaired driving or any other crime.

Moreover, though, if Canadians lose faith in the law or the law enforcement officers tasked with enforcing it, we may ultimately be doing the fight against impaired driving more harm than good.

Ultimately, it may have to fall to the courts to rein in this law and its detrimental impact on Canadians’ civil liberties. But it shouldn’t have to come to that. Rather than wait for Canadians to have to suffer an infringement of their Charter rights and then launch a constitutional challenge, the government could simply acknowledge that its law went too far and make the needed changes. Alternately, the other parties could pledge to do so if they’re elected this fall.

The experience of Nanaimo, B.C., resident Lee Lowrie is an example of why change is needed. Police no longer need a reasonable suspicion of impairment or alcohol consumption before demanding a breath sample and there is now a two-hour window for police to demand someone blow into a breathalyzer. The obvious concern raised by many experts was that someone who arrives at a destination and consumes alcohol in those ensuing two hours could register a fail on the breathalyzer, even though they had not actually driven drunk.

That’s exactly what happened to Lowrie. She had been traveling to Williams Lake with her boyfriend, and the pair stopped in Maple Ridge. After having lunch at a pub — which included a cocktail each — they headed to Lowrie’s sister’s house where the three sat poolside and enjoyed some cold beers.

Strangely, Lowrie received a call from the RCMP stating they needed to talk to her about an important personal matter, so understandably she eagerly greeted the officers when they arrived — more than two hours after she herself had arrived at the house. But to her shock and horror, they were there to demand a breath sample from her, claiming they’d received a report that she’d been driving erratically.

Lowrie’s explanation about the beer she had consumed since arriving fell on deaf ears. She was forced to blow and she registered a fail. Immediately, she was handed a 90-day licence suspension and a 30-day vehicle impoundment, which left her trapped in a community where she did not live.

Even though she eventually prevailed in court, Lowrie estimates the whole ordeal cost her over $3,500 in legal fees and transportation costs. Unfortunately, the case did not collapse because of the law’s obvious Charter issues. Rather, the case fell apart because Lowrie recorded the conversation with officers and that account conflicted with the account filed in the police officers’ paperwork.

In other words, this exact scenario could happen again. And again.

Meanwhile, there is a constitutional challenge being launched by a Victoria, B.C., woman over the law’s mandatory breathalyzer provisions. Seventy-six-year-old Norma McLeod had her licence suspended and vehicle impounded after police concluded she was refusing to provide a breath sample, despite showing no signs of impairment. McLeod, though, is a mouth cancer survivor and has COPD; she physically could not blow hard enough and she had a doctor’s note to back that up. None of that mattered, however. And we’ve heard of other similar cases, too.

How many more Lee Lowries and Norma McLeods are Canadians prepared to accept before we demand that the government put a stop to this? Protecting our streets and protecting our civil liberties doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive.

We can and we must fix this.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5341109/canada-impaired-driving-law-civil-liberties/


While I think cops need to be more flexible when it comes to those with COPD and other lung diseases, I don't feel sorry for most other people who gets caught by this.

The first woman used the age old tactic many drunks use - have a couple drinks after you get home to obfuscate a breathalyzer. Maybe she wasn't impaired when she drove home from the bar, maybe she was - it's a classic case of he said, she said.

Mandatory alcohol screening is used in most countries and has reduced fatalities from impaired driving in places like Australia, so I'm all for it. The only issue I have is that there isn't a 100% accurate test for cannabis too.

   



PublicAnimalNo9 @ Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:04 am

bootlegga bootlegga:
xerxes xerxes:
As predicted, Canada’s new impaired driving law is trampling civil liberties

$1:
Well, we can’t say we weren’t warned.

It’s been about six months since changes took effect to Canada’s impaired driving laws, and already we’re seeing the exact sorts of miscarriages of justice that critics had warned about. If these abuses are no longer hypothetical and we can no longer shield ourselves behind the veneer of them being unlikely to occur, the question then becomes Canadians’ overall comfort level with these practices.

As much as we should be concerned about impaired driving, we should be and can be simultaneously concerned about the powers granted to police and how these powers are being used — or misused. Charter rights cannot be thrown aside in the fight against impaired driving or any other crime.

Moreover, though, if Canadians lose faith in the law or the law enforcement officers tasked with enforcing it, we may ultimately be doing the fight against impaired driving more harm than good.

Ultimately, it may have to fall to the courts to rein in this law and its detrimental impact on Canadians’ civil liberties. But it shouldn’t have to come to that. Rather than wait for Canadians to have to suffer an infringement of their Charter rights and then launch a constitutional challenge, the government could simply acknowledge that its law went too far and make the needed changes. Alternately, the other parties could pledge to do so if they’re elected this fall.

The experience of Nanaimo, B.C., resident Lee Lowrie is an example of why change is needed. Police no longer need a reasonable suspicion of impairment or alcohol consumption before demanding a breath sample and there is now a two-hour window for police to demand someone blow into a breathalyzer. The obvious concern raised by many experts was that someone who arrives at a destination and consumes alcohol in those ensuing two hours could register a fail on the breathalyzer, even though they had not actually driven drunk.

That’s exactly what happened to Lowrie. She had been traveling to Williams Lake with her boyfriend, and the pair stopped in Maple Ridge. After having lunch at a pub — which included a cocktail each — they headed to Lowrie’s sister’s house where the three sat poolside and enjoyed some cold beers.

Strangely, Lowrie received a call from the RCMP stating they needed to talk to her about an important personal matter, so understandably she eagerly greeted the officers when they arrived — more than two hours after she herself had arrived at the house. But to her shock and horror, they were there to demand a breath sample from her, claiming they’d received a report that she’d been driving erratically.

Lowrie’s explanation about the beer she had consumed since arriving fell on deaf ears. She was forced to blow and she registered a fail. Immediately, she was handed a 90-day licence suspension and a 30-day vehicle impoundment, which left her trapped in a community where she did not live.

Even though she eventually prevailed in court, Lowrie estimates the whole ordeal cost her over $3,500 in legal fees and transportation costs. Unfortunately, the case did not collapse because of the law’s obvious Charter issues. Rather, the case fell apart because Lowrie recorded the conversation with officers and that account conflicted with the account filed in the police officers’ paperwork.

In other words, this exact scenario could happen again. And again.

Meanwhile, there is a constitutional challenge being launched by a Victoria, B.C., woman over the law’s mandatory breathalyzer provisions. Seventy-six-year-old Norma McLeod had her licence suspended and vehicle impounded after police concluded she was refusing to provide a breath sample, despite showing no signs of impairment. McLeod, though, is a mouth cancer survivor and has COPD; she physically could not blow hard enough and she had a doctor’s note to back that up. None of that mattered, however. And we’ve heard of other similar cases, too.

How many more Lee Lowries and Norma McLeods are Canadians prepared to accept before we demand that the government put a stop to this? Protecting our streets and protecting our civil liberties doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive.

We can and we must fix this.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5341109/canada-impaired-driving-law-civil-liberties/


While I think cops need to be more flexible when it comes to those with COPD and other lung diseases, I don't feel sorry for most other people who gets caught by this.

The first woman used the age old tactic many drunks use - have a couple drinks after you get home to obfuscate a breathalyzer. Maybe she wasn't impaired when she drove home from the bar, maybe she was - it's a classic case of he said, she said.

Mandatory alcohol screening is used in most countries and has reduced fatalities from impaired driving in places like Australia, so I'm all for it. The only issue I have is that there isn't a 100% accurate test for cannabis too.
Mandatory alcohol screening should NEVER take place in your fucking living room. Especially up to two hours after the fact. No matter how hard you try to justify it, the inside of your home is NOT an impaired driving scene.

   



DrCaleb @ Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:06 am

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Mandatory alcohol screening should NEVER take place in your fucking living room. Especially up to two hours after the fact. No matter how hard you try to justify it, the inside of your home is NOT an impaired driving scene.


R=UP

   



BeaverFever @ Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:19 am

bootlegga bootlegga:
The first woman used the age old tactic many drunks use - have a couple drinks after you get home to obfuscate a breathalyzer. Maybe she wasn't impaired when she drove home from the bar, maybe she was - it's a classic case of he said, she said.


But our legal system presumes innocence until proven guilty. In the absence of any additional evidence or witnesses , a case of “he said she said” should mean no grounds for arrest.

As I mentioned in another thread, this law is only ok so long as there’s other evidence like the car in the driveway has fresh damage or someone got their license plate fleeing an accident or something like that. Fucking cops can’t be trusted to enforce the laws properly, unfortunately

   



DrCaleb @ Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:26 am

BeaverFever BeaverFever:
bootlegga bootlegga:
The first woman used the age old tactic many drunks use - have a couple drinks after you get home to obfuscate a breathalyzer. Maybe she wasn't impaired when she drove home from the bar, maybe she was - it's a classic case of he said, she said.


But our legal system presumes innocence until proven guilty. In the absence of any additional evidence or witnesses , a case of “he said she said” should mean no grounds for arrest.


And that presumption exists because the State can do enormous damage to a person with a false accusation. Look at those people with COPD on the hook for towing and fines for their cars, simply because they have a lung disease. Same goes for civil forfeiture. Or how broken the Bail process is.

Some people can spend time in jail, and still be found not guilty. That's pretty broken.

   



stratos @ Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:29 am

One way to solve this is just make every vehicle have a breathalyzer attached to start the engine. If found to have been tampered with you lose you license. If found not working during yearly inspection you have to have it fixed PRIOR to your vehicle being legal to drive again.

I see only 2 issues with my above. Cost of increase on vehicles might be outrageous, and cost of fixing could be a huge issue also.

   



PublicAnimalNo9 @ Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:47 am

My wife just brought up a good point. If there's more than one licenced driver in the home and only one vehicle, how would the cops know who to breathalyze?

   



REPLY

1  2  Next