Justice Department in Canada considers random breathelyzer tests

by albertacowpoke | October 5, 2009 at 06:25 am

201 views | 51 Recommendations | 17 comments

Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, during a recent meeting with Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) stated that he is considering a new law to permit random breathelyzer testing. The tests would be conducted regardless of whether or not the police believed that the driver had been drinking.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association believes that this would be a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights. This would give police powers to search and seize without cause.

Some European countries have already adopted this type of legislation and believe that it has saved lives.

The Justice Minister said that he thinks that the law would be challenged against the Charter of Rights and that it's legality would have to be decided by the courts.

The federal justice minister is considering a new law that would allow police to conduct random breathalyzer tests on drivers, regardless of whether they suspect motorists have been drinking.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson raised the prospect recently at a meeting of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, according to MADD chief executive Andrew Murie.

If random testing were to be adopted, it would be a major change to Canada's 40-year-old breathalyzer legislation, which stipulates that police may only administer a test if they suspect a driver has been drinking.

In June, a House of Commons parliamentary committee recommended changing the legislation to allow for random testing, arguing it is an effective deterrent.

1 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

Jordan Yerman

at 07:10 on October 5th, 2009

This is emotion-driven legislation, and it hinges on cops getting lucky. Luck should not be the foundation of a law-enforcement strategy.

albertacowpoke

at 07:43 on October 5th, 2009

A lot that this legislation is trying to achieve is already achieved with the Stop Check Programs in place. Agree with emotion-driven legislation.

Rory Cripps

at 15:18 on October 5th, 2009

ACP: I'm a big fan of "probable cause". I'm still learning about Canada's laws, however from my American perspective, this seems to be a slippery slope situation. If this legislation is passed, what will be next? In the case of MADD, I believe that the organization had good intentions out the outset, but at this point the organization is fanatical and it doesn't seem to care about the legal ramifications of its emotional lobbying efforts.

albertacowpoke

at 15:53 on October 5th, 2009

We have a lot of smart lawyers in Canada and this law will never pass the scrutiny of the courts.

Hugh Askew

at 07:39 on October 5th, 2009

At least they can get free medical help for their drinking problem, eh?

Barry Artiste

at 09:11 on October 5th, 2009

Ohh that sounds like profiling to me,you see someone weaving all over the road and blazing through stop lights. Boy, whats next road side cavity searches?

Barry Artiste

at 09:12 on October 5th, 2009

In BC they should do drug test on drivers, they would get a lot more drivers.

albertacowpoke

at 09:15 on October 5th, 2009

Here they should do cell phone stuck to the ear testing with roadside surgical removal lol

The_Cynic

at 09:12 on October 5th, 2009

That Charter is going to get a battering, Karl. "Fundamental" will not mean fundamental any more.

albertacowpoke

at 09:17 on October 5th, 2009

I think the legislation will be challenged and the Supreme Court will eventually make the ruling. MADD is a powerful organization, with a rightful cause mind you. Who wants them lobbying against you with an election looming.

The_Cynic

at 11:49 on October 5th, 2009

Within the Charter it should be amended that no lobbying can take place - for any group.

albertacowpoke

at 12:06 on October 5th, 2009

Lobbying is a fact of life and would be difficult to ingrain into the Charter of Rights. As you know political parties get lobbied by all kinds of groups, whether it be Friends for Medicare, Council of Canadians, Business Associations and on and on.

I suppose lobbying would also have to be defined. Depending on your point of view, a petition could be a form of lobbying.

As an example veterans of the Canadian military are petitioning the gouvernment to eliminate the military pension clawback at age 65, when Old Age Security kicks in.

Maybe lobbying by MADD was a poor choice of words.

a211423

at 09:22 on October 5th, 2009

Why would they need a breath test if they have stop check stations? And when a person is stopped at one of these stations its up to the descretion of the police whether they believe the driver is under the influence and should be tested. Whether to test or not is subjective. I don't see what this law would accomplish, unless absolving the police of any wrong doing if they administer the test to a person who is sober, and they decide the test was wrongly administered and thereby proceed some kind of legal action against the police.

albertacowpoke

at 09:28 on October 5th, 2009

A. Those are all valid questions and observations. As you know the legalese of any police action is always complicated. Stop Checks are implemented temporarily and mostly in larger communities. The sad thing is that drinking and driving still occurs after all these years. Driving under the Influence with more than .08mg blood alcohol content is a Criminal Code conviction in Canada and you end up with a criminal conviction.

I can see the frustration of MADD but I agree with you that a new law really won.t change much.

a211423

at 09:55 on October 5th, 2009

Thanks cowpoke

Drinking and driving is a lethal combination and kills. I would be in favor of interventions that prevent people making the decision to drive if under the influence. These would include more education to young drivers, stiffer penalties for anyone caught driving while intoxicated, providing free taxi service at drinking establishments.

anarkissed

at 11:02 on October 5th, 2009

Oh no, Hell no, that's too invasive. I'm all for making drinkers wise up and I don't drink if I'm driving nor drive if I'm drinking, but this is asking too much. Too many people will be subjected to unreasonable search by this move. It's against the constitution!

Anonymously Given (not verified)

at 11:51 on October 5th, 2009

It's a slow progression. First, millions of airline travellers are methodically acclimated to accept the idea of being "felt up" by rude hands before every flight (in the interest of safety, of course). After the smashing success of that "rabidly demeaning indigities for our lowly citizen/subjects who dare to breathe without permission" airline travel campaign, it occured to the bureaucrats that "driving cars on roads" has safety issues associated with it. Succeeding a short bureaucratic "whoa, light bulb" moment, new legislation has been introduced (in the form of a brand new liberty pesticide) to eliminate those pesky remaining vestiges of freedom --- those silly "bill of rights", and "constitutional" restrictions against random search and seizure. If *any* government may, based on whim or fiat, forcefully massage your body cavities without your consent - you are no more "free" that the southern U.S. slaves of the 1800s. Not one bit.