this post was submitted on 04 May 2024
23 points (96.0% liked)

Canada

7082 readers
258 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


๐Ÿ Meta


๐Ÿ—บ๏ธ Provinces / Territories


๐Ÿ™๏ธ Cities / Regions


๐Ÿ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


๐Ÿ’ป Universities


๐Ÿ’ต Finance / Shopping


๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ Politics


๐Ÿ Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] sailingbythelee@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

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.

[โ€“] DerisionConsulting@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] sailingbythelee@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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 โ€œpatriateโ€ the countryโ€™s last British-held powers from Britain. The resulting Constitution Act, 1982 made several changes to Canadaโ€™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.

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.

[โ€“] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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

[โ€“] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Canada has unreasonable search and seizure protections

Itโ€™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

โ€œWe 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,โ€ Poilievre told the crowd.

[โ€“] sailingbythelee@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

[โ€“] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca -1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

[โ€“] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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

[โ€“] baggins@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

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.

[โ€“] Grabthar@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] Grabthar@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

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.