• Welcome to the new GTAM. Have a look around and please post any issues in the Support Forum. Be sure to check out your profile settings to confirm all your settings.

We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

Baggsy

Well-known member
Site Supporter
whoops, I thought this was provincial legislation. Thats ok, trudeau is a twit too.
That's o.k. we're used to it around here. That's the way the politics of division works.

p.s. I noticed you didn't retract or apologize for your attack on the conservatives after being wrong, just blamed the liberals as well.
Ho hum, carry on. ;)
 

Flywheel

Well-known member
Well that loophole is just stupid.
Not stupid, an intentional sop for red conservatives and blue liberals. The federal election is just around the corner, after all. There are enough Bad Apples around to distort the intent of the legislation (eg. the HTA 172 kickback scheme in Hamilton) and the police are loathe to give up any powers (eg carding in Toronto). All so nervous, born-again pot smokers don't have to talk to scary dealers. Nice!
 

boyoboy

Well-known member
That's o.k. we're used to it around here. That's the way the politics of division works.

p.s. I noticed you didn't retract or apologize for your attack on the conservatives after being wrong, just blamed the liberals as well.
Ho hum, carry on. ;)
if you didn't like that one, you should read the one under the insurance thread in general motorcycling.

I do not support the conservatives or the liberals. They're both corrupt - and sheep-a-low keep voting for one or the other.
 

Baggsy

Well-known member
Site Supporter
if you didn't like that one, you should read the one under the insurance thread in general motorcycling.

I do not support the conservatives or the liberals. They're both corrupt - and sheep-a-low keep voting for one or the other.
Should I ask which local you belong to? The type of people you're talking about belong to any party, as long as they're winning.
It's a good niche market for sociopaths. The idea is to get more and more involved, and try and promote candidates that aren't like that.
 

boyoboy

Well-known member
Should I ask which local you belong to? The type of people you're talking about belong to any party, as long as they're winning.
It's a good niche market for sociopaths. The idea is to get more and more involved, and try and promote candidates that aren't like that.
Huh?



and no local. I voted green in the recent provincial election.

EDIT I think you are saying politicians are more prone to being a sociopath? I could see that. I believe Trump and Bush are both mentally ill.
 
Last edited:

Hack

Well-known member
Some tool filed a report on my bike with YRP that I was riding erratically last year. Got a warning letter from YRP stating repeat second complaint will lead to a phone call from an officer, repeat third complaint will lead to a home visit. Not eager to find out what happens after that.

They had no proof it was me riding.

Funny thing, the date and time stated on the letter, I was no where near that area. I know because I was at work.
I had some road rager do the same to me...
I received a call from the 5-0 with the same BS about getting a letter etc...
My reply was something like...

I have no way of knowing you're actually the police.
You have no way of knowing if your speaking to the actual registered owner of the car reported let alone the driver of that car...
This is just really bad phone sex...
If you want to talk about this further, send a marked car to the address of the register owner... might be me, might not be.... you'll find out when you get here.

The voice on the other end of the line acknowledged the futility of the practice and wished me a good day.

The marked car never showed up.
 

raginduck

Well-known member
Site Supporter
If the police apply this in the manner that I suspect it was intended for - i.e. random officer pulls you over but doesn't have the instrumentation in his own patrol car, and it takes some time for either said instrumentation to arrive at the site or for the person in question to be brought to the instrumentation, thus the police have complete "chain of custody" between seeing the driver driving and measuring their alcohol level - there won't be either an opportunity or a need to challenge this - and rightly so.

If, on the other hand, the police apply this in the way some are suggesting is possible - without a complete chain of custody between the driving and the drinking - it's going to get challenged, and rightly so.
I believe the old laws would have covered your first scenario.
 

JTR

Well-known member
Enough of this red crap. I need to find an American wife.
 

Evoex

Insert clever title here
Site Supporter
That's the problem....we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. According to the OP link, the individual has to prove their innocence.
Individual has to open their door first, i already addressed that problem.
 

bitzz

Well-known member
Individual has to open their door first, i already addressed that problem.
The way I read the new law, if the officer believes you are at home he will kick the door down, no warrant required, and DEMAND a breath sample.
If you refuse, you are guilty of "refuse breath sample" which is legally the same as impaired.

I hope we can all agree this new law erodes our rights as Canadians.

A well known Toronto lawyer made his name defending impaired cases, his specialty was challenging the evidence from the breathalyzer machine.
A few years ago that challenge was removed by the supreme court, so now we have to assume that machine is infallible. Yep, the supreme court of Canada says the breathalyzer machine is perfect and incapable of incorrect readings.
OH. I have a bit of experience with "machines" and haven't met one yet that is infallible.
Fast forward a couple of years and our noted Toronto lawyer's associates used the reasonable wait provisions for breath testing in the impaired laws too often, Michael Bryant and that RCMP from the Robert Dziekański case to name a couple of high profile cases, so the supreme court removed that defense too, VERY CLUMSILY.

When you got pulled for impaired they had to wait a reasonable amount of time after your last drink, I think it was 20 minutes, otherwise the defense lawyer would argue that you had alcohol in your mouth from the last drink that hasn't diluted which skewed the breathalyzer results.
The law required that you were breath tested within a reasonable amount of time from when you were pulled over, I think 20 minutes, otherwise the defense would argue that were in fact below .08% when you were driving BUT your blood/alcohol went up AFTER you drove because it needed time for your system to absorb the alcohol.
So the trick WAS to have someone witness you have an alcoholic drink AFTER you drove.
A well known defense for impaired. I heard about it 40 years ago. Not a loophole, I think it is a valid defense... I guess someone thought it was being abused.

So as a result we get this clumsy piece of legislation. I can sorta see where they were going... I just don't like were we ended up.
So you're Joe Average, get home from work after another lousy 17hr. day at the cotton mill, and start poundin' the brewski's. It will you most of two hours to get good and impaired. So we can see where that was headed.
If you are Joe Average Pot Smoker, you get home from a long half day at Spacely Sprockets, (Christ Jane, I had to push the button twice today) and light up a coner as you get out of the truck (you're on your own property now, you're legal), you're legally impaired before you get in the front door.
Not fair nor equitable.
They didn't think about the pot heads. Why does no one think of the pot heads?
... along with no warrant, no probable cause search and detainment
... along with expanded police powers
What else?
Slippery slope we have started down, and it seems to getting slipperier.
 

Hyperion

Well-known member
Constable Mark Smith

“No - Police are not going to randomly walk into homes or restaurants to conduct breath tests.”

JANUARY 11*·*PUBLIC

Police in Canada can now demand breath samples in bars and at home!

You may have seen the above headline in your social media feed the past few days and I wanted to provide some clarification around this legislation update.

To begin – Police are not going to randomly walk into homes or restaurants to conduct breath tests.

The title and stories basically make it sound like police will be randomly walking into bars and homes to demand a sample of your breath and lay charges if you fail. The wording is designed to be sensational and make it sound like we have sweeping new powers, the fact is we can’t and don’t want to just walk into your home to test you for alcohol for no reason.

Most people are surprised to know that we could always investigate you for impaired driving if we found you sitting at a bar or at home after driving. What is important to note is that we can’t just do a random check without having evidence that you were recently operating a motor vehicle. So we are not, and have no interest in just randomly showing up to your home or bar and testing you. Trust me, we have better things to do with our time.

There is a time and a place for this however, and you may be surprised to know that we could always demand a sample from you with sufficient evidence, even if we found you at home or in a bar. This is called conducting an impaired driving investigation. As police officers we get paid to be suspicious and conduct inquiries to determine whether an offence was committed. The below is an example of an impaired driving investigation where a breath demand after the fact may be requested:

John Doe crashes a car and flees the scene. He runs into a home or bar to try and avoid prosecution and is witnessed by members of the public or police. We find Mr Doe at home or in the bar and through our investigation we determine Mr Doe was operating the vehicle and is under the influence of alcohol. This type of investigation could include gathering witness statements, reviewing security camera footage, and collecting physical evidence found at the scene. In this case we demand a breath sample from Mr Doe as part of that investigation. This process is not new and has not changed.

What has changed is that the law now states that you can’t be over the legal limit within two hours of operating a vehicle. This change was designed to mitigate some of the common defenses utilized by impaired drivers. For example, claiming they were sober when they were driving and got drunk between exiting their vehicle and being arrested by the police. This is often what happens in cases of hit and runs similar to the example I shared above.

These legislative amendments actually changes very little procedurally for Police but still requires the investigating officer to articulate enough grounds to prove the person was operating the vehicle impaired within the past two hours.

In conclusion, police in Canada have always been legally entitled to request a sample of breath after the fact, this is not something new.

Please understand that we will only be enforcing these changes as part of an impaired investigation and all the circumstances for each individual case will be taken into consideration prior to laying of any charges. And no, we won’t be randomly walking through bars or up to homes to request a test. It would only be part of an impaired investigation and even then the evidence needs to be present and significant to successfully lay a charge in this manner.

The best and safest rule still remains: Don’t drink & Drive.

Constable Mark Smith & Constable Chris Martin

Calgary Police Service

 

TwistedKestrel

King of GTAM
Site Supporter
What has changed is that the law now states that you can’t be over the legal limit within two hours of operating a vehicle. This change was designed to mitigate some of the common defenses utilized by impaired drivers. For example, claiming they were sober when they were driving and got drunk between exiting their vehicle and being arrested by the police. This is often what happens in cases of hit and runs similar to the example I shared above.

These legislative amendments actually changes very little procedurally for Police but still requires the investigating officer to articulate enough grounds to prove the person was operating the vehicle impaired within the past two hours.
That's not even remotely reassuring, Constable Mark Smith
 

boyoboy

Well-known member
Constable Mark Smith

“No - Police are not going to randomly walk into homes or restaurants to conduct breath tests.”

JANUARY 11*·*PUBLIC

Police in Canada can now demand breath samples in bars and at home!

You may have seen the above headline in your social media feed the past few days and I wanted to provide some clarification around this legislation update.

To begin – Police are not going to randomly walk into homes or restaurants to conduct breath tests.

The title and stories basically make it sound like police will be randomly walking into bars and homes to demand a sample of your breath and lay charges if you fail. The wording is designed to be sensational and make it sound like we have sweeping new powers, the fact is we can’t and don’t want to just walk into your home to test you for alcohol for no reason.

Most people are surprised to know that we could always investigate you for impaired driving if we found you sitting at a bar or at home after driving. What is important to note is that we can’t just do a random check without having evidence that you were recently operating a motor vehicle. So we are not, and have no interest in just randomly showing up to your home or bar and testing you. Trust me, we have better things to do with our time.

There is a time and a place for this however, and you may be surprised to know that we could always demand a sample from you with sufficient evidence, even if we found you at home or in a bar. This is called conducting an impaired driving investigation. As police officers we get paid to be suspicious and conduct inquiries to determine whether an offence was committed. The below is an example of an impaired driving investigation where a breath demand after the fact may be requested:

John Doe crashes a car and flees the scene. He runs into a home or bar to try and avoid prosecution and is witnessed by members of the public or police. We find Mr Doe at home or in the bar and through our investigation we determine Mr Doe was operating the vehicle and is under the influence of alcohol. This type of investigation could include gathering witness statements, reviewing security camera footage, and collecting physical evidence found at the scene. In this case we demand a breath sample from Mr Doe as part of that investigation. This process is not new and has not changed.

What has changed is that the law now states that you can’t be over the legal limit within two hours of operating a vehicle. This change was designed to mitigate some of the common defenses utilized by impaired drivers. For example, claiming they were sober when they were driving and got drunk between exiting their vehicle and being arrested by the police. This is often what happens in cases of hit and runs similar to the example I shared above.

These legislative amendments actually changes very little procedurally for Police but still requires the investigating officer to articulate enough grounds to prove the person was operating the vehicle impaired within the past two hours.

In conclusion, police in Canada have always been legally entitled to request a sample of breath after the fact, this is not something new.

Please understand that we will only be enforcing these changes as part of an impaired investigation and all the circumstances for each individual case will be taken into consideration prior to laying of any charges. And no, we won’t be randomly walking through bars or up to homes to request a test. It would only be part of an impaired investigation and even then the evidence needs to be present and significant to successfully lay a charge in this manner.

The best and safest rule still remains: Don’t drink & Drive.

Constable Mark Smith & Constable Chris Martin

Calgary Police Service

So, are you saying what happened to the individual returning empties was acceptable? Your best and safest rule- don't drink and drive, didn't help the sober individual returning empties.
I say when the cop held him he was under arrest- and a false arrest at that.
This is just wrong. Sorry you cannot see this, but Im not surprised.
 
Last edited:

JTR

Well-known member
Be pretty easy pickings for a cop to sit at the lcbo on a friday night, and knock on doors say hour and a half after they get home.
 

Blackfin

Well-known member
Government and their footsoldiers are putting revenue generation tools in place of what will soon be diminishing gasoline taxes.
 

hedo2002

Well-known member
Site Supporter
You are incorrect on the wait, 20 minutes after the driver consumed their last drink. As an Officer, how am I supposed to know when you took your last drink?? However, it is generally at least 30 minutes from the time of a traffic stop, (not a ride setup), until the offender is presented to the breathalyzer, (you have roadside sobriety tests, to administer, reading of the charter rights, and reading of the breath demand, then the travel time to the station.

Once a person provides a proper sample to a breathalyzer a second reading is taken, (there the breath tech MUST wait 20 minutes between samples.

The ONLY time limit that applied to breath tests, is that the first reading MUST be obtained within a 2 hour window from first contact.

The way I read the new law, if the officer believes you are at home he will kick the door down, no warrant required, and DEMAND a breath sample.
If you refuse, you are guilty of "refuse breath sample" which is legally the same as impaired.

I hope we can all agree this new law erodes our rights as Canadians.

A well known Toronto lawyer made his name defending impaired cases, his specialty was challenging the evidence from the breathalyzer machine.
A few years ago that challenge was removed by the supreme court, so now we have to assume that machine is infallible. Yep, the supreme court of Canada says the breathalyzer machine is perfect and incapable of incorrect readings.
OH. I have a bit of experience with "machines" and haven't met one yet that is infallible.
Fast forward a couple of years and our noted Toronto lawyer's associates used the reasonable wait provisions for breath testing in the impaired laws too often, Michael Bryant and that RCMP from the Robert Dziekański case to name a couple of high profile cases, so the supreme court removed that defense too, VERY CLUMSILY.

When you got pulled for impaired they had to wait a reasonable amount of time after your last drink, I think it was 20 minutes, otherwise the defense lawyer would argue that you had alcohol in your mouth from the last drink that hasn't diluted which skewed the breathalyzer results.
The law required that you were breath tested within a reasonable amount of time from when you were pulled over, I think 20 minutes, otherwise the defense would argue that were in fact below .08% when you were driving BUT your blood/alcohol went up AFTER you drove because it needed time for your system to absorb the alcohol.
So the trick WAS to have someone witness you have an alcoholic drink AFTER you drove.
A well known defense for impaired. I heard about it 40 years ago. Not a loophole, I think it is a valid defense... I guess someone thought it was being abused.

So as a result we get this clumsy piece of legislation. I can sorta see where they were going... I just don't like were we ended up.
So you're Joe Average, get home from work after another lousy 17hr. day at the cotton mill, and start poundin' the brewski's. It will you most of two hours to get good and impaired. So we can see where that was headed.
If you are Joe Average Pot Smoker, you get home from a long half day at Spacely Sprockets, (Christ Jane, I had to push the button twice today) and light up a coner as you get out of the truck (you're on your own property now, you're legal), you're legally impaired before you get in the front door.
Not fair nor equitable.
They didn't think about the pot heads. Why does no one think of the pot heads?
... along with no warrant, no probable cause search and detainment
... along with expanded police powers
What else?
Slippery slope we have started down, and it seems to getting slipperier.
 

micelli.i

Well-known member
I think the 2-hour rule was aimed at the people who get reported for drunk driving, but manage to get home, before police can nab them. I don't know how frequent this scenario is, in real life.

Re, the Global news story (the Art fellow), police don't need a specific reason to pull you over, while on the road. There's case law that states police can pull you over to check your driver's license, without any reason for doing so. So, when Bill Blair was saying that police still need to comply with HTA before pulling people over, he was just gesturing.

Unfortunately, this added power can be used for all the wrong reasons, like this former York police officer, who ended up serving time.

Outside "hot pursuit", I'm not sure how officers can check sobriety if someone enters their home, already. Unless they get invited in, they would need a warrant. Consider a situation where person who lives alone, drives home, binge drinks for 1 hour, and then passes out. If he is not physically able to answer the door, the only way for police to enter, is to break in, force wake him up and have him do a sobriety check. Not sure how that would play in court...
 

Evoex

Insert clever title here
Site Supporter
The way I read the new law, if the officer believes you are at home he will kick the door down, no warrant required, and DEMAND a breath sample.
If you refuse, you are guilty of "refuse breath sample" which is legally the same as impaired.
I'm fairly certain Police cannot enter your home without a warrant unless they are in the midst of pursuing you.

You are correct on the charge of refusing a breathe sample being the same as impairment, but not 'guilty'. It's always best to blow, because then at least you have a number to fight in court.
 
Last edited:

Top Bottom