Canada Considering Random Breathalyzer Testing

Published on October 5th, 2009

What’s next? Random blood tests to protect the public from potential AIDs infections? Random brain scans to find those thinking of committing a crime? When do the police finally get to do anything they want to anyone they want anytime they feel like it? It’s all for our own good, of course.

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.

The change would also bring Canada in line with a number of other countries in Europe and countries like Australia, which have adopted similar measures.

34 users responded in " Canada Considering Random Breathalyzer Testing "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 gr8 Costume said, on October 5th, 2009 at 7:17 am

I love that costume.

Excuse mam you appear to be under the influence can you just take a test and blow here.

I give the Halloween costume 5 pumpkins.

# 2 Greg Allen said, on October 5th, 2009 at 7:27 am

One time I was driving home extremely tired (but totally sober) and a cop was seriously tailgating me.

Distracted by this joker, I took a turn wide and he pulled me over for a sobriety test.

Talk about being forced into self incrimination!

Had I refused to self-incriminate myself, I would have been immediately arrested. This is just wrong.

# 3 Mikey Twit said, on October 5th, 2009 at 7:31 am

Being a Canadian, I tell you this minister is talking out of his ass. There is no way this would survive a constitutional challenge. Even up here in “socialist” Canada, our constitution is pretty solid and requires probable cause, and I’m pretty sure just driving does not qualify.

Even after all this post 9/11 stuff, officials up here had to go before a judge in a closed court, to stand up against our constitution, before officials up here could do “secret” wire taps and such.

# 4 LDA said, on October 5th, 2009 at 7:36 am

In Australia there is random alcohol (for many years) and drug (recently) testing for drivers.

# 5 JimR said, on October 5th, 2009 at 7:39 am

Like every other freedom that has been severely curtailed or taken away… it’s the all the assholes who think they are above the original and reasonable laws who leave no choice in the matter.

# 6 Sister Mary Hand Grenade of Quiet Reflection said, on October 5th, 2009 at 7:58 am

Ewww, all those fuckers have bad breath.

# 7 Special Ed said, on October 5th, 2009 at 7:59 am

I still like naked on roller skates as a pull toy for my costume.

# 8 chuck said, on October 5th, 2009 at 8:22 am

We have random road-blocks checking for drunk drivers in BC. Here’s how it works:
You’re driving along and notice traffic is slowing down. At this point you might notice a police car at the side of the road. But it’s just sitting there. His job is to go after anyone who tries to turn off before the road-block.

At the road-block, you stop, wind down your window, and a police officer sticks his head in and asks if you’ve had anything to drink. Obviously he’s trying to smell alcohol on your breath.

My question is: if you refuse to answer, can you be arrested?
If you say yes, can you still legally refuse the breathalyzer test?
If you say no, but the officer decides he smells alcohol, can he require you to take the test?
It seems to me that if there is no legal way to refuse (and prevent self-incrimination) then the whole process must be unconstitutional.

But the Canadian constitution is a little weird. It was written in 1982 by a bunch of lawyers, not by any “founding fathers” a few hundred years ago. So it’s not meant to be easily understood, and it has an infamous “not-withstanding” clause which basically allows the Federal government to pass any law it wants (even if obviously unconstitutional) as long as it’s limited to 5 years. Of course the government can renew the law every 5 years.

So we have a constitution which says we have rights, but also says the government can do anything they want.

Unlike the U.S. which has a constitution which says we have rights, restricts the government, but since the police and FBI have guns, they can do anything they want.

# 9 James said, on October 5th, 2009 at 8:33 am

Heresy! Why doesn’t madd just admit their true desires.. prohibition. I’m surprised they haven’t yet asked to have police standing outside of bars and restaurants asking anyone who exits to take a breathalyzer before leaving.

# 10 Satchmo Bevins said, on October 5th, 2009 at 8:49 am

A blond gets pulled over by a cop…….

# 11 MikeN said, on October 5th, 2009 at 8:53 am

This already happens in the US, with checkpoints.

# 12 drpiper said, on October 5th, 2009 at 8:57 am

James, Having the police stand outside of bars and giving a breathalyzer test before anyone gets into the car will never happen. They would lose way too much drunk driving revenue.

# 13 Nth of the 49th said, on October 5th, 2009 at 8:58 am

Take no heed.
Just another spineless politician catering to a special interest group for votes.
There’s an election coming soon here.

# 14 Mr. Fusion said, on October 5th, 2009 at 9:03 am

Considering the minor imposition on the driver compared to the benefits of removing intoxicated drivers from the road, I don’t have a big issue with this. Drivers are not asked for their licenses, only if they have been drinking.

Canadian law uses a breathalyzer only at the roadside to determine intoxication. They do not use subjective physical testing. If you fail the roadside test then you are arrested and taken to a police station where you are given two more tests. These second tests are more elaborate and used to extrapolate your intoxication at the time of arrest.

If the cop has no suspicion then you won’t be given the first breathalyzer anyway.

# 15 Mikey Twit said, on October 5th, 2009 at 9:08 am

Everything you stated there in those scenarios DOES give the police PC, even if it’s the barest amount:
-avoiding a check point=suspicious
-refusing a breathalyzer after the officer “thinks” they smell alcohol in the car=suspicious

I agree on the face of it, it is the minimal amount basis for PC but it still falls within the guideline.

Then again, how many cops do you think, just want to pull over random drivers just for the hell of it to check for alcohol? Police don’t want to bother with the paper work if they don’t have to, so they only pull people over when they have PC/suspicion. I know, I deal with police in my job and sometimes getting them to enforce the basic local by-laws is like pulling teeth, because they don’t want to bother with the paper work for “petty” crimes.

# 16 JimR said, on October 5th, 2009 at 9:26 am

The police in (Ontario) Canada are mostly reasonable. They don’t go out of their way to nab you with petty things unless you are being a jerk to others on the road. I’ve been stopped at checkpoints maybe 4 times in my 37 years of driving. If you aren’t slurring your words, or smell like a brewery, a check lasts about 1 minute tops.

Like Fusion says, the benefits for everyone on the road outweigh the minor imposition.

# 17 hermes said, on October 5th, 2009 at 9:45 am

Wouldn’t it make more sense to require licensed establishments to have a breathalyzer available for patrons? If we’re really talking about reducing deaths due to intoxicated driving, then let’s take the guess-work out of it! I recognize that many choose to drive anyways, and for this, we have checkpoints (though fewer and fewer, it seems). But, for those who have been drinking, and are not entirely sure about their blood alcohol level, wouldn’t this be a useful tool to make available _before_ one gets behind the wheel?

# 18 chuck said, on October 5th, 2009 at 9:50 am

#14,15 – my experience has been similar – the police are quite reasonable and don’t seem to have any interest in arresting people and doing unnecessary paperwork.

But avoiding paperwork shouldn’t be the only method to prevent abuse of powers by the police.

If you are driving in a straight line, obeying the traffic rules, etc then the police don’t have the right to pull you over (do they?).

So why should they have the right to completely block the road and just check everyone?

# 19 ghm101 said, on October 5th, 2009 at 10:03 am

I have lived in OZ where they have this and the UK where they don’t.

In the UK, plenty of people have 2,3,4 pints then drive without thinking too much about it – borderline on/over the limit.

In Australia you never know when you will get breathalised, zero tolerance for exceeding the limit.

The outcome is there are far fewer drunk drivers on the road.

Although I appreciate it curtails a persons freedom, it does seem to deter drunk drivers, made the roads safer, and probably prevented more than a few accidents.

As much as I hate to say it, I prefer the Australian system.

# 20 CeramicGod said, on October 5th, 2009 at 10:36 am

How about ruthlessly prosecuting and punishing those that do harmful things while driving under the influence, yet leave innocent people alone?

Oh no, that wouldn’t work, that doesn’t assist the government in it’s ever growing quest for more power and control!

# 21 James said, on October 5th, 2009 at 10:54 am

Ahhh #13, the old, ..”if you’ve done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear” argument.. love that one.

The problem you see is neither of us wants a drunk person driving on the road, but no matter how hard madd tries this is not a black and white argument.

One drink does not = drunk for most people, nor 2, perhaps even 3 or so.. it depends alot on the individual.

This is an argument where people get sensitive over it due to its nature, but we need sensible policy; all or none is not a sensible policy.

When madd (and prohibition types) begin targeting drunks and habitual offenders and leave those of us who know how much is too much alone I’ll start championing their cause. I know asking for common sense on any issue is asking alot.

# 22 Luc said, on October 5th, 2009 at 11:01 am

“How about ruthlessly prosecuting and punishing those that do harmful things while driving under the influence, yet leave innocent people alone?”

That’s called installing a padlock after a break-in, you bonehead. “Innocent people” are not innocent if they drive under the influence. They are accidents waiting to happen, possibly fatal. If you stopped for one second to remember that there is no cure or reversal for death, you’d quickly realize why prevention is so important.

Random breathalyzer testing is common in my country. Geez, I wonder why?!!! Because thousands of morons drive under the influence and kill truly innocent people every year, that’s why.

Keys, passwords and padlocks wouldn’t exist if people were honest. Such laws wouldn’t exist if people had any sense in their numb skulls. Douse yourself in alcohol, whatever, I do myself sometimes, but STFU and take a taxi. Your penis won’t shrink just because you’re not driving your own killing machine on your way back home.

# 23 Mr. Fusion said, on October 5th, 2009 at 1:36 pm

#17, hermes

Wouldn’t it make more sense to require licensed establishments to have a breathalyzer available for patrons?

Wouldn’t work.

Breathalyzers are sensitive items. But they only measure the amount of alcohol in the breath from alcohol in the bloodstream. If you burped, still had traces of alcohol in your mouth, or just downed a shot minutes before the test, the results will be wrong. A driver could end up driving off thinking he was legal when he wasn’t.

Alcohol is absorbed into the bloodstream at differing rates. The BAC will be different when you are tested by the police than when you leave the establishment. It is the amount of BAC when the police test you that counts.

# 24 Martin said, on October 5th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

I don’t see why this is news. Let me know if I’m missing something. As #11 pointed out, they do this is the US already at checkpoints. And the Supreme Court said 19 years ago that it’s allowed.

# 25 Mikey Twit said, on October 5th, 2009 at 2:34 pm

#24

First of all the U.S. supreme court has no jurisdiction in Canada!(Read the post!)
Second, it’s not about checkpoints, it’s about police randomly pulling people over with NO probable cause.

# 26 Loupe Garou said, on October 5th, 2009 at 2:38 pm

“The change would also bring Canada in line with a number of other countries in Europe and countries like Australia, which have adopted similar measures.”

The best reason of all, all the other kids are doing it. Ah the joy of a homogeneous world.

# 27 MikeN said, on October 5th, 2009 at 4:00 pm

Fusion, they don’t ask for driver’s licenses at checkpoints?
The reason cops like checkpoints at all along with seat belt laws is that it gives them an opportunity to run checks.

>Second, it’s not about checkpoints, it’s about police randomly pulling people over with NO probable cause.

Think about that again.

# 28 Mikey Twit said, on October 5th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

#27
Whether you want to accept it it or not, there is a difference between police setting up a checkpoint to check for DWI’s, which they frequently do during the xmas season or down the road from a bar, or setting up a dragnet to capture someone, so they check every car/driver vs. just picking out a car at random cruising along doing nothing wrong, pulling it over, just to “check” for DWI. You can argue there isn’t all you want and just call it a difference of opinion, since I see a difference in the two.

# 29 JimR said, on October 5th, 2009 at 6:22 pm

#27, MikeN, I was never asked for my driver’s license at a checkpoint for DWI’s.

# 30 deowll said, on October 5th, 2009 at 6:30 pm

Not sure but I’d think the boss would be bleeped off if you spent the day giving breath tests and nobody tested positive.

It would suggest you are a waste of money.

# 31 qb said, on October 5th, 2009 at 7:44 pm

It’s the Conservatives, they love this kind of stuff.

# 32 kingd said, on October 5th, 2009 at 9:22 pm

Well, unfortunately in Saskatchewan rural cops don’t seem to have anything better to do than pull over someone whether they suspect anything or not… even if you were driving civilly and obeying traffic laws you can be subject to the red and blue. Even more so it seems, or seemed, that if your under the age of 35 and its past the hours of 8pm… a breathalyzer exam is common.

# 33 Rob (AU) said, on October 6th, 2009 at 4:22 am

As we (Australia) already have this, plus many other checks such as ‘bona fide’(Sth Aus), at random in Australia, just remember it all started with random breath testing.

Then they waited and introduced drugs, then vehicle roadworthy … and the list goes on, til now you are required to prove your innocence before being allowed to continue.

I, personally, refuse and request to be arrested, at which point the police have, so far, moved me on.

A friend of mine, who works in the government legal area, says this is because they don’t want it tested, and probably dis-allowed, by the courts and they would rather the few they tell to get lost than losing it all.

The Australian Supreme Court has inferred in the past they are somewhat bemused by these laws and are looking for an excuse to end them, something they cannot do without a test case before them.

# 34 Casual Observer said, on October 6th, 2009 at 9:54 am

Why don’t they have these checks outside of congress and parliment?

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!