Returning bottles to the Beer Store? Beware of possible breath test by police

gb123

Well-Known Member
© Nick Westoll / File / Global News A Peel Regional Police cruiser and officer are seen at the 12 Division station.

Taking back bottles to the Beer Store? A Mississauga man discovered this past weekend that it can lead to a breath test for alcohol by police.

“He said, 'I saw you at the Beer Store and to me you were taking back, what looked like in my opinion, an excessive amount of bottles,'” said Art, a 70-year-old Streetsville resident. He asked Global News not to use his surname.

At around Noon on Saturday, Art went to his local Ontario Beer Store and returned about three dozen beer bottles and 10 wine bottles, which his family had accumulated over the holiday season.

Minutes later, Art said he was pulled over in a traffic stop by a police officer who asked if he’d been drinking. He said he had not.

During the discussion, Art said the officer demanded a roadside breath sample. He asked what would happen if he did not provide it. The officer told him he would face arrest, a criminal charge, and a licence suspension.

Art agreed to provide the breath sample, passed the test, and was on his way.

“I felt like I was violated in a way. They shouldn’t have that right to pull a person over unless there is a good sign the person is doing something wrong,” said Art, who was not using a cellphone, hadn’t been speeding or violating any traffic rules.

He was not charged with anything during the stop, which occurred a few blocks from the beer store where the police officer had been watching him.

Until Jan. 1, Canadian police required reasonable suspicion a driver had alcohol in their bloodstream before insisting on a breath sample. Changes to federal legislation now permit police to demand a sample without cause.

"What I want all Canadian drivers to understand is the likelihood of getting caught, should you make the criminal choice to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs, the likelihood is about to increase exponentially because the police have new authorities and new tools,” said Bill Blair, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, in an announcement on Dec. 4. Blair is also a former chief of police in Toronto.

“Police do not need any evidential basis whatsoever to demand a sample,” said Joseph Neuberger, a Toronto-based criminal defence lawyer, who said the Peel Regional Police officer was well within his new rights to demand a sample after Art dropped off his empties at the beer store.

However, Neuberger expressed deep concerns over the changes, which give police powers to ask for breath samples even when someone is no longer driving or near their vehicle.

It’s part of another section of the legislation, which states that any driver “commits an offence who has within two hours after ceasing to operate a motor vehicle” is still over the legal alcohol limit.

Neuberger said under the rules, nothing stops police from going to a someone’s home, or to a bar, to demand a sample from someone under suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol.

“They’re driving on the road, they’re heading home and they arrive at home, go in to watch the hockey game, crack open a few bottles of beer or have a scotch or something," he explained.

"A person who saw the person driving has called it in, police arrive at the house, knock on the door, person answers the door and they say, ‘Sir, we have had a complaint about your driving, we need you to provide a roadside sample.’

If the person refuses to provide the sample, he or she could be charged.

He also said police could approach a driver in a drinking establishment and make the same demand.“It’s a very draconian rule, a very significant invasion of privacy,” said Neuberger.

Neuberger said he believes the new provisions are troubling and will likely be tested, and possibly overturned, in courts.

“This isn’t about the carnage on the roads, it’s about civil liberties," he said.

"How far do we want to go that we up our rights to privacy to ensure some protection against a danger?”
 

gb123

Well-Known Member
"He also said police could approach a driver in a drinking establishment and make the same demand"
"

and everyone here knows WHY they want this right?!?!?!


Would go the same or WORSE with Pot..... wanna bet that is their angle of their dangle
about time we jammed their dangle right up their behind once and for all ..
:hump::hump::hump::idea:(:
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
When this happens, pull out your phone and start recording, demand to have a supervisor attend and tell them you are concerned the cop is impaired. You demand they be tested for alcohol AND drugs. EVERY driver is subject to the same laws and unless the cop walked there, he needs to provide a breath sample, saliva test and possibly blood samples on demand. If the supervisor refuses to test the cop, it shows a clear conflict and if the cop refuses he is as guilty as you or me if we refuse. The idea is to waste as much police time and resources as you possibly can.
 

CalyxCrusher

Well-Known Member
When this happens, pull out your phone and start recording, demand to have a supervisor attend and tell them you are concerned the cop is impaired. You demand they be tested for alcohol AND drugs. EVERY driver is subject to the same laws and unless the cop walked there, he needs to provide a breath sample, saliva test and possibly blood samples on demand. If the supervisor refuses to test the cop, it shows a clear conflict and if the cop refuses he is as guilty as you or me if we refuse. The idea is to waste as much police time and resources as you possibly can.
Absolutely! I mean they're always telling us that they don't make the laws they simply enforce them. :bigjoint: Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.
 

Skoal

Well-Known Member
Worst part about this law is someone can call in about you. You get home. You drink 1-2 beers within an hour which I can do, cop rings doorbell. Asks you to blow. Boom impaired. I tell you though. Charge me please. I’ll challenge the constitutionality of this law in a heart beat. Take it to the SCC and it wouldn’t cost me a dime as I know exactly what I’m doing.
 

Jefferson1977

Well-Known Member
Other thing about this article is the police have the right now to demand a sample, but they still need cause to pull you over as far as I know, even with this new legislation. THEY HAD NO CAUSE as mentioned in the article.
 
Last edited:

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
Worst part about this law is someone can call in about you. You get home. You drink 1-2 beers within an hour which I can do, cop rings doorbell. Asks you to blow. Boom impaired. I tell you though. Charge me please. I’ll challenge the constitutionality of this law in a heart beat. Take it to the SCC and it wouldn’t cost me a dime as I know exactly what I’m doing.
Selective hearing - you just can't seem to hear the doorbell lol. They have no power to force entry for a breath sample - sit at the window and smoke a joint and wave, just don't open the door.
 

gb123

Well-Known Member
Worst part about this law is someone can call in about you. You get home. You drink 1-2 beers within an hour which I can do, cop rings doorbell. Asks you to blow. Boom impaired. I tell you though. Charge me please. I’ll challenge the constitutionality of this law in a heart beat. Take it to the SCC and it wouldn’t cost me a dime as I know exactly what I’m doing.
LMAOROTFF .I know a bunch of drunks to tattle on ..
old boss from years ago being one of them
ANY day I could call and say he was driving and drunk and there wouldn't be an issue going to his house and arresting him fro impaired. lol
 

Skoal

Well-Known Member
Fuck this now sounds like soviet Russia. This shit is getting overturned fo sho. Yellow vest at 24 Sussex drive lol.
Lol. I agree.

We are living in a police state. It’s all a fucking joke. And then they let us grow weed and buy weed but then they take away our rights. Blow or get charge for refusal. Same penalties as impaired.

I had a client who was washing his car. Was having beers. Cops showed up. Asked him to blow. He had the keys on him, therefore in are and control of a motor vehicle and charged with over 80.
 
Top