Justice Minister defends proposed mandatory roadside saliva samples as constitutional

illuminance

Legacy Member
bill c-46

Demanding a breath sample from a motorist is no different than asking for their licence and registration, Canada’s justice minister argued Thursday as the federal Liberal government defended its proposed new crackdown on impaired driving.

Jody Wilson-Raybould tabled a so-called “charter statement” in the House of Commons comprising the arguments why the government believes the new measures are permissible under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized as reasonable the authority, under provincial law and common law, of police officers to stop vehicles at random to ensure that drivers are licensed and insured, that the vehicle is mechanically fit, and to check for sobriety,” Wilson-Raybould’s statement says.

“The information revealed from a breath sample is, like the production of a driver’s licence, simply information about whether a driver is complying with one of the conditions imposed in the highly regulated contexts of driving.”

Bill C-46, which includes new powers for police and harsher penalties for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, was introduced in the Commons last month alongside the government’s long-awaited plan to legalize marijuana for recreational use.


The new mandatory alcohol screening measures would mean police could demand a breath sample from any driver they lawfully stop — even if they had no suspicion the person had been drinking before being pulled over.

The roadside test itself could not lead to a charge, but it would allow the police to continue investigating and to subject the driver to further testing.

The bill would also allow police to demand a saliva sample from a driver if they reasonably suspect the person has drugs in their body, such as by noticing unusually red eyes, abnormal speech patterns or the telltale scent of marijuana.

The proposed legislation has raised eyebrows among some criminal lawyers, who believe it will be challenged in court.

The statement outlines why the Liberal government considers the new powers to be consistent with what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees about search and seizure, as well as life, liberty and security of the person.

The statement does come with a major caveat: “A statement is not a legal opinion on the constitutionality of a bill.”

The statement also says Bill C-46 would help the Liberal government achieve its “compelling objective” of cutting down on drinking and driving. Currently, it can be difficult for officers to identify a driver who should be administered a breath test.

“It would reduce the impact of this kind of human error,” it says. “It would also increase the deterrent effect of roadside stops by eliminating the perception that motorists could avoid having to give a sample by hiding their impairment.”

Research done in other countries that have taken a similar approach, including Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, has shown a substantial reduction in alcohol-related accidents and even deaths, the government argues.

Anthony Moustacalis, president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, said he is concerned the new law could lead to a higher number of random stops of visible minorities.

“I think the one area of constitutional attack would be that, given the developing statistics on subconscious racism by the police, or unconscious racism, and the increased empirical data on misuse of random stops by police for visible and other minorities.”

Robert Solomon, national director of legal policy for MADD Canada, said people already have to go through mandatory screening in order to do all sorts of things.

“Mandatory alcohol screening serves exactly the same protective purpose as airport, border and courtroom searches, but is far more effective and addresses a far greater risk,” said Solomon, who is also a law professor at Western University in London, Ont.


http://www.ottawasun.com/2017/05/11...ory-roadside-saliva-samples-as-constitutional

:dunno:
 
Ils preparente terrain pour des dui de cannabis.

Il leur faut un moyen roadside pour pogner le monde.

Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk
 
It's not and they know it's not. It will get struck down so quickly by the supreme court but they don't care. It's such an obvious violation of the presumption of innocence.

It's all politics, there are 2 reasons for this stance:

1. The conservatives can't come at you for being soft on crime.
2. You don't get opposition from the MADD/ Will someone please think of the kids' crowd for the legalisation of marijuana.

It's all about buying the peace until you can pass the legalisation of weed, anyone notice how muted the opposition (political and public) is on this? Once it's passed it will go to the supreme court get struck down. The liberals will come out and say we disagree with the courts ruling but we are a country of laws, and wash their hands clean of this. They get the parts of the law they cared about passed, and take non of the flack for the parts that have been struck down.
 
J'ai ben hate de voir comment ça va fonctionner par rapport au temps et à la concentration dans la salive.

inb4 discriminatoire pour les personnes obèses
 
Gov #1: We need a DNA database of the population, how are we going to do this without any trouble?
Gov #2: Well, let's pass something that let us collect a sample while pretending that it's for something else to make them safer.
Gov #1: Great idea, have a raise and a bonus!

Sound like fiction? Yeah it is, but not impossible.

BTW in Australia you have to blow into a breathalyzer during every stop by the police according to the Aussie police videos I watch.
 
Y parle qu'ils vont tester la salive comme si la machine existait.

Avant de pouvoir utiliser la machine, il faut démontrer qu'elle est fiable. Le probleme avec la cannabis est que ca reste 90jours dans le corp, le gars, le cheveux, les ongles. Pour la salive?! je sais pas. Mais quelqu'un qui a manger un edible va probablement moins en contenir dans sa salive que qqun qui l'a fumé.

Ceci étant dit, aucun état aux USA ont cette machine magique qui test la salive sure a 100%. Ce sont les officiers qui sont formé reconnaitre et testé les conducter gelé.

Je doute que le Canada aille présentement une machine approuvés. Bill Blair en a parlé vla 2 semaine a l'entrevue de Vice.

Aucune machine n'existe encore. Tant qua moi y font juste en parler pour faire plaisir aux matantes
 
Il y a quelques annees j'avais vu une emission a la TV qui avait fait un test, sur un circuit ferme, de conducteurs qui avaient pris de l'alcohol, marijuana, cocaine et quelques autres drogues dont certaines de prescription genre du Niquil. Je me rappelle pus c'etait quoi l'emission mais c'etait tres interessant.

Celui sur la cocaine avait gagne le challenge il me semble.
 
Il y a quelques annees j'avais vu une emission a la TV qui avait fait un test, sur un circuit ferme, de conducteurs qui avaient pris de l'alcohol, marijuana, cocaine et quelques autres drogues dont certaines de prescription genre du Niquil. Je me rappelle pus c'etait quoi l'emission mais c'etait tres interessant.

Celui sur la cocaine avait gagne le challenge il me semble.

 
Gov #1: We need a DNA database of the population, how are we going to do this without any trouble?
Gov #2: Well, let's pass something that let us collect a sample while pretending that it's for something else to make them safer.
Gov #1: Great idea, have a raise and a bonus!

Sound like fiction? Yeah it is, but not impossible.

BTW in Australia you have to blow into a breathalyzer during every stop by the police according to the Aussie police videos I watch.

En boy conspiracy much lol...

Tu réalise que ca fait longtemps qu'ils sont capable d'avoir ton DNA en te faisant mettre tes lèvres sur le bec du détecteur d'alchool lol?

Moi je vois pas trop le problème dans le bill.
 

Canada’s New Impaired DRIVING LAWS, You Won’t Believe What They Can NOW Do Under Bill C-46!!!


It’s official, Canada is operating under a police state! When the police can claim you’re intoxicated without needing reasonable suspicion that you are…When they can come into your home two hours after you’ve been driving and demand a breathalyzer otherwise you’ll be arrested…When they can forcibly take a sample of your DNA at the side of the road without needing a reason, you know it’s official…we’re in a police state and the Canadian government is clearly NOT looking out for the best interest of it’s people. In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth covers an aspect of Bill C-46 no one else seems to be talking about…the mandatory collection of DNA samples with no need for a reason which is Canada’s greatest violation of our basic fundamental rights and freedoms since the G20 came to Toronto in 2010.
 
^^

Lol qu’est-ce que le « no need to have a reason » vient changer exactement pour toi? Si la loi disait que le policier a besoin d’avoir des doutes raisonnables, ben le policier aurait juste à dire « J’avais des doutes raisonnables qu’il était sous l’influence de l’alchool » et merci bonsoir il a le droit lol.

Ca change sweet fuckall...Flash news pour toi, ca fait déjà des deccenies que les policiers peuvent te faire soufler dans la baloune « sans avoir de bonnes raisons ».
 
^^

Lol qu’est-ce que le « no need to have a reason » vient changer exactement pour toi? Si la loi disait que le policier a besoin d’avoir des doutes raisonnables, ben le policier aurait juste à dire « J’avais des doutes raisonnables qu’il était sous l’influence de l’alchool » et merci bonsoir il a le droit lol.

Ca change sweet fuckall...Flash news pour toi, ca fait déjà des deccenies que les policiers peuvent te faire soufler dans la baloune « sans avoir de bonnes raisons ».

sigh - along your logic the highly respected member of society (with god mode cheat code) can just say they thought you were armed & reaching for a weapon and cave your face in with a full clip - it happens & 99% of the time its ruled by their brethren as justified :dunno: so on levels of bad things i'll grant you it's not the worst

but its more that slippery slope of us becoming uber good german citizens - completely obedient to authority - which is problematic for any rule of law society imo

So you're ok with the cops being able to basically show up at your door up to 2 hrs after you've driven (or any time really as a hateful neighbor could falsely claim against you as said in vid) and Demand Saliva & a breath test & if you had been drinking or smoking weed in your own home you will now be criminally charged - seems to me my home is now like a jail cell that the guards can come to & demand testing - thats really fk'd up imo
 
My comment was related to the "no need to have a valid reason" statement.

As for the two hours delay, the law seems indeed badly written, but I don't see how it could be applied with bad intentions...

I'm pretty sure they did this so if you do a hit & run and they are able to prove that it was your car with you driving it (cameras / witnesses / etc) then they can ask you for a test even though you did the hit & run 2 hours ago...That to me makes sens because it is provable in front of a judge.

Otherwise, let's say we take a tinfoil hat scenario where the police officer just hates someone's guts, waits for the guy to park himself, then waits 1h50, then makes the guy fail his test in his own house, I'm pretty fucking sure that this police officer will get destroyed in front of a judge as it's clearly not the intention of the law lol...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top