Random Breath Testing Violates Charter Rights
The federal Justice Department is proposing that Random Breath Testing (RBT) be conducted without reasonable cause and this constitutes unreasonable search - a violation of the Charter of Rights.
Their rationale is that since Australia, New Zealand, and the European states violate their citizen's right to privacy by conducting RBT, we should also do so in Canada!
The report suggests that relying on the judgement of police is a weakness in the current system of detecting drunk drivers. However, if we cannot rely on the good judgement of police today, will we abandon jury trials tomorrow because we cannot rely on the good judgement of jurors? What about the reliance on the good judgement of judges?
In fact our entire legal system rests on good judgement of authorities plus Charter Rights - and that is a good thing.
Furthermore, their proposal does not meet the burden of proof that there is an overriding reason to violate our Charter right. The annex of the report fails to present evidence that suggests that
(a) a system of random checks is more effective than a combination of other measures such as a lower threshold for blood alcohol level and more frequent RIDE checkpoints.
(b) random breath tests will be a deterrent to drunk drivers. Higher fines for a first offence and stiffer penalties for subsequent offences would be more likely to provide an effective deterrent. To quote an old saying, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".
A greater concern is the current trend in the Canadian Government to violate our right to protection from unreasonable search in the name of public safety. First the airports, now our cars, what is next - our homes?
The "logic" that the innocent have nothing to fear from such searches rests on the presumption that there is never a miscarriage of justice by the authorities. If we remove Charter protection, then we have only the good judgement of the authorities to rely on. History tells us that by itself this is not enough.
Just ask Maher Arar.
- Paul Edward Renaud's blog
- Login to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Search
Recent Comments
- Ron Fischer |
- Dave Bagler |
- Matthew Day |
- Matthew Day |
- John Northey |
- 1 of 1987
- ››
Email Updates:
Comments
Charter violations...
Charter violations are always first processed via "sinful" activities. I mean, random search and seizure has got to be good even if it only saves one child, right? Don't we hate drunk drivers?
If we allow this to happen, we are only one step away from random search and seizure for any reason. First off, a police officer could simply perform a random stop (ie an arrest) to take a breath sample, while the real purpose is to perform a search for some other purpose.
I personally, no longer care whether road-checks, random stops or lower BAC levels make any difference. The largest cause of DUI deaths and accidents can be attributed to people who repeatedly drive with more than 0.10 BAC. If you are driving while that drunk, there should be comprehensive measures to ensure you don't drive drunk again. Instead, in place of such a rational treatment, we simply lower the BAC levels more, and stop more vehicles with less and less cause.
I am sure right now there are blowhards out there who don't drive or don't drink, or anyway don't ever have one drink and drive the same night who are all for this -- seeing no problem with this. Well, I've got news, it starts with DUI, and then the next thing you know, cops will be able to enter your house without a warrant while canvassing your neighbourhood for a criminal they think "may" be nearby. Maybe they'll take pictures or documentation of personal items in your house or car (or maybe just seize the items themselves) and they'll archive them for posterity, only to have that information or items stolen and circulated to the public at large.
Maybe authorities will start "randomly" harrassing political activists. It is extremely dangerous to give up liberties. We need to shout from the rooftops that there is no benign cause that justifies the suspension or weakening of our rights.
Great Points, Bram
Bram, you've hit the nail on the head. It's incumbent upon all of us to monitor what our government is proposing in the name of security measures. I don't believe that it's at all unrealistic to think that political activists will be subject to harrassment in the future, especially when police photographers are present at anti-prorogation rallies across the country earlier this year, and when our elected officials want to equate throwing a pie with an act of terrorism. We're on a slippery slope.
When To Check
For checks on drunk driving a far more effective method would be for cops to just go wait down the street from any bar and set up a ride check there (one in each direction so they cannot just go on side streets). Bet they'd get a lot more that way.
How they would do a more random breath test is hard to see though. Would we have cops checking your blood alcohol at all times? After a car accident would have 'reasonable cause' one would think, for speeding though? Perhaps if they are concerned that cops don't have the skills to tell just set clear rules - it is checked after a car accident and during ride checks.
There is a major difference though between cars and house checks as driving is not a right. Just something to keep in mind.
Wellington-Halton Hills
When to check?
The severity of drunk-driving is intentionally being misrepresented to further some agenda of restricting our rights -- presumably, because it is an avenue where encroachment of rights works well. I have to say it again: the majority of the actual danger is caused by a minority of individuals greatly over the limit who are repeat offenders and are then allowed by the government to reoffend.
Now, I agree that every sip of alcohol increases your probability of getting in an accident, but the same is true for a large number of other factors we accept as reasonable in everyday life. At some point we need to establish that our right to security of person and our right against unreasonable search and detention is important enough not to be infriged upon.
Let me highlight some very nefarious problems I have with human-rights encroachment under the guise of public protection. In some jurisdictions, the absence of alcohol in one's breath is not a relevant defense to failing a breath test. Many jurisdictions, including Ontario, have road-side impounding without due process, and some even have forfeiture laws without due process. Guess which economic class this affects most? Also, there is generally no obligation to preserve an alternate breath sample to allow for a defense. There is no obligation for redundancy when a breath test is failed. There is no obligation for road-tests to target more advantaged neighbourhoods. As long as the commoners don't drink, we're fine. But when the affluent or politically connected get involved, it's deal time.
Here is also something I find very disturbing: NHTSA in the US, and probably in Canada as well, reports accidents as having "alcohol as a factor" even if no drivers were drinking. If a passenger in a vehicle was the one drinking, it is still marked as alcohol being a contributing factor. This is even true of a passenger in a vehicle driven by a person not deemed at fault. So basically, numbers are being inflated to scare you. You might recognize such fear-mongering tactics to restrict your human rights from the pages of anti-terrorism.
It is these encroachments that make it easier to pass some of the new anti-piracy regulations that will be coming around the corner. Owning a laptop isn't a right either, so I guess the government can just search it whenever they want to ensure you haven't pirated any software.
You guys all sound like cannabis activists
Good for you on this and you are correct we should as greens of course should be screaming
I could give an essay but dont feel like wasting my time as I know we are cowards
Oh they will say we are soft on crime.......
Oh what about the green children ??? OH MY!!!
Yeah sure they will
Because they have strategists...and we shot ours or make them into anti semites or some other stupid thing
Oh No a polarizing issue....quick hide till it blows over....hahhahahhahaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Cheers
Removing Civil Rights is a Crime
Fighting for our civil rights doesn't mean that we are soft on crime.
Violating civil rights is a crime - arguably one of the greatest crimes possible in a free and democratic society.
As for drunk drivers, I personally think that instead of random civil rights violations, we should implement stiffer penalties.
You can provide your feedback to the Justice department. Just go to their website and there is a link you can use to send them an email with your views on this.