We Weren't Careful What We Wished For.

[Evoex]

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...

Pretty much this.

Someone can correct me here that Police cannot go on a fishing expedition if they pull you over for a document check. Unless it was something obvious (bag of drugs on the car seat, obvious signs of impairment), it's a thanks and cya later deal.

 

[micelli.i]

Pretty much this.

Someone can correct me here that Police cannot go on a fishing expedition if they pull you over for a document check. Unless it was something obvious (bag of drugs on the car seat, obvious signs of impairment), it's a thanks and cya later deal.

I think they can. Police can use a HTA stop, as a ruse, to look for something else. If you have the time (and patience) to read, check this case out: R. v. Bielli, 2016 ONSC 6866. That's exactly what they did there.

 

[Evoex]

I think they can. Police can use a HTA stop, as a ruse, to look for something else. If you have the time (and patience) to read, check this case out: R. v. Bielli, 2016 ONSC 6866. That's exactly what they did there.

I only read a few lines, but this guy was already under surveillance thus they likely had sufficient RAS to search his vehicle (or whatever went down). Doesn't feel like the same situation we are discussing.

 

[Iceman]

I only read a few lines, but this guy was already under surveillance thus they likely had sufficient RAS to search his vehicle (or whatever went down). Doesn't feel like the same situation we are discussing.

The only thing the officer has to say is that they thought they smelled pot or alcohol. That gives them probable cause to search the car.

Sent from my SM-A530W using Tapatalk

 

[Evoex]

The only thing the officer has to say is that they thought they smelled pot or alcohol. That gives them probable cause to search the car.

Sent from my SM-A530W using Tapatalk

Not exactly correct.

They can only search your vehicle if you have been arrested or they have a warrant, except for the following;

-if they believe you are illegally transporting alcohol
-if they believe you have possession of drugs or alcohol related to the commission of a crime
-in the above 2 cases they also must believe that such evidence would be destroyed or removed if they went to get a warrant

simply smelling alcohol or pot is not enough on itself to merit a search, it may be enough for them to demand a sample though

 

[boyoboy]

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.

hey officers martin and smith - still waiting for a response.

 

[sadrik]

I think an officer can enter your home if they believe a crime was committed, so evidence will not be lost.

In what urgent situations can the police enter my home? | CLEO (Community Legal Education Ontario / Éducation juridique communautaire Ontario)

"However, the police can enter without a warrant or permission in order to arrest someone or take them into custody when they have reasonable grounds to believe that:

• there is evidence in your home that relates to a serious offence, and they need to find that evidence right away or it might be lost or destroyed."

 

[backmarkerducati]

An interesting spin on this. There have been cases in the past where civilians and more importantly an off duty officers leave the scene of an accident and then head home and then they "have some drinks to calm their nerves" the charge is then leaving the scene and not the more serious DUI... That won't work anymore...

Regardless I do not like the new law.

 

[Hack]

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.

How about... Nothing.


I had a similar thing go down once, but with my truck.
I get a call presumably from a Halton Reg. police officer saying some guy called in to report/complain that I cut him off or crossed a yellow line. 'Not on a bike, but rather with my F150...
After I told him I wasn't going to discuss anything over the phone and that if this was "really" that important he could send a uniform to my residence he confided that the guy who called was a local hot-head who road rages and calls in frequently to report other drivers.
"Okay then, well... maybe call that guy and waste his time"

Anyway... No letter, no firther calls... It's meaningless... Life goes on.

 

[unL33T]

Relevant:

Nanaimo woman wins court challenge over forced breathalyzer test hours after driving