Canada's new impaired driving laws are in effect

So from what I am hearing, the police no longer need probable cause to pull over any vehicle on the road.
 
By that, do mean the erosion of your right to get hammered and then climb behind the wheel of your car and head off down the road?
 
  • Like
Reactions: fancyhedge
I do believe what Ralph is talking about is now the police do not need reasonable grounds to pull you over ie swerving, bad lane change, headlight out, speeding, etc. Now they can just not like the looks of you (and believe me Ralph is Fugly) and can pull you over just because they want too.

I know I am going to hear the don't do and nothing to worry about crowd and although true what if your 20 year old kid was being pulled over almost daily just because? Believe me it can and did happen to me at 20. I only found out why when I went in and confronted a duty Sgt in Hamilton after being pulled over 31 times in 28 days when I was 20-21. The Sgt after a couple hours of talking finally came clean(after a phone call to my Mother and Father) and said it was because of some of the people I was known to hang with at times where being looked for some nefarious dealings of which I had no knowledge of or part thereof.
 
Ive heard of many drinking and driving accidents. Often the drunk driver has little or no injuries and victims are killed or have serious injuries. I am good with less legal rights in this case.
 
Lakey. The way it was explained on CTV news...not sure if true or not but, was that if you have been lawfully pulled over by the police, they can demand a breath test. This doesn't mean they can just randomly be driving along pulling people over. This means if they pulled you over for a burnt out turn signal, expired plate sticker, improper lane change, the list goes on, they can demand a breath sample. Also , if they have set up a check point they can demand a sample. But I don't believe they have the power to just randomly pull you over for a breath sample. Is that what anyone else got out of the news?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Igor Galanter and jackhole
Correct. The traffic stop has to be for a legitimate reason but once stopped, the officer can demand a breath sample. The suspicion of driving under the influence is not required and that is the major change in the regulations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chica123
Why would an officer request a breath sample without suspicion? Not sure I understand what the difference is, unless now they can just randomly pull you over and demand a breath sample for no reason.
 
I think it's all how it looks on paper, Bull958. Maybe they had suspicion in previous instances, but if it couldn't be justified on paper, it might look discriminatory or who knows what else. Now they can just use the law to test whomever they want when pulled over.
 
Example, you are driving to work at 7:30 in the morning. A cop watches you do a rolling stop at the stop sign near the office and decides to pull you over. Maybe he writes you up for the fail to stop, maybe he doesn’t, but it is now completely legal for him to ask you for a breath sample, whether he suspects you are impaired or not. Granted, there was nothing really stopping him from doing that before the new regs. When it is just you and the officer, if there are any questions about what happened, guess who is believed?
 
I think it comes down to "I have not had a drink" then they had to do this whole dog and pony show to show proof of asking for a breath sample and could be easily beat in court. Now that is not the case which I totally agree with nothing worse than someone getting off an impaired charge on a technicality.
 
Unfortunately with all the drunks (and now potheads) out there everyone's freedoms are eroded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom