Oct 09
6

Random Breathalyzer Tests

11 Comments

The Federal Government is considering a new law that will allow police officers to perform random breathalyzer tests on motorists without first developing suspicion the motorist has been drinking.

My first thought was this was a great idea.  By the law of averages, more random breathalyzer tests = more drunk drivers off the road.

Then, after giving the issue some more attention, I had to bridle my enthusiasm.  Concerns were raised by lawyers on how the proposed law circumvents the Charter of Rights and a persons right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure. 

Then again, driving is a privilege.  A person is not born with the ‘right’ to drive, instead a person has to prove they are entitled to the privilege through training, education and responsibility.  With this in mind, is a random breathalyzer test ’reasonable’ in respect to search and seizure? 

Who knows – we’ll have to wait and see what the experts say on this one.

Tags: , ,

This entry was posted on October 6, 2009 at 1:11 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Posted in Crime Prevention by Sandra 11 Comments

11 Responses to "Random Breathalyzer Tests"

  • Front Porch Society says:
    October 6, 2009 at 7:50 pm

    I will be interested to see how this turns out. Definitely keep us posted on this decision.

  • DC says:
    October 7, 2009 at 12:49 am

    Kudos for touching on a pretty controversial but important topic.

    I am against this proposed law.

    I can list many things that would make us safer: random searches of people walking down the street, allowing the police to search any home they want for whatever reason, disallowing driving except for work/emergencies, making alcohol illegal, banning all guns (including long guns), requiring pedestrians to wear helmets. But safety has to be weighed against liberty.

    I would rather see tougher penalties for those caught driving drunk which are far too light now. Before we throw our hands up in the air and “reasonably” violate the Charter we should try penalties that are actually significant.

    The proposed law seems to have all party support but I like to think it wouldn’t survive a Charter challenge.

    Here’s a link to the Charter for those unfamiliar with the relevant passages (see 7,8,9).

  • Jon says:
    October 7, 2009 at 10:13 am

    I’m not sure what position to take on this law. On one hand, I am against it for the same reasons as DC. On the other, driving is a privilege, not a right as Sandra states so is it “reasonable” to be randomly checked for being under the infulence?
    This is one for the lawyers to deside.

    We do need harsher penilties for anyone caught DUI or other major driving infractions. It seems these days too many people think of being able to drive as thier right, take it too lightly and try to avoid thier responsiblity for this privilege. They need a wake up call with some community service(jail time if nessisary)

  • Sandra says:
    October 7, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    DC – “But safety has to be weighed against liberty.” Well said, and I whole heartedly agree.

    To both DC and Jon – yes, there do need to be tougher penalties for drunk drivers.

  • Raindog says:
    October 8, 2009 at 2:58 am

    In my neck of the woods, we can’t do random tests.

    Furthermore, the State Supreme Courtrecently ruled that a breathalyzer test or blood draw made after an arrest without a warrant is coercive after the DMV’s Implied Consent statement is read, and therefore unlawful.

  • Chris says:
    October 8, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    The ‘experts’ haven’t had to bury someone who was killed by a drunk driver.
    A drunk driver who looked very,very sober.
    I rather see safety than this strange concept of liberty.

  • Christopher says:
    October 9, 2009 at 3:24 pm

    Of course, as you pointed out, this is much different than randomly searching a person on the street or randomly searching someone’s home, as the license to drive is a privelege offered by the state.

    I think that to make this statute enforceable, you would have to have a real “implied consent” law. In other words, by accepting your driver’s license, you are agreeing to take a BAC test whenever it is asked of you. We have this law, and then provide legal outs, which makes it worthless.

  • DC says:
    October 10, 2009 at 10:25 am

    In practical terms I’m not even sure what “privilege vs right” means in context to the conversations in which it’s most used. Even “rights” in the Charter can be revoked under certain conditions such as breaking the law.

    In Canada, the government is in the business of health care, education, roads, postal delivery, licensing corporations, pensions, and printing money to name a few. There’s a lot of room there to gather implied consent on acceptance of services that are vital for most people to function in their daily lives whether you label them as privileges or rights. Our Charter keeps the politicians in line.

  • Roberto says:
    October 12, 2009 at 10:47 am

    I’m very thankful for the excellent policing we get in Canada.

    I think most people who complain about Canadian police haven’t been involved with police in other countries. Too bad.

  • Ben says:
    October 13, 2009 at 7:35 am

    In Germany we do have the right to make traffic stops whenever and wherever we think it’s neccessary, no requirements at all. We also have the right to perform random breathalyzer tests – but only if the driver gives his consent.

    If we have anything that hints the driver has been drinking beforehand (the typical drunk-driver-behaviour for example), we can offer a choice: breathalyzer with consent, or draw against his/her will. So it’s up to the driver.

Leave a Comment