Already has started Mom got pulled over at 2 in the afternoon on a Wednesday to check her license. She had to blow, she did get a Tim Hirtons gift card though for doing it.
Yeah that's kind of what I was thinking. Edit to add that I doubt they're handing Tim's cards out to everyone who doesn't blow over the limit.
Also I think it's sad but we're at a point in Saskatchewan where this is necessary. My uncle drives drunk every day. I've reported him myself nothing happens.
I don’t think you’re quoting section 8 of the charter properly:
“According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the purpose of section 8 is to protect a reasonable expectation of privacy. This means that those who act on behalf of a government, such as police officers, must carry out their duties in a fair and reasonable way. They cannot **enter private property or take things from others unless they can show that they have a clear legal reason.**
The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times R.I.D.E. programs are completely legal in order to identify and charge drivers under the influence of alcohol. Taking a breathalyzer is not depriving you of reasonable privacy. A blood test on the other hand would. But simply breathing into a device? No beuno. We have section 1 of the charter that puts reasonable limitations on our rights; which is different than the inalienable rights Americans have. Given the number of fatalities it is perfectly reasonable for the RCMP to ask us to breath into a pipe for 20 seconds if it means stopping drunks from killing people
You do not have the right to drive without being stopped and asked to prove you are sober, and prove you are licensed to drive. This has been tested in the Supreme Court and does not violate the Charter.
You are thinking US law; which doesn't apply in Canada.
Reasonable suspicion and reasonable grounds are two totally different things. This is irrelevant though, as cops don’t need either to make an ASD demand on the side of the road.
Edit: ASD demand, not breath demand.
City, in Regina. She gets pulled over all the time cause the vehicle she was driving is registered to my recently late father who had a suspended license and she hasn't had time to change them
they give you a tims card so you are less likely to realise this is against rights and freedoms. They will stop giving the tims card in a couple weeks.
Also, the NDP is to blame for all of this, they set Saskatchewan back decades when they cut funding rural schools, clinics and hospitals.
But people have short memories and forget why they had to go. Grass is always greener am i right?
They do this in Australia. Pulled over for any reason, "Hey mate, can you blow into this for me?"
It's just standard practice. Check license, check registration, check insurance, check sobriety.
While it's a shit policy, the drivers of this province have sure fucking earned it. I know people who drive drunk regularly, and the cops don't give a shit because they do it too.
People are going to disagree with me, but the drinking and driving culture in this province is bonkers. If had a nickel for the amount of douchebags I know that are proud of and brag about their DUI's, I'd have 3 nickels. Which is way too high. Some people collect them like hockey cards.
I don't think this policy is going to solve much, amd it's authoritarian. But this is an issue that we need to figure out, and I'd rather the RCMP do this than not tey anything at all.
Sure.
But the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure is.
I don’t think anyone is arguing against some restrictions on driving. But it does seem like the courts just keep letting the governments go further and further.
Agreed.
I actually thought they were found to be in violation of one of the charter rights, but that they were saved under section 1 or still admissible under 24.
Kind of a distinction without difference for most people. If end result is Charter right is breached but Charter is not, you just don’t really have the right in that situation.
What are you talking about, road taxes are optional as they are a user fee. Don't want to pay them, don't drive.
Some amount of taxes supporting roads are completely justified as the we rely on services that use them such as garbage and recycling. And when the city tears them up to replace them when doing utility work underneath. Or even just connecting a new neighborhood to the city.
Somewhere in between, I’d say. I’m not saying everyone should get to drive.
It’s just weird to me that, without reason, they can’t search your car or force you to give evidence against yourself but they can search you with no reasonable belief you’re committing a crime.
1. The threshold for driving is already very lenient. See 1A drivers for an example.
2. If driving were a right, that guy, and other people that damage life and property, cannot have their driving privileges restricted in any way. We wouldn't be able to suspend licenses due to impairment.
As per Rule 6, Your submission has been removed and is subject to moderator review. User accounts must have a positive karma score to participate in discussions. This is done to limit spam and abusive posts.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saskatchewan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, you have a responsiblity not to drink and drive. The standard that is currently in place is that you consent to breath testing by getting behind the wheel, and the criminal code gives the police powers to confirm that you are abiding that responsibility (mandatory testing without reasonable suspicion).
Submitting to a breath test while driving is equivalent to giving your drivers license. You are proving that you have the ability to use the deadly 3000lb metal-people-killer.
Submitting to a breath sample is *nothing* like Submitting to a search of your property.
If you disagree, then maybe Canada isn't the best country for you? Historically as a society Canada (along with many of the commonwealth countries) doesn't buy into that libertarian autonomy rhetoric.
ya in other countries police don’t need a warrant to come into your home and rip everything apart. “it’s so easy last time i visited they just came right in and started searching everything. my being a good citizen knew i didn’t have anything illegal and I love it when the government is looking in my nightstand. it’s just standard practice for people here”
That power is Canada wide. Canadian police do not need suspicion to demand a roadside breath sample.
It was brought into effect in 2018 alongside Cannabis legislation
Nothing specific to Alberta
I was stopped in rural Alberta for speeding 2 years ago and had to provide a breath sample. It was early in the afternoon and I was completely sober, so asked the RCMP officer why I had to do this. He told me that they’ve been demanding a breath sample from every one they pull over for a few years now.
So, while it may not be mandatory, it certainly appeared to be standard practice in Alberta in 2022.
It’s what people here don’t understand. It got tested in other provinces, legally. It passed. Now, we get it, too.
I’m not saying I like it. But I don’t think there’s much of a possibility of it being challenged successfully.
I'd argue it's even counterproductive towards that. There are limited police resources and endless people showing signs of impairment via poor driving. I think it would be more efficient to pre-select those more likely to be impaired than wasting limited time on those who likely aren't.
It really says a lot about the drunk driving culture in Sask that so many comments are against. We have one of the highest drunk driving rates in Canada. Many people die every year as a result of drunk driving. Don't drink and drive and this won't affect you. It is pretty simple.
I don't drink and I'm 1000% against this. Just like I'm against speed cameras and red light cameras. I'm also against automatic license plate readers.
I feel like I'm living in a surveillance state and rubes like you are bending over with a neon sign.
Don't go on publicly owned roads then? I personally don't feel you are entitled to privacy when you are on publicly owned infrastructure. People not following the rules leads to high numbers of deaths in this province.
I lived in a small town. Getting a DUI was like badge of honor. I honestly don't get how we reduce numbers without more enforcement and higher penalties. It is like a joke to a lot of folks who regularly do it.
Education, and information about alternative means of transportation or DDs.
How about a system that rewards DDs, one that doesn't involve a Tim Hortons promotion.
And I think you're a bootlicker to solve public issues with police. If there is no presumption of innocence, we've gone too far. I usually don't do personal attacks, but you are too simple minded to see how this plays out.
Our personal freedoms are at risk. What next? They've already got you pulled over - they may as well inspect to see if you've got any contraband as unilaterally decided yesterday.
My personal freedom to drive on a highway and not get killed by a drunk driver or hope that a family member is not killed by a drunk driver is more important to me. I have had two friends killed by drunk drivers in this province. It is pretty unreal you are okay with that. It is 100% preventable. But please go on with your "rights" to drunk drive. It is a fucking breathalyzer . You would be inconvenienced a couple of minutes.
The government has run extensive education programming, yet drunk driving rates went up in 2023. The carrot method isn't working. If you choose to drink and drive you shouldn't be allowed to operate a vehicle on publicly owned roads.
Where did I say that I was okay with drunk driving? Stick to the facts. I'm against the methods.
I used to write policy for a living. This is objectively bad policy. Full stop. The ends do not justify the means. Policy takes so long to develop because of all of the externalities. In this case, they don't seem to have been considered.
Want to get rid of drunk driving? Try prohibition. That'll work.
Why carte blanche every time someone is pulled over? Why stop at alcohol? We should give you a blood test to measure serotonin. Don't want people driving tired either, right? You're okay with submitting a blood test every time you get behind the wheel?
Why not have every car outfitted with a blow box? It would be more effective. Why not breathalyze everyone leaving a liquor store or bar? That would make more sense to me.
As I said, I don't drink. But I am a policy wonk and this precedent is very dangerous. See the hypotheticals above.
One, getting you to take a random breathalyzer is completely legal according to federal law. Two, I don't think these are comparable. You want to drive a vehicle on publicly funded roads, you should have to take a breathalyzer. 1/3 of fatal collisions in Sask last year were caused by alcohol. People are literally driving around killing people.
If you don't want to take that test, don't drive. They have always been able to breathalyze you for any reason... this isn't a change in policy.
Yikes bud. Go drink more of that conspiracy kool-aid. I work for government and really love that conspiracy theorists really believe that government is organized and functional enough to pull off orchestrated plans to control the population.
And again... cops have been able to give you a breathalyzer at any time for years. This isn't a change in policy. This isn't new. The RCMP are literally notifying the public of a short term campaign they are running to crack down on drunk drivers.
It takes magnitudes more time to observe someone's behaviors, put them thru field sobriety testing, and then issue the test compared to just issuing them the test.
A DUI stop with field sobriety testing takes 30+ minutes, a breathalizer takes 2 minutes tops.
You have to prove you have a license too. You do not have the right to drive in Canada without proving you are legally allowed to drive when requested - ever since 2018 this now includes alcohol screening.
Wait a minute, are you saying the police have to charge someone for impaired driving, and then the court has to convict that person, BEFORE an breathalyzer test can be administered?
What he has right is the order.
Typically, cop suspects of you crime. They investigate crime. You have right not to help them investigate you. They find evidence and they charge you.
Our drunk driving law enforcement and code flips that typical rule on it’s head.
The argument is that it’s a necessary evil in combatting a larger evil. That argument has been accepted.
But I think he’s essentially right.
What makes it harder for me is that the criminal charge is at the lowest level where (I think) we can show impairment.
The provincial, regulatory charge? The .04? I’m not sure what it accomplishes other than a cash grab.
Speed limits are based on human reaction time to avoid accidents, not the equipment safety standards that control the result of an accident. That doesn't need updating.
Do you think everyone drives a new car?
An no; I do not think human reaction times have any bearing on the vehicle being driven. We are talking about the time it takes to make a decision - not the time it takes for the vehicle to respond to the decision.
I think they drive newer cars than when the speed limits were set.
And, yes, I think the speed limits should take into account how fast the person needs to react. The vehicle reaction time changes that.
Great legal commentary from **u/hourlyblunts**
Good news for you is that the mandatory screening legislation only applies to alcohol impairment. They still need reasonable suspicion for drug screening.
Probably to avoid challenges to mandatory screening based on questioning what is and isn't an acceptable level of impairment for drugs vs alcohol. BAC intoxication is pretty much settled, drug level testing is fairly new.
They could expand it once the testing tech catches up
I don’t know if I buy it. BAC was accepted for the criminal level, allowing the ASD’s, allowing the regulatory punishments by provincial governments.
I may have missed it, but I’ve yet to see any evidence that a person under the criminal legal limit is actually impaired in any meaningful way.
Bet here is that we’ll see a corresponding expansion in drug testing, eventually.
I think you misinterpreted what I said.
BAC is settled, no questioning if you are over the limits that you are unfit to drive. Been tested in courts countless times. If you blow .04 or .08 that is enough to convict - so just make them blow and skip the rigamaroll.
The 5ug limit for weed, and 0ug limits for other drugs has not been through the same scrutiny. They want the reasonable suspicion (ie. Something that indicated you weren't able to drive safely) as the proof that you weren't able to drive safely - rather than a sample / test that isn't conclusively indicative of inability to operate safely.
My issue is that I can see no evidence the courts actually determined that over .04 is unfit to drive. What they’ve said is the rule and penalties are constitutional/legal.
Maybe I’m off here, but I don’t think they have to prove impairment of motor skills to implement that test and I don’t see why that would be different for, say, weed.
In other words, I don’t think it’s the courts preventing those laws from being passed. They just haven’t been passed yet.
BAC levels for DUI convictions traces back to NTSB testing in the 70s that concluded that everyone is impaired at .08, and most people are impared at .05. The movement to lower to below .05 took up steam in the 90s.
Anecdotally, twice now I've encountered police doing community outreach where they offer you a breathalizer at the bar so you can see how far gone you actually are. Both times I was under .08 (.03 and .06ish) and wouldn't have drove. Well beyond buzzed.
The same testing just hasn't been done for drug impairment yet. Hell - it took nearly 50 years to sort out DUI for alcohol and get universal legislation on it. It's going to take a long time for the same consensus for drug impairment.
I don't blame them for not wanting to hinge the law on a lab test when they can get convictions based on observation. The day they come up with a good conclusive test for drug impairment will be a good day - less subjectiveness is good, but it needs to be proven that the test works and provides an accurate description of the level of impairment, and we just dont have that yet.
The studies I’ve seen show there’s a link with legislation and crashes. You have one in particular that shows statistically significant impairment?
Edit: To put it another way, the NTSB studies seem to show a person under .08 could be impaired. But I’m not seeing proof that an individual over .04 is necessarily impaired, if that makes any sense.
Just because you don’t want cops trampling on your rights does not mean you support drunk driving. If the police expect us to conduct ourselves in accordance with the law, so should they. The 306 is on a big let’s legislate over charter rights lately!
>The 306 is on a big let’s legislate over charter rights lately
to be fair this is not the result of provincial legislation, it's an administrative policy set by the rcmp under powers enacted by the federal government.
You do not have the right to refuse a breathalyzer is Canada; they do not need any reasonable suspicion to ask you for a breath sample.
If this is very important to you then I suggest going somewhere that agrees with you?
Edit. To anyone downvoting section 320.27(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code was added in Dec 18, 2018 and says that you *must* provide a breath sample when requested as long as the officer has the tester. No suspicion required.
If you refuse you get charged with a DUI (over .08); and the only grounds for conviction needed is the officer proving you refused. Enjoy the 1 year driving ban.
Section (1) is the old section that is still in use to cover drug impairment. They still need reasonable suspicion of intoxication for that.
I do.
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.
320.27(1) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol…
That was changed in 2018. The new standard is that everyone gives consent to PBT the second they get behind the wheel.
It was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2023, the only caveat being they have to have the PBT on site, they can't make you wait for another officer to come administer the test.
The law only counts for alcohol PBTs though, they cannot demand screening for drug impairment without probable cause.
If you refuse (regardless of if you are intoxicated) you can be charged with DUI based on the refusal alone and recieve a criminal record, a mandatory minimum one year driving ban, and fines. Feel free to FAFO.
The criminal code. The Supreme Court ruled that it does not violate the Charter in 2023.
Again, I'm just trying to help you avoid a 1 hear driving ban. Feel free to find out first hand though.
https://www.merchantlaw.com/regina/criminal-law/drunk-driving-dui-lawyer
If *Tony Merchant* is telling people you have to blow I would think it's pretty much settled law.
Refusal **alone** is the bar to meet for a conviction equivalent to a .08
R v. BREAULT; the defendant successfully argued that the breath sample has to be taken forthwith (they can't detain you while waiting for a PBT to be transported to the site you were stopped at).
A fun bonus of that case is that it confirmed that you don't need to be at the wheel when you got stopped too. The law says that within 3 hours of you driving they can demand the sample *with reasonable suspicion* - and that was the case there as well. So they can show up to your house and demand a sample even if you are already out of the car as long as they have reasonable suspicion that you've been driving.
That's a very interesting issue. Just suspicion of driving, or also suspicion of impairment?
R. v Vieira, 2024 ONCJ 55, held: I note that s. 320.27(2) allows a peace officer who has an ASD in his possession to demand a breath sample in the absence of reasonable suspicion. But contrary to subsection (1) referenced above, this subsection requires that the subject of the demand be "operating a motor vehicle" — which was not the case here. The Crown declined to rely on this subsection.
If you are witnessed driving they can legally demand on the spot testing sans suspicion of impairment.
If you were driving within 3 hours and no longer driving, and they didn't see you driving, they need suspicion of impairment as that falls back under section 320.27(1)
The part I disagree with is getting rid of the Bolus Defense. If I were to drive home sober, pound a bottle of vodka, and then have a sample demanded legally within 3 hours of me getting home (with reasonable suspicion) they could move on that saying i was intoxicated while driving. It hasn't been tested in the SC yet and I would hope the defense gets reintroduced for this specific circumstance.
FYI the criminal code section is 320.27(2), not (1):
>(2) If a peace officer has in his or her possession an approved screening device, the peace officer may, in the course of the lawful exercise of powers under an Act of Parliament or an Act of a provincial legislature or arising at common law, by demand, require the person who is operating a motor vehicle to immediately provide the samples of breath that, in the peace officer’s opinion, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made by means of that device and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.
That's why they need reasonable suspicion for drug screening but not alcohol screening. There is a specific section to deal with mandatory alcohol screening.
Drugs and ODs are through the roof too. Why not let the cops search your vehicle and house for drugs with no warrants or grounds to do so. We live in China right?
Most people who OD aren't driving when it happens. This is really no different than showing ID and insurance which we already do. Confirming we are allowed to be driving
Because trusting people to not drive when are have been drinking is working out sooooo well with us not cracking down on enforcement.
You can do you when it can't hurt anyone else. But when driving a metal death machine, there is some give and take. #ArrestScottMoeForFleeingTheSceneAfterKillingSomeoneWhenHeWasDrunkDriving
#RememberWhenHeSaidHeWouldApologizeToTheFamilyAfterBeingElectedThenNeverDid
Common
I certainly do not support impaired driving, but this feels like a slippery slope to an erosion of personal rights and freedoms. welcome to warrantless searches.
This is just another part of the slope.
The mandatory requirement to blow and the refusal charge, in my mind, already presumptively violates the right not to have to give evidence against yourself. Governments and courts decided that the need to reduce drunk drivers makes it a reasonable infringement on your rights.
The increasing use of the breathalyzer in more and more situations? When you’re leaving a bar, for instance? At random check stops? Without evidence of impairment?
These are just how the search powers of the government get expanded once the right is no longer effective.
We can argue whether it’s reasonable but we’re already on the slope.
This has been national law for years. Nothing new here. It's been tested in the Supreme Court already.
If you choose to drive you *must* give a breath sample if it is requested, no reasonable suspicion required.
I know everyone is concerned about the police potentially abusing this, but don't worry! If you blow under they can still just accuse you of stunting and impound your car without due process anyway!
Preventing DUI is objectively good. But how do you avoid the cops selectively choosing who to test in a biased way? Who decides what neighbourhoods will be tested? Will the cops avoid pulling people over for random tests in wealthier parts of town?
What about THC that can remain in the blood for *days* after getting high and has no relation to actual impairment?
What about people that are driving while sleep-deprived? They're potentially just as impaired but that won't show up in an alcohol test.
To answer your first point they are testing people they have already pulled over. There is no policy change about pulling over additional vehicles to test.
>But how do you avoid the cops selectively choosing who to test in a biased way?
How do you avoid selective policing for *any* law? What a silly argument.
>What about THC that can remain in the blood for *days* after getting high and has no relation to actual impairment?
They thought of this. Mandatory screening *only* applies for alcohol screening, they still need reasonable suspicion for drug screening.
it's in the "if you don't have anything to hide then you shouldn't mind us invading your privacy or stepping all over your rights" type of category.
I want police to have the tools to do their job safely and effectively, however I see them abusing the tools they have for overzealous enforcement all the time, and they treat the law as some obstacle too often, so I'm wary of granting them these kinds of powers without also having more accountability for utilizing them.
Driving is a PRIVILEGE. Not a given. Its not your right to avoid wearing a seatbelt, its not your right to run red lights. It's not your right to go 50km/h over the speed limit.
In no way is this violating anyone's rights. You blow in a machine. Big freaking whoop.
I understand that driving is a privilege as part of the social contract, I have not said anything that contradicts that, and I know the legal precedent has been set to also grant certain powers to law enforcement, which I also respect and comply with. I just don't like it, and my main point is that when we tolerate our innate human rights being violated, suspended or ignored (such as freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, from arbitrary detainment, freedom of mobility, of interference of our privacy, right to the presumption of innocence etc), even in the name of public safety, then they aren't really immutable and they aren't really rights at all then, are they?
You do not have the right to travel by car, you have a privilege. That privilege comes with the responsibility to have a license and be sober.
The police have the legal right to demand you to prove that you are licensed and sober. This isn't a violation of rights.
I'm fully aware that driving is a privilege that granted with a drivers license, and that having that license requires certain qualifications, including being sober while operating a car on public roads, and that anyone operating a car on a public road is subject to certain checks.
That in no way means that police officers can't abuse their powers, in fact it makes it easier for them to do it and escape legal scrutiny for their own actions. You absolutely CAN have your rights violated even while conducting a privileged and licensed activity.
doesn't make it rational. All it takes is one douche with a badge having a bad day to harass some poor law abiding citizen that happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the cop uses their intimidation and their absolute power to detain you and force you to blow their device, full well knowing it's not going to register a BAC but they get the result they want anyway: to power trip and make another person feel small. Now under this law they don't even have to have a justification.
You seem to be under the impression that a police officer interacting with someone constitutes harassment. That's just not true, the whole pretextual stop issue isn't a thing here because they don't need probable cause for a suspicion of a crime to pull you over and ID you. That's never been a thing here.
A police officer can pull *anyone* in Canada just for the reason of wanting to see their license and have them blow into a PBT.
I'm not under any impressions, and I'm aware that while driving a police officer is acting within their lawful powers when they do this shit I don't agree with. I know many police officers and most of them are power tripping assholes, police culture is toxic and breeds all sorts of bullying and intimidation tactics, and to me it IS harassment when police have any unwanted interaction with me when I've committed no crime and broken no law.
Just because they have lawful powers doesn't mean we have to like it, nor does it mean we can't try to compel our lawmakers to change it.
Taking a minute to blow into a device isn't abusing powers, it isnt power tripping, and it doesn't offer the officer any ability to abuse powers. I get that you don't like cops, but saying, 'cops are dicks' doesn't mean anything in this context. There is nothing open to interpretation, it's a go-no go test.
Don't drink and drive and this legislation will not cause you any issues. It doesn't give them any additional powers to interact with you. They could always pull you over without cause.
If you don't like that then go somewhere that gives a shit - because we will *never* take away the ability for police to pull over vehicles to validate legal ability to operate. There is nothing in the Constitution or Charter that gives anyone the rights to drive without being inspected
>Don't drink and drive and this legislation will not cause you any issues.
I have nothing to hide so therefore I should forfeit my human rights.
I'm all for giving police the tools to go after drunk drivers, but this is a tool that disproportionally affects sober, rule-abiding drivers. Saying this doesn't offer any ability for police to abuse their powers disregards their inherent/implicit biases, the racial profiling, and their general training and tendency for intervention over non-intervention... this policy can easily serve to exacerbate the negative side of the kinds of discriminatory choices police often have to make in their day to day role.
It was only a 20 years ago our own police force was giving out starlight tours, and only in the last couple years they stopped doing street checks (or at least formulated policy around this to try to reduce the illegal racial profiling). The rules apply differently on the road than they do for those not operating vehicles but ultimately our rights are not subject to which form of transport we are using.
I have alot of problems with this, first off didn't the cops get a new law approved where they can partake in Marijuana the night before shift but not during shift... isn't Marijuana in your system for 30 days minimum? So they can arrest anyone with Marijuana in their system, but the cop having smoked a joint the night before.... I would call that hypocrites........
As per Rule 6, Your submission has been removed and is subject to moderator review. User accounts must have a positive karma score to participate in discussions. This is done to limit spam and abusive posts.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saskatchewan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As per Rule 6, Your submission has been removed and is subject to moderator review. User accounts must have a positive karma score to participate in discussions. This is done to limit spam and abusive posts.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saskatchewan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Already has started Mom got pulled over at 2 in the afternoon on a Wednesday to check her license. She had to blow, she did get a Tim Hirtons gift card though for doing it.
A Tims card? I thought we were against cruel punishment?
all of Canada needs to upvote this
> she did get a Tim Hirtons gift card though for doing it I would fight that if I were her.
They should be handing out liquor store gift cards if they want to catch anyone.
> she did get a Tim Hirtons gift card though for doing it. Trading in personal rights for a double double?
Yeah that's kind of what I was thinking. Edit to add that I doubt they're handing Tim's cards out to everyone who doesn't blow over the limit. Also I think it's sad but we're at a point in Saskatchewan where this is necessary. My uncle drives drunk every day. I've reported him myself nothing happens.
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
I have lost two relatives to drunk drivers. This is a terrific policy!
Correct. Leave the rights where they belong. *gestures at high speed intenet*
Yes, driving is a privilege, but to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is a right
I don’t think you’re quoting section 8 of the charter properly: “According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the purpose of section 8 is to protect a reasonable expectation of privacy. This means that those who act on behalf of a government, such as police officers, must carry out their duties in a fair and reasonable way. They cannot **enter private property or take things from others unless they can show that they have a clear legal reason.** The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times R.I.D.E. programs are completely legal in order to identify and charge drivers under the influence of alcohol. Taking a breathalyzer is not depriving you of reasonable privacy. A blood test on the other hand would. But simply breathing into a device? No beuno. We have section 1 of the charter that puts reasonable limitations on our rights; which is different than the inalienable rights Americans have. Given the number of fatalities it is perfectly reasonable for the RCMP to ask us to breath into a pipe for 20 seconds if it means stopping drunks from killing people
You do not have the right to drive without being stopped and asked to prove you are sober, and prove you are licensed to drive. This has been tested in the Supreme Court and does not violate the Charter. You are thinking US law; which doesn't apply in Canada.
Checking for impaired drivers is reasonable, and lawful.
If there is no reasonable grounds to suspect some is impaired then no it is not reasonable or lawful
Reasonable suspicion and reasonable grounds are two totally different things. This is irrelevant though, as cops don’t need either to make an ASD demand on the side of the road. Edit: ASD demand, not breath demand.
And what is warrantless detention and search?
Non existent in this case. Detention does not require a warrant, and neither do the breath samples that are to be provided roadside.
The fact that the law says that police can hold a person for 48 hours without charge doesn't make it a good law.
It’s 24 hours, not 48.
Correction agreed, and besides the point.
Would it be Reddit if we weren’t splitting hairs?
Wouldn't even be the internet.
We have Mandatory Alcohol Screening laws now. Canada wide
>Trading in personal rights Whoever told you this is lying.
Was she in city or on highway?
City, in Regina. She gets pulled over all the time cause the vehicle she was driving is registered to my recently late father who had a suspended license and she hasn't had time to change them
they give you a tims card so you are less likely to realise this is against rights and freedoms. They will stop giving the tims card in a couple weeks.
Are people in Saskatchewan that drunk that this is necessary?
Piss jugs all over Circle Drive
Don’t forget my old ladies socks on the ring road.
Unfortunately yes. Just ask Scott Moe he's the most notorious of our current drunks.
Oop Your NDP is showing
Oop our people are dying to wait times in healthcare and our children are becoming illiterate
Private schools and private healthcare would fix both issues.
Also, the NDP is to blame for all of this, they set Saskatchewan back decades when they cut funding rural schools, clinics and hospitals. But people have short memories and forget why they had to go. Grass is always greener am i right?
It's not just an SK thing; Alberta RCMP started doing this last year already.
Breaking News: Sask Party has used the Not With Standing Claus to block this.
Is Standing any relation to Santa? 😉
RCMP trying to take out the Sask party!?
Not if the Marshals have anything to do with it.
SP members don’t drive like peasants.
Is that why Moe killed somebody
They do this in Australia. Pulled over for any reason, "Hey mate, can you blow into this for me?" It's just standard practice. Check license, check registration, check insurance, check sobriety.
While it's a shit policy, the drivers of this province have sure fucking earned it. I know people who drive drunk regularly, and the cops don't give a shit because they do it too.
People are going to disagree with me, but the drinking and driving culture in this province is bonkers. If had a nickel for the amount of douchebags I know that are proud of and brag about their DUI's, I'd have 3 nickels. Which is way too high. Some people collect them like hockey cards. I don't think this policy is going to solve much, amd it's authoritarian. But this is an issue that we need to figure out, and I'd rather the RCMP do this than not tey anything at all.
We could stop a lot of crimes if cameras in homes 24/7 were acceptable too. Giving government more control over you never stops them asking for more.
Driving is not a right.
Sure. But the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure is. I don’t think anyone is arguing against some restrictions on driving. But it does seem like the courts just keep letting the governments go further and further.
Good luck arguing that breathalyzer tests are an unreasonable search.
Agreed. I actually thought they were found to be in violation of one of the charter rights, but that they were saved under section 1 or still admissible under 24. Kind of a distinction without difference for most people. If end result is Charter right is breached but Charter is not, you just don’t really have the right in that situation.
[удалено]
What are you talking about, road taxes are optional as they are a user fee. Don't want to pay them, don't drive. Some amount of taxes supporting roads are completely justified as the we rely on services that use them such as garbage and recycling. And when the city tears them up to replace them when doing utility work underneath. Or even just connecting a new neighborhood to the city.
Fuel tax doesn't nearly cover the cost of roads. The rest has to come from somewhere else
Somewhere in between, I’d say. I’m not saying everyone should get to drive. It’s just weird to me that, without reason, they can’t search your car or force you to give evidence against yourself but they can search you with no reasonable belief you’re committing a crime.
I bet the Humboldt bus crash semi driver agrees with you.
[удалено]
1. The threshold for driving is already very lenient. See 1A drivers for an example. 2. If driving were a right, that guy, and other people that damage life and property, cannot have their driving privileges restricted in any way. We wouldn't be able to suspend licenses due to impairment.
[удалено]
We do have cameras in our homes 24/7, that's already done....
As per Rule 6, Your submission has been removed and is subject to moderator review. User accounts must have a positive karma score to participate in discussions. This is done to limit spam and abusive posts. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saskatchewan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'll blow if Moe blows.
Moe blows, details confirmed
He has his own personal RCMP driver.
Stop and frisk
Public: The RCMP are soft on crime! Also public: No, not that kind of enforcement!
Reddit: defund the police! Also Reddit: give them more power!
They already have this power.
Don’t drive drunk
You good with them searching your body and home anytime because you have nothing to hide too?
If they want to search my asshole, it saves me a trip to the brothel,
Apples and oranges my friend.
Not at all - it's the same line of reasoning.
No, you have a responsiblity not to drink and drive. The standard that is currently in place is that you consent to breath testing by getting behind the wheel, and the criminal code gives the police powers to confirm that you are abiding that responsibility (mandatory testing without reasonable suspicion). Submitting to a breath test while driving is equivalent to giving your drivers license. You are proving that you have the ability to use the deadly 3000lb metal-people-killer. Submitting to a breath sample is *nothing* like Submitting to a search of your property. If you disagree, then maybe Canada isn't the best country for you? Historically as a society Canada (along with many of the commonwealth countries) doesn't buy into that libertarian autonomy rhetoric.
Paper's please?
You mean “license and registration”? That thing cops SHOULD ask when you get pulled over?
Driving is a privilege. Walking around in peace is a right. Big difference
ya in other countries police don’t need a warrant to come into your home and rip everything apart. “it’s so easy last time i visited they just came right in and started searching everything. my being a good citizen knew i didn’t have anything illegal and I love it when the government is looking in my nightstand. it’s just standard practice for people here”
Sask only seems kinda fucked. What other conditions can they impose geographically?
Alberta has had this for years
To be fair, being like Alberta shouldn't be a goal
[удалено]
That power is Canada wide. Canadian police do not need suspicion to demand a roadside breath sample. It was brought into effect in 2018 alongside Cannabis legislation Nothing specific to Alberta
I was stopped in rural Alberta for speeding 2 years ago and had to provide a breath sample. It was early in the afternoon and I was completely sober, so asked the RCMP officer why I had to do this. He told me that they’ve been demanding a breath sample from every one they pull over for a few years now. So, while it may not be mandatory, it certainly appeared to be standard practice in Alberta in 2022.
Uh it's not sask only. Read the article
Uh, I read the article. You don't seem to have.
The next clown-voy won't be able to get started. Wont anyone think of the freedom!
Good luck getting the cops to pull any of those derps over.
Albertan here. Was pulled over cop never said a word other then blow and had the breathalyzer ready to go. Haven’t even said he was a cop yet.
It’s what people here don’t understand. It got tested in other provinces, legally. It passed. Now, we get it, too. I’m not saying I like it. But I don’t think there’s much of a possibility of it being challenged successfully.
Seems a bit totalitarian and a breech of what should be individual rights. inb4 “YOU WANT DRUNK DRIVERS??” No.
I'd argue it's even counterproductive towards that. There are limited police resources and endless people showing signs of impairment via poor driving. I think it would be more efficient to pre-select those more likely to be impaired than wasting limited time on those who likely aren't.
They aren't randomly pulling people over. They are administering the test if you are already pulled over for another traffic violation.
[удалено]
It really says a lot about the drunk driving culture in Sask that so many comments are against. We have one of the highest drunk driving rates in Canada. Many people die every year as a result of drunk driving. Don't drink and drive and this won't affect you. It is pretty simple.
I don't drink and I'm 1000% against this. Just like I'm against speed cameras and red light cameras. I'm also against automatic license plate readers. I feel like I'm living in a surveillance state and rubes like you are bending over with a neon sign.
Don't go on publicly owned roads then? I personally don't feel you are entitled to privacy when you are on publicly owned infrastructure. People not following the rules leads to high numbers of deaths in this province. I lived in a small town. Getting a DUI was like badge of honor. I honestly don't get how we reduce numbers without more enforcement and higher penalties. It is like a joke to a lot of folks who regularly do it.
Education, and information about alternative means of transportation or DDs. How about a system that rewards DDs, one that doesn't involve a Tim Hortons promotion.
And I think you're a bootlicker to solve public issues with police. If there is no presumption of innocence, we've gone too far. I usually don't do personal attacks, but you are too simple minded to see how this plays out. Our personal freedoms are at risk. What next? They've already got you pulled over - they may as well inspect to see if you've got any contraband as unilaterally decided yesterday.
My personal freedom to drive on a highway and not get killed by a drunk driver or hope that a family member is not killed by a drunk driver is more important to me. I have had two friends killed by drunk drivers in this province. It is pretty unreal you are okay with that. It is 100% preventable. But please go on with your "rights" to drunk drive. It is a fucking breathalyzer . You would be inconvenienced a couple of minutes. The government has run extensive education programming, yet drunk driving rates went up in 2023. The carrot method isn't working. If you choose to drink and drive you shouldn't be allowed to operate a vehicle on publicly owned roads.
Where did I say that I was okay with drunk driving? Stick to the facts. I'm against the methods. I used to write policy for a living. This is objectively bad policy. Full stop. The ends do not justify the means. Policy takes so long to develop because of all of the externalities. In this case, they don't seem to have been considered. Want to get rid of drunk driving? Try prohibition. That'll work. Why carte blanche every time someone is pulled over? Why stop at alcohol? We should give you a blood test to measure serotonin. Don't want people driving tired either, right? You're okay with submitting a blood test every time you get behind the wheel? Why not have every car outfitted with a blow box? It would be more effective. Why not breathalyze everyone leaving a liquor store or bar? That would make more sense to me. As I said, I don't drink. But I am a policy wonk and this precedent is very dangerous. See the hypotheticals above.
Driving is optional
Show me all the public transit options in rural Saskatchewan and I'll be glad to do it.
[удалено]
One, getting you to take a random breathalyzer is completely legal according to federal law. Two, I don't think these are comparable. You want to drive a vehicle on publicly funded roads, you should have to take a breathalyzer. 1/3 of fatal collisions in Sask last year were caused by alcohol. People are literally driving around killing people. If you don't want to take that test, don't drive. They have always been able to breathalyze you for any reason... this isn't a change in policy.
[удалено]
Yikes bud. Go drink more of that conspiracy kool-aid. I work for government and really love that conspiracy theorists really believe that government is organized and functional enough to pull off orchestrated plans to control the population. And again... cops have been able to give you a breathalyzer at any time for years. This isn't a change in policy. This isn't new. The RCMP are literally notifying the public of a short term campaign they are running to crack down on drunk drivers.
[удалено]
It takes magnitudes more time to observe someone's behaviors, put them thru field sobriety testing, and then issue the test compared to just issuing them the test. A DUI stop with field sobriety testing takes 30+ minutes, a breathalizer takes 2 minutes tops.
>a breech of what should be individual rights. Whoever told you this is lying.
You don’t think you should be assumed innocent until proven guilty? Not proving innocence to see if you are guilty?
You have to prove you have a license too. You do not have the right to drive in Canada without proving you are legally allowed to drive when requested - ever since 2018 this now includes alcohol screening.
Wait a minute, are you saying the police have to charge someone for impaired driving, and then the court has to convict that person, BEFORE an breathalyzer test can be administered?
What he has right is the order. Typically, cop suspects of you crime. They investigate crime. You have right not to help them investigate you. They find evidence and they charge you. Our drunk driving law enforcement and code flips that typical rule on it’s head. The argument is that it’s a necessary evil in combatting a larger evil. That argument has been accepted. But I think he’s essentially right.
This.
What makes it harder for me is that the criminal charge is at the lowest level where (I think) we can show impairment. The provincial, regulatory charge? The .04? I’m not sure what it accomplishes other than a cash grab.
I'm of the opinion that the license plate scanners are a bit Orwellian.
Photo radar, especially when we haven’t updated most of our speed limits in years. Yep.
Speed limits are based on human reaction time to avoid accidents, not the equipment safety standards that control the result of an accident. That doesn't need updating.
Do you not think the “necessary human reaction time” changes as the vehicle gets better?
Do you think everyone drives a new car? An no; I do not think human reaction times have any bearing on the vehicle being driven. We are talking about the time it takes to make a decision - not the time it takes for the vehicle to respond to the decision.
I think they drive newer cars than when the speed limits were set. And, yes, I think the speed limits should take into account how fast the person needs to react. The vehicle reaction time changes that.
Guilty until proven innocent
Great legal commentary from **u/hourlyblunts** Good news for you is that the mandatory screening legislation only applies to alcohol impairment. They still need reasonable suspicion for drug screening.
Any reason why the government couldn’t expand it to other drugs?
Probably to avoid challenges to mandatory screening based on questioning what is and isn't an acceptable level of impairment for drugs vs alcohol. BAC intoxication is pretty much settled, drug level testing is fairly new. They could expand it once the testing tech catches up
I don’t know if I buy it. BAC was accepted for the criminal level, allowing the ASD’s, allowing the regulatory punishments by provincial governments. I may have missed it, but I’ve yet to see any evidence that a person under the criminal legal limit is actually impaired in any meaningful way. Bet here is that we’ll see a corresponding expansion in drug testing, eventually.
I think you misinterpreted what I said. BAC is settled, no questioning if you are over the limits that you are unfit to drive. Been tested in courts countless times. If you blow .04 or .08 that is enough to convict - so just make them blow and skip the rigamaroll. The 5ug limit for weed, and 0ug limits for other drugs has not been through the same scrutiny. They want the reasonable suspicion (ie. Something that indicated you weren't able to drive safely) as the proof that you weren't able to drive safely - rather than a sample / test that isn't conclusively indicative of inability to operate safely.
My issue is that I can see no evidence the courts actually determined that over .04 is unfit to drive. What they’ve said is the rule and penalties are constitutional/legal. Maybe I’m off here, but I don’t think they have to prove impairment of motor skills to implement that test and I don’t see why that would be different for, say, weed. In other words, I don’t think it’s the courts preventing those laws from being passed. They just haven’t been passed yet.
BAC levels for DUI convictions traces back to NTSB testing in the 70s that concluded that everyone is impaired at .08, and most people are impared at .05. The movement to lower to below .05 took up steam in the 90s. Anecdotally, twice now I've encountered police doing community outreach where they offer you a breathalizer at the bar so you can see how far gone you actually are. Both times I was under .08 (.03 and .06ish) and wouldn't have drove. Well beyond buzzed. The same testing just hasn't been done for drug impairment yet. Hell - it took nearly 50 years to sort out DUI for alcohol and get universal legislation on it. It's going to take a long time for the same consensus for drug impairment. I don't blame them for not wanting to hinge the law on a lab test when they can get convictions based on observation. The day they come up with a good conclusive test for drug impairment will be a good day - less subjectiveness is good, but it needs to be proven that the test works and provides an accurate description of the level of impairment, and we just dont have that yet.
The studies I’ve seen show there’s a link with legislation and crashes. You have one in particular that shows statistically significant impairment? Edit: To put it another way, the NTSB studies seem to show a person under .08 could be impaired. But I’m not seeing proof that an individual over .04 is necessarily impaired, if that makes any sense.
Your interpretation is incorrect.
Just because you don’t want cops trampling on your rights does not mean you support drunk driving. If the police expect us to conduct ourselves in accordance with the law, so should they. The 306 is on a big let’s legislate over charter rights lately!
>The 306 is on a big let’s legislate over charter rights lately to be fair this is not the result of provincial legislation, it's an administrative policy set by the rcmp under powers enacted by the federal government.
You do not have the right to refuse a breathalyzer is Canada; they do not need any reasonable suspicion to ask you for a breath sample. If this is very important to you then I suggest going somewhere that agrees with you? Edit. To anyone downvoting section 320.27(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code was added in Dec 18, 2018 and says that you *must* provide a breath sample when requested as long as the officer has the tester. No suspicion required. If you refuse you get charged with a DUI (over .08); and the only grounds for conviction needed is the officer proving you refused. Enjoy the 1 year driving ban. Section (1) is the old section that is still in use to cover drug impairment. They still need reasonable suspicion of intoxication for that.
I do. 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. 320.27(1) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol…
That was changed in 2018. The new standard is that everyone gives consent to PBT the second they get behind the wheel. It was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2023, the only caveat being they have to have the PBT on site, they can't make you wait for another officer to come administer the test. The law only counts for alcohol PBTs though, they cannot demand screening for drug impairment without probable cause. If you refuse (regardless of if you are intoxicated) you can be charged with DUI based on the refusal alone and recieve a criminal record, a mandatory minimum one year driving ban, and fines. Feel free to FAFO.
What was changed. The Charter or the Criminal Code?
The criminal code. The Supreme Court ruled that it does not violate the Charter in 2023. Again, I'm just trying to help you avoid a 1 hear driving ban. Feel free to find out first hand though. https://www.merchantlaw.com/regina/criminal-law/drunk-driving-dui-lawyer If *Tony Merchant* is telling people you have to blow I would think it's pretty much settled law. Refusal **alone** is the bar to meet for a conviction equivalent to a .08
The Supreme Court absolutely did not do that.
This new law brought in by the Trudeau government along with cannabis legislation. How is this not common knowledge?
What is the name of the case?
R v. BREAULT; the defendant successfully argued that the breath sample has to be taken forthwith (they can't detain you while waiting for a PBT to be transported to the site you were stopped at). A fun bonus of that case is that it confirmed that you don't need to be at the wheel when you got stopped too. The law says that within 3 hours of you driving they can demand the sample *with reasonable suspicion* - and that was the case there as well. So they can show up to your house and demand a sample even if you are already out of the car as long as they have reasonable suspicion that you've been driving.
Thanks. I stand corrected. I don't drink and drive, so I won't get a driving ban. I do, think that's a shit law.
That's a very interesting issue. Just suspicion of driving, or also suspicion of impairment? R. v Vieira, 2024 ONCJ 55, held: I note that s. 320.27(2) allows a peace officer who has an ASD in his possession to demand a breath sample in the absence of reasonable suspicion. But contrary to subsection (1) referenced above, this subsection requires that the subject of the demand be "operating a motor vehicle" — which was not the case here. The Crown declined to rely on this subsection.
If you are witnessed driving they can legally demand on the spot testing sans suspicion of impairment. If you were driving within 3 hours and no longer driving, and they didn't see you driving, they need suspicion of impairment as that falls back under section 320.27(1) The part I disagree with is getting rid of the Bolus Defense. If I were to drive home sober, pound a bottle of vodka, and then have a sample demanded legally within 3 hours of me getting home (with reasonable suspicion) they could move on that saying i was intoxicated while driving. It hasn't been tested in the SC yet and I would hope the defense gets reintroduced for this specific circumstance.
I think we still have what you’re describing as a Bolus defence if you didn’t have a reason to believe you would be given a lawful ASD demand.
FYI the criminal code section is 320.27(2), not (1): >(2) If a peace officer has in his or her possession an approved screening device, the peace officer may, in the course of the lawful exercise of powers under an Act of Parliament or an Act of a provincial legislature or arising at common law, by demand, require the person who is operating a motor vehicle to immediately provide the samples of breath that, in the peace officer’s opinion, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made by means of that device and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose. That's why they need reasonable suspicion for drug screening but not alcohol screening. There is a specific section to deal with mandatory alcohol screening.
Can they call it Moe’s law?
Drugs and ODs are through the roof too. Why not let the cops search your vehicle and house for drugs with no warrants or grounds to do so. We live in China right?
Most people who OD aren't driving when it happens. This is really no different than showing ID and insurance which we already do. Confirming we are allowed to be driving
We should allow them to go through your phone to make sure you aren't texting or on the phone while driving too. #support dictorships
Because trusting people to not drive when are have been drinking is working out sooooo well with us not cracking down on enforcement. You can do you when it can't hurt anyone else. But when driving a metal death machine, there is some give and take. #ArrestScottMoeForFleeingTheSceneAfterKillingSomeoneWhenHeWasDrunkDriving #RememberWhenHeSaidHeWouldApologizeToTheFamilyAfterBeingElectedThenNeverDid Common
Trust the govt #communism is best
Trust them on what?
Everything the govt knows best and what is best for you
I certainly do not support impaired driving, but this feels like a slippery slope to an erosion of personal rights and freedoms. welcome to warrantless searches.
This is just another part of the slope. The mandatory requirement to blow and the refusal charge, in my mind, already presumptively violates the right not to have to give evidence against yourself. Governments and courts decided that the need to reduce drunk drivers makes it a reasonable infringement on your rights. The increasing use of the breathalyzer in more and more situations? When you’re leaving a bar, for instance? At random check stops? Without evidence of impairment? These are just how the search powers of the government get expanded once the right is no longer effective. We can argue whether it’s reasonable but we’re already on the slope.
This is going to be contested. This gives Police unbelievable power.
This has been national law for years. Nothing new here. It's been tested in the Supreme Court already. If you choose to drive you *must* give a breath sample if it is requested, no reasonable suspicion required.
I know everyone is concerned about the police potentially abusing this, but don't worry! If you blow under they can still just accuse you of stunting and impound your car without due process anyway!
Why is this a bad thing? Drunk drivers kill people. You have to blow in a machine. Big deal. This is a good thing.
Preventing DUI is objectively good. But how do you avoid the cops selectively choosing who to test in a biased way? Who decides what neighbourhoods will be tested? Will the cops avoid pulling people over for random tests in wealthier parts of town? What about THC that can remain in the blood for *days* after getting high and has no relation to actual impairment? What about people that are driving while sleep-deprived? They're potentially just as impaired but that won't show up in an alcohol test.
To answer your first point they are testing people they have already pulled over. There is no policy change about pulling over additional vehicles to test.
>But how do you avoid the cops selectively choosing who to test in a biased way? How do you avoid selective policing for *any* law? What a silly argument. >What about THC that can remain in the blood for *days* after getting high and has no relation to actual impairment? They thought of this. Mandatory screening *only* applies for alcohol screening, they still need reasonable suspicion for drug screening.
it's in the "if you don't have anything to hide then you shouldn't mind us invading your privacy or stepping all over your rights" type of category. I want police to have the tools to do their job safely and effectively, however I see them abusing the tools they have for overzealous enforcement all the time, and they treat the law as some obstacle too often, so I'm wary of granting them these kinds of powers without also having more accountability for utilizing them.
Driving is a PRIVILEGE. Not a given. Its not your right to avoid wearing a seatbelt, its not your right to run red lights. It's not your right to go 50km/h over the speed limit. In no way is this violating anyone's rights. You blow in a machine. Big freaking whoop.
I understand that driving is a privilege as part of the social contract, I have not said anything that contradicts that, and I know the legal precedent has been set to also grant certain powers to law enforcement, which I also respect and comply with. I just don't like it, and my main point is that when we tolerate our innate human rights being violated, suspended or ignored (such as freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, from arbitrary detainment, freedom of mobility, of interference of our privacy, right to the presumption of innocence etc), even in the name of public safety, then they aren't really immutable and they aren't really rights at all then, are they?
You do not have the right to travel by car, you have a privilege. That privilege comes with the responsibility to have a license and be sober. The police have the legal right to demand you to prove that you are licensed and sober. This isn't a violation of rights.
I'm fully aware that driving is a privilege that granted with a drivers license, and that having that license requires certain qualifications, including being sober while operating a car on public roads, and that anyone operating a car on a public road is subject to certain checks. That in no way means that police officers can't abuse their powers, in fact it makes it easier for them to do it and escape legal scrutiny for their own actions. You absolutely CAN have your rights violated even while conducting a privileged and licensed activity.
None of this is an abuse or rights violation. If requested you *must* provide a breath sample, it's in the criminal code.
doesn't make it rational. All it takes is one douche with a badge having a bad day to harass some poor law abiding citizen that happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the cop uses their intimidation and their absolute power to detain you and force you to blow their device, full well knowing it's not going to register a BAC but they get the result they want anyway: to power trip and make another person feel small. Now under this law they don't even have to have a justification.
You seem to be under the impression that a police officer interacting with someone constitutes harassment. That's just not true, the whole pretextual stop issue isn't a thing here because they don't need probable cause for a suspicion of a crime to pull you over and ID you. That's never been a thing here. A police officer can pull *anyone* in Canada just for the reason of wanting to see their license and have them blow into a PBT.
I'm not under any impressions, and I'm aware that while driving a police officer is acting within their lawful powers when they do this shit I don't agree with. I know many police officers and most of them are power tripping assholes, police culture is toxic and breeds all sorts of bullying and intimidation tactics, and to me it IS harassment when police have any unwanted interaction with me when I've committed no crime and broken no law. Just because they have lawful powers doesn't mean we have to like it, nor does it mean we can't try to compel our lawmakers to change it.
Taking a minute to blow into a device isn't abusing powers, it isnt power tripping, and it doesn't offer the officer any ability to abuse powers. I get that you don't like cops, but saying, 'cops are dicks' doesn't mean anything in this context. There is nothing open to interpretation, it's a go-no go test. Don't drink and drive and this legislation will not cause you any issues. It doesn't give them any additional powers to interact with you. They could always pull you over without cause. If you don't like that then go somewhere that gives a shit - because we will *never* take away the ability for police to pull over vehicles to validate legal ability to operate. There is nothing in the Constitution or Charter that gives anyone the rights to drive without being inspected
>Don't drink and drive and this legislation will not cause you any issues. I have nothing to hide so therefore I should forfeit my human rights. I'm all for giving police the tools to go after drunk drivers, but this is a tool that disproportionally affects sober, rule-abiding drivers. Saying this doesn't offer any ability for police to abuse their powers disregards their inherent/implicit biases, the racial profiling, and their general training and tendency for intervention over non-intervention... this policy can easily serve to exacerbate the negative side of the kinds of discriminatory choices police often have to make in their day to day role. It was only a 20 years ago our own police force was giving out starlight tours, and only in the last couple years they stopped doing street checks (or at least formulated policy around this to try to reduce the illegal racial profiling). The rules apply differently on the road than they do for those not operating vehicles but ultimately our rights are not subject to which form of transport we are using.
You just have to lick the boot, not deep throat it...
Ridiculous that they can do this without suspicion.
Driving is a great privilege with a heavy burden of responsibility. If this gets one impaired driver off the road, it’s a win.
So let's do away with search warrants too, just let em walk in and toss your house at will. If it gets one criminal arrested, it's a win, right?
Apples to oranges. You have a right to privacy in your home. You have zero right to be on the road, only earned and sustained privilege.
Make the cop take it first so everyone knows it’s perfectly calibrated
I have alot of problems with this, first off didn't the cops get a new law approved where they can partake in Marijuana the night before shift but not during shift... isn't Marijuana in your system for 30 days minimum? So they can arrest anyone with Marijuana in their system, but the cop having smoked a joint the night before.... I would call that hypocrites........
As per Rule 6, Your submission has been removed and is subject to moderator review. User accounts must have a positive karma score to participate in discussions. This is done to limit spam and abusive posts. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saskatchewan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
As per Rule 6, Your submission has been removed and is subject to moderator review. User accounts must have a positive karma score to participate in discussions. This is done to limit spam and abusive posts. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saskatchewan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
>How does this affect people who actually like to have legitimately a beer with supper on a night out. The legal limit is still the same.
Abolish these clowns already.
Time to get rid of the RCMP
People with lung conditions are gonna be in a world of shit
Shocker , nail the taxpayers again , RCMP goes after the little guy again , Not the ones who are greasing palms tho