If there is no reason to suspect a crime, then this seems like unreasonable search and seizure, which is unconstitutional. It’s like randomly searching people’s homes to see if anything illegal is going on. Actually worse, it’s like searching EVERYONE’S home.
If you mention “the constitution” you are probably referring to another country.
In Canada, this would be a charter issue, but it’s not a charter issue.
A requirement of driving is having BAC below 0.8.
This is a traffic stop, where the point is to confirm that there are not legal issues with the vehicle or its operation. The search of showing your license is already more of a privacy issue than providing a breath sample.
If you’re more curious about it, read section 8 of the charter.
Um, yeah, Canada has a Constitution and the Charter is a part of it:
The Constitution Act, 1982 gave Canada complete independence from Britain. Months of negotiations between the federal and provincial governments were held to determine how to “patriate” the country’s last British-held powers from Britain. The resulting Constitution Act, 1982 made several changes to Canada’s constitutional structure. The most important were the creation of an amending formula (the criteria that would have to be met to make future changes) and the addition of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
So, yeah, I am Canadian and laws in Canada can be unconstitutional. If you are curious about it our constitution, try finding basic information about it before condescending to teach someone else about it.
Canada has unreasonable search and seizure protections
It’s section 8 of the Charter
However our next PM (polling wise) said this when speaking to police in regards to the constitution limiting their powers
“We will make them constitutional, using whatever tools the Constitution allows me to use to make them constitutional. I think you know exactly what I mean,” Poilievre told the crowd.
Yeah, I do understand that we, like the US, also have a Constitution. Do you? Our Constitution includes a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. You should look it up sometime. Here’s a starting point from the Canadian Encyclopedia:
Edit: I should also say that protections against unreasonable search and seizure long predate the Canadian and US Constitutions and are derived from our countries’ common lineage back to England. If you are ever confused about why Canada and US have many similar rights and freedoms, it is because both Canada and the US were British colonies before achieving independence.
I really don’t so how this can be abused. You blow into the device and it reads out how much alcohol is in your breath. It takes seconds to do and cops can’t discover anything else about you other than how much alcohol is in your breath. It’s nothing like searching your home. It provides police with less information about you than your licence does, which cops can check anytime.
The breathalyzer isn’t the problem. It’s a free pretextual stop where they can look inside your car and decide if they want to hassle you over something else
They don’t need a reason to stop you when you’re driving. It’s a regulated activity and you’re required to be licensed. They can stop you to check your license just because they feel like it.
If you have something in your car that could give police reason to hassle you over, the pretextual stop was probably worth it. I get that police stopping drivers is annoying, and ACAB, but having to prove you aren’t drunk while driving is already a thing in Ontario. RIDE Programs are literal police checkpoints where you need to prove you aren’t drunk to pass through. That is already a thing and has been for years. I’ve yet to see any serious complaints about it or police abusing it to hassle people.
Untrue. If you are a class of person that that the police are interested in harassing, they only need an excuse to look around legally. Powdered donut residue, dirt, just a “suspicious smell” that has no need to be proven is enough to ruin your life even if you are eventually vindicated. There’s a reason stop and frisk is no longer official policy in NYC
But this isn’t stop and frisk. You’ve already been stopped. The policy is that everyone who gets stopped gets a breathalyzer. There’s literally no way this can be used to hassle you any further than you’ve already been hassled. You’ve already been pulled over. If cops want to hassle you for donut powder they already can without the breathalyzer bit. This doesn’t change when cops can pull you over.
They absolutely abuse it! See how many ride stops they do when someone is at large in the city. They throw them up under the guise of a ride program when searching for someone. I have heard them doing this on police scanner. If you had access to the data I’m sure you could prove this…
But it doesn’t read BAC. It just detects organic compounds with methyl groups and the courts assume it is alcohol. That’s usually a pretty safe bet if the person is also clearly inebriated. But now people who work with organic chemicals either at home or at work could get charged even with 0 actual BAC. Paint your bathroom with oil paint and have toluene in your system? Believe it or not, straight to jail.
Youre right! That’s why if someone blows high on a roadside test they will be taken to the station and tested again multiple times over a longer period of time using a more sensitive device. Roadside tests aren’t admissible in court as evidence and are only used as probable cause to force someone to take the real test at the station. Nobody is going to jail because they used mouthwash before driving.
The device at the police station works no differently than the roadside one. It is just considered more accurate in that it gives a number value to represent the estimated percentage of alcohol in your blood, based on the concentration of VOCs in your breath that have methyl groups. Roadside only does pass/fail/warn. The only way to actually know what is present in your system is a blood test. People don’t normally get breathalyzers unless there is a reason for it, even at RIDE checkpoints so yes, we may introduce a possibility of incriminating someone based on the results of a breathalyzer test alone. Unless we just stick to probable cause.
If there is no reason to suspect a crime, then this seems like unreasonable search and seizure, which is unconstitutional. It’s like randomly searching people’s homes to see if anything illegal is going on. Actually worse, it’s like searching EVERYONE’S home.
If you mention “the constitution” you are probably referring to another country.
In Canada, this would be a charter issue, but it’s not a charter issue.
A requirement of driving is having BAC below 0.8.
This is a traffic stop, where the point is to confirm that there are not legal issues with the vehicle or its operation. The search of showing your license is already more of a privacy issue than providing a breath sample.
If you’re more curious about it, read section 8 of the charter.
Um, yeah, Canada has a Constitution and the Charter is a part of it:
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/constitution
So, yeah, I am Canadian and laws in Canada can be unconstitutional. If you are curious about it our constitution, try finding basic information about it before condescending to teach someone else about it.
deleted by creator
You do understand that Toronto isn’t the US, and that other countries have other laws? Wether this is lawful or not is a different discussion
Canada has unreasonable search and seizure protections
It’s section 8 of the Charter
However our next PM (polling wise) said this when speaking to police in regards to the constitution limiting their powers
Yeah, I do understand that we, like the US, also have a Constitution. Do you? Our Constitution includes a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. You should look it up sometime. Here’s a starting point from the Canadian Encyclopedia:
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/constitution
Edit: I should also say that protections against unreasonable search and seizure long predate the Canadian and US Constitutions and are derived from our countries’ common lineage back to England. If you are ever confused about why Canada and US have many similar rights and freedoms, it is because both Canada and the US were British colonies before achieving independence.
I really don’t so how this can be abused. You blow into the device and it reads out how much alcohol is in your breath. It takes seconds to do and cops can’t discover anything else about you other than how much alcohol is in your breath. It’s nothing like searching your home. It provides police with less information about you than your licence does, which cops can check anytime.
The breathalyzer isn’t the problem. It’s a free pretextual stop where they can look inside your car and decide if they want to hassle you over something else
They don’t need a reason to stop you when you’re driving. It’s a regulated activity and you’re required to be licensed. They can stop you to check your license just because they feel like it.
If you have something in your car that could give police reason to hassle you over, the pretextual stop was probably worth it. I get that police stopping drivers is annoying, and ACAB, but having to prove you aren’t drunk while driving is already a thing in Ontario. RIDE Programs are literal police checkpoints where you need to prove you aren’t drunk to pass through. That is already a thing and has been for years. I’ve yet to see any serious complaints about it or police abusing it to hassle people.
Untrue. If you are a class of person that that the police are interested in harassing, they only need an excuse to look around legally. Powdered donut residue, dirt, just a “suspicious smell” that has no need to be proven is enough to ruin your life even if you are eventually vindicated. There’s a reason stop and frisk is no longer official policy in NYC
But this isn’t stop and frisk. You’ve already been stopped. The policy is that everyone who gets stopped gets a breathalyzer. There’s literally no way this can be used to hassle you any further than you’ve already been hassled. You’ve already been pulled over. If cops want to hassle you for donut powder they already can without the breathalyzer bit. This doesn’t change when cops can pull you over.
Ok, I misread what was happening here, sorry 😞
They absolutely abuse it! See how many ride stops they do when someone is at large in the city. They throw them up under the guise of a ride program when searching for someone. I have heard them doing this on police scanner. If you had access to the data I’m sure you could prove this…
But it doesn’t read BAC. It just detects organic compounds with methyl groups and the courts assume it is alcohol. That’s usually a pretty safe bet if the person is also clearly inebriated. But now people who work with organic chemicals either at home or at work could get charged even with 0 actual BAC. Paint your bathroom with oil paint and have toluene in your system? Believe it or not, straight to jail.
Youre right! That’s why if someone blows high on a roadside test they will be taken to the station and tested again multiple times over a longer period of time using a more sensitive device. Roadside tests aren’t admissible in court as evidence and are only used as probable cause to force someone to take the real test at the station. Nobody is going to jail because they used mouthwash before driving.
The device at the police station works no differently than the roadside one. It is just considered more accurate in that it gives a number value to represent the estimated percentage of alcohol in your blood, based on the concentration of VOCs in your breath that have methyl groups. Roadside only does pass/fail/warn. The only way to actually know what is present in your system is a blood test. People don’t normally get breathalyzers unless there is a reason for it, even at RIDE checkpoints so yes, we may introduce a possibility of incriminating someone based on the results of a breathalyzer test alone. Unless we just stick to probable cause.