[Scape]

You want police to have a predictable pattern? Do you expect the DD to simply waltz into police custody voluntarily as well then?

I'm glad that there are spot checks to see if a vehicle is in good repair, the safety harness is on and the driver is not under the influence. Most drivers do not need to be told the importance of such actions but it only takes one drunk driver to make a mistake that lasts a lifetime. There is a drastic reduction in the number of incidents but we still have people killed every year. We allow the cops to have spot checks but then do not allow them to catch anyone yet we want to be tough on crime. If there were kids killed down the road from where I live because they thought it was cool to tie one on I can't 'fire' the kid but I can stop the next one from becoming another roadside cross.

[ASLplease]

Hypothetical: 100 drivers on the road, 3 0f them are drunk


What is the least effective way to catch the 3 drunks? Randomly stopping 12 drivers!!!WTF kind retard would want to do this?!?!?!


heck, even observing all 100 vehicles and pulling over 12 drivers that are showing signs of impairement would catch more drunks than 12 random checks.

Personally, I like the idea of setting up a road block and stopping everyone. This way, the cops don't have to time to harass the inocent, because they will be too damn busy catching the drunks. Catching the drunks is what we pay them to do, so I'm in support of road blocks.

[ASLplease]

We pay cops to be thoughtful and deliberate with their actions, not to wander around aimlessly checking people at random.

Sorry guys, the word 'random' has really set me off.

[Brenda]

I have absolutely no problem with random breathalizer tests. Actually, I am surprised it isn't implemented.

If you don't drink and drive, why would you have a problem with a breathalizer test? Bring it on, and catch the bastards who do drink and drive, before they kill my kids.

[ASLplease]

Brenda Brenda:

I have absolutely no problem with random breathalizer tests. Actually, I am surprised it isn't implemented.

If you don't drink and drive, why would you have a problem with a breathalizer test? Bring it on, and catch the bastards who do drink and drive, before they kill my kids.

I dont have a problem with be subjected to a breathalizer test. And, I don't see this as a search and seizure issue.

To me, I just can't get over the word 'random'. To me. the word random means that the cops have no strategy, and they are too lazy to check everyone.

[ASLplease]

I can not think of any control system or auditing system where 'random' is more effective than a thoughtful and deliberate sampling.

We are all in favor of effective policing on this matter, correct?

[Brenda]

I so don't agree with that

What it means, is that they do not need a reason to stop you for a test.

If you see what I see everyday, here, in the boofucking middle of nowhere, where nobody seems to have anything better to do than snort coke or drink, it is a good thing to just randomly get people off the road for a test.

I rather have the 8 cop cars we have here patrol everywhere, than use 4 of them on a roadblock somewhere for 2 hours, catching 2 guys who are too stupid to wait it out and then drive home.

[ASLplease]

I don't want police to be wasting their time stopping drivers that haven't given them a reason to stop them.

I want them out there stopping drunks.

[ASLplease]

I want police to rely on their policing skills, not the luck of the draw.

[leewgrant]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Madds time and effort would be better spent going after drunk drivers than random people.

If a gardener was to get rid of my dandy lion problem by randomly spraying areas of my yard, I'd fire him.

If my material handler was to try and make my inventory room better by randomly cycle counting parts ( as opposed to cycling counting with a strategy), I'd fire him.

If tax payers pay police officers to go after drunk drivers, and they start randomly checking every other vehicle that comes along, I'd fire him.

This likely is the key issue. When this gets into the big P political arena after a bill is tabled there will be piles of debate on the constitutionality of the bill. However, what should be focused on is whether random tests (which will take up a lot of police time and catch a minuscule number of drunk drivers) is the most effective approach. Recidivism is a big problem. Maybe more focus on them. I've noticed a lot of DWI deaths occur after bars close. Maybe if we start tossing bar owners in the clink they might stop serving patrons who have had too much already.

[Scape]

ASLplease ASLplease:

heck, even observing all 100 vehicles and pulling over 12 drivers that are showing signs of impairement would catch more drunks than 12 random checks.

Right now they test 0. They are only allowed to test the ones that are cause for concern. If we are to test we have to apply this evenly and that means three options.

1) Let everyone go as we do now.
2) Test everyone every time.
3) Test at random a set amount.

While it is true some will still slip though if we only test some and not all, all of them are slipping through now. Testing everyone, every time may seem fair but it clearly is a wasted effort.

[herbie]

Scape Scape:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

But a Checkstop is completely fair. Everyone is treated equally, no bias other than the location and time. If it's for a 'seatbelt' or 'valid licence and insurance' and 'alcohol' is detected, so be it. The test of "Probable cause" is satisfied.

However, here is where the breakdown of the current system begins. If you are a driver going though a checkstop and had a few but are not displaying ANY outward signs of being under the influance you get waved through. Some people have a much higher tolarance to booze then others and can pull this off as a matter of routine and the only way to nail these assholes is to do a breath test that the cops have NO authority to use unless they have probable cause. If they make it random at these check they have at least a chance now to nail that asshole and save some kids life.

We are not talkiing about cops breaking down you door and doing random searches for contraband here we are talking about a known problem that kills and can be prevented with a little common sense.

Yeah that's because there is scientific evidence for the existing law. Some people CAN have a few and not show any impairment. However a statistical majority can be shown to have a measureable impairment at .08%. Therefore there is a basis for making everyone obey .08%. If there is visible or even suspected impairment the cops have the right to and DO issue a 24hr suspension.
Therefore if you're a 300 lb linebacker who's had two beers you aren't fucking impaired if you're 100 lbs and had three you probably are.
If you had ONE beer and got behind the wheel you aren't provably impaired but there still exists a legal basis to do something if you seem to be in the eyes of a police officer.
Until MADD accepts that and respects the civil rights of the majority they can eat shit. They're just another whiney lobby group.

[Brenda]

$1:

Maybe if we start tossing bar owners in the clink they might stop serving patrons who have had too much already.

How come it is the bar owners responsibility? They can get a cab or walk home when they drink too much. I used to be a bartender, and I can tell you, getting carkeys voluntarily, is VERY hard. I do not have the legal right to "kidnap" a car. Once a customer is off my property, its not my concern anymore.

That said, are we going to hold friends accountable too, where they got drunk, but they still drive home?

It is YOUR OWN damned responsibility to NOT FUCKING DRINK AND DRIVE and everybody who comes up with an excuse is a fucking loser who does not deserve to drive AT ALL!

[martin14]

Brenda Brenda:

It is YOUR OWN damned responsibility to NOT FUCKING DRINK AND DRIVE and everybody who comes up with an excuse is a fucking loser who does not deserve to drive AT ALL!

This is true at least....

[EyeBrock]

MMM, quite a lot of bullshit on these pages. A few of you appear to know what is going on but the rest…wow.


Giving the police the power to demand a sample of breath without any reasonable grounds (this is Canada, we don’t say ‘probable cause’ for all you internet lawyers) doesn’t make any sense.

It goes against all the principles of the law and I can’t see any advantage to this.
I also don’t hear of a great law enforcement movement lobbying to get this additional power.
Maybe MADD have been lobbying for it? It’s a pretty useless amendment to Section 253/254 from a police point of view.

What does need to change is the ridiculous amount of paperwork and bureaucratic procedure that goes along with an impaired driving arrest.
There are dozens of forms involved in a crown brief for an impaired.
Each extra form is because some rich but guilty drunk driver had a high-powered lawyer challenge what should be a straight forward arrest. That challenge became another case law driven extra procedure to further complicate the whole thing.

In most jurisdictions in the GTA, the conviction rate of those who plead ‘not guilty’ is between 30-40%.
That means that you have a 60-70% chance of getting off an impaired charge. Judges will toss a case for the most minor paperwork issue.

These are all defendants who have provided a sample of breath into a very calibrated machine, that sample was over the legal limit. As in they were drunk and driving.

Until we as a society change the way the judicial system works against the police in preventing drunks from driving, nothing will change.