The police cannot legally administer a breathalyzer test without reasonable suspicion of impairment. That is why they first ask if you've been drinking - while they lean in as close as possible. They're looking for slurred speech, glazed eyes, lack of fine co-ordination, alcohol smell on breath etcetera.
drug testing
- Thread starter tomlinsk
- Start date
medicineman
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,804
- Points
- 1,110
Torlyn said:Perchance, invading the personal, privately owned space that is your personal motor vehicle? Aren't they infringing upon our rights there?
T
I think that may be trumped by you and your car being on the publically owned and used roads in your potentially impaired state
.MM
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
medicineman said:I think that may be trumped by you and your car being on the publically owned and used roads in your potentially impaired state
Ah, but then given that we're sailors/soldiers/aircrew, aren't we sorta assets of the state? Ergo, if we're publically owned...
T
Your vehicle cannot be searched unless you give permission, they have a warrant, or reasonable suspicion that a crime is in progress. If, for example, they see a weapon on a seat in plain sight they would generally have grounds to search, but if they lift up something covering said weapon, that evidence would most likely not be admissible.
There was a recent case in Brampton where police responded to gun call at a bar and a description was given of either or both the suspects and their vehicle. The police stopped all vehicles leaving and found the suspects and at least one firearm. Because the vehicle did not fit the erroneous description, the judge ruled that they had no right to stop it and the case was tossed.
Sorry, I6, I miss understood. As far as I know, there is not a drug test yet that can measure impairment. It is up to a policeman/woman's judgement to make an arrest if there are signs, and a court to decide if the arrest was legitimate. I do not believe that a roadside (handheld) breathalyzer is sufficient to obtain a conviction, the only (older) ones with which I have any familiarity were not accurate enough. Generally, one of three results would follow such a test: release, twelve-hour suspension (and anybody that fought one of those would be an idiot as, embarassment, cost of cab, towing, and overnight storage aside, they're freebies with no record; an argument would result in the next step), or transport, usually in cuffs, to wherever the main machine and specialist operator are. The results of that would be what went to court if the blood-alcohol level was over the limit. And there are two possible convictions - over 0.08 and impaired, which does not have to be over that limit. Somebody could be over 0.08 and not actually be impaired, although that is a level that society has deemed to be the maximum acceptable and upheld in court as a reasonable level. Court cases have no doubt hinged upon whether or not somebody is actually impaired while over the limit - lawyers get rich on such things. Essentially, though, a breathalyzer can give a reasonable indication of actual impairment.
And no, we're not publically owned. The Charter still applies to us.
There was a recent case in Brampton where police responded to gun call at a bar and a description was given of either or both the suspects and their vehicle. The police stopped all vehicles leaving and found the suspects and at least one firearm. Because the vehicle did not fit the erroneous description, the judge ruled that they had no right to stop it and the case was tossed.
Sorry, I6, I miss understood. As far as I know, there is not a drug test yet that can measure impairment. It is up to a policeman/woman's judgement to make an arrest if there are signs, and a court to decide if the arrest was legitimate. I do not believe that a roadside (handheld) breathalyzer is sufficient to obtain a conviction, the only (older) ones with which I have any familiarity were not accurate enough. Generally, one of three results would follow such a test: release, twelve-hour suspension (and anybody that fought one of those would be an idiot as, embarassment, cost of cab, towing, and overnight storage aside, they're freebies with no record; an argument would result in the next step), or transport, usually in cuffs, to wherever the main machine and specialist operator are. The results of that would be what went to court if the blood-alcohol level was over the limit. And there are two possible convictions - over 0.08 and impaired, which does not have to be over that limit. Somebody could be over 0.08 and not actually be impaired, although that is a level that society has deemed to be the maximum acceptable and upheld in court as a reasonable level. Court cases have no doubt hinged upon whether or not somebody is actually impaired while over the limit - lawyers get rich on such things. Essentially, though, a breathalyzer can give a reasonable indication of actual impairment.
And no, we're not publically owned. The Charter still applies to us.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Loachman said:
Unless such restrictions can be demostrably justified in a free and democratic society. We've got pages and pages of arguments here, and the vast majority believe that testing prior to deployment is a good thing. Granted, this isn't exactly a representative cross-section of Canada, but if it were, would you acquiece to the majority (as per a democracy)? Or, do you believe that our rights need to be protected regardless of what the populous wants? If our citizens decide that certain restrictions on rights are desirable, then so be it.
If one of those restrictions is me peeing in a bottle, or giving a blood test before I sail, then so be it. There is something to be said for the restrictions of rights for CF members in order to improve the optics for the general public. The more the public believe in, and support us, the easier it is in the long run to do our jobs.
Your example regarding the gun seizure... This is something you are happy with? I'm curious how you feel about something like that... Let's say that the suspects were released, and went and committed a crime with that firearm... It's possible that because the police infringed upon their rights and seized the firearm, they may have prevented a more serious crime. How would you justify that to the families of potential victims?
If my tone's a bit abrasive, it isn't meant to be. You've stated what / why you believe, and I'm trying to understand how your thought process is working, in order to further a meaningful discussion.
T
- Reaction score
- 21,955
- Points
- 1,260
I have a license to buy a gun (and a permit to move it around to ranges)
The SCoC has said that since guns are "inherently dangerous" : some charter protections do not apply.
I have been deployed with a troop on drugs - and I have seen it in the barracks, and elswhere. I have seen the CoC and the NIS burying their head in the sand like a fucking ostrich -- I am 100% behind Gen Hilliers desire to test ALL MEMBERS.
Live by the code and you pissed in a bottle with no worries and all it did was waste 30 sec of you day which the crown owns anyway...
The SCoC has said that since guns are "inherently dangerous" :
some charter protections do not apply.I have been deployed with a troop on drugs - and I have seen it in the barracks, and elswhere. I have seen the CoC and the NIS burying their head in the sand like a fucking ostrich -- I am 100% behind Gen Hilliers desire to test ALL MEMBERS.
Live by the code and you pissed in a bottle with no worries and all it did was waste 30 sec of you day which the crown owns anyway...
Torlyn said:
No requirement for drug testing has been demonstrably justified. Because impairment cannot be proven by drug testing, there is no real benefit. Because false positives are very possible, there is a likely detriment to non-drugusers. If you can provide one example of a drug conviction based upon a drug test, please share it. Alcohol is a different matter because levels can be measured and linked to impairment, and there have been thousands of convictions as a result.
Until reliable drug tests can be developed, and they are able to measure impairment rather than simple exposure, they are meaningless.
And what the populace wants is not necessarily fair, correct, or ultimately desireable. Democracy unchecked is simply a polite term for a mob. That is why countries have constitutions capable of overriding democratically-decided laws that do not meet constitutional standards. What the majority believes to be a good thing may not necessarily be, regardless of how strong that belief may be. I'll bring up the Firearms Act again as a perfect illustration.
That is why I asked for proof that a problem exists. Not just casual use, but cases of impairment causing death, injury, or property damage. There may or may not be - I simply do not know. I have seen no such indication in my particular environment, so I'm asking. Presuming that there is a problem, it must then be proven that a given counter is effective or likely to be effective and is proportional.
I do not see that society will view us any better if we submit to drug tests. In fact, it may well view us in a more negative light if reports are publicised that X number or percent test positive, because they will not see the context or understand that many results may be false and that, in any case, no impairment or job performance can be linked to those numbers. Most people do not read beyond the first or second sentence, even if they get past the headline, and we will merely be presumed to be druggies.
I do not agree with the judge who dismissed that case. I do not know if it was appealed, but I would hope so. There is a difference between an illegal search and stopping cars leaving a parking lot under the circumstances. As I understand, there was nothing illegal about the search itself. The judge's objection was simply that only the vehicle described should have been stopped.
As far as our rights are concerned, they are no different than any other citizen's. Rights apply to all, equally, or they are meaningless. The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada. The Charter is part of that. All other laws and their attendant regulations must conform to that or be struck down by the courts.
One Charter-protected right is to be treated equally under the law. If an argument is going to be made that drug testing can be linked to safety, and I believe that to be false, then that safety requirement should be applied also to all operators of the deadliest machine in the country: the private automobile.
To some/many, this is trivial and not worth worrying about. I could not have cared less many years ago either; successive waves of legislative attacks on law-abiding citizens who happened to own firearms and like shooting changed that. The current Firearms Act attacks numerous Charter-guaranteed rights, among numerous other flaws. The awareness that this has awakened within me also causes me to disagree with the terrorism act and agree with gay rights - and any others' rights for that matter.
I don't see anything abrasive in your tone, so don't worry about that.
Infidel-6 said:I have a license to buy a gun (and a permit to move it around to ranges)
The SCoC has said that since guns are "inherently dangerous" :
I have been deployed with a troop on drugs - and I have seen it in the barracks, and elswhere. I have seen the CoC and the NIS burying their head in the sand like a ******* ostrich -- I am 100% behind Gen Hilliers desire to test ALL MEMBERS.
Live by the code and you pissed in a bottle with no worries and all it did was waste 30 sec of you day which the crown owns anyway...
I have the same licence.
The Supreme Court has made two rulings on the Firearms Act. One concerned the legal ability of the Federal Government to enact the law in the first place, as regulatory law is Provincial jurisdiction. This is why it falls into the Criminal Code. That case was poorly argued and, of the total of eight judges that heard it at each step up to and including the Supremes, four sided with the government and four did not. The other case involved the validity of searches under certain circumstances, and that part of the act was struck down. Both cases were very narrow in focus, and haven't decided anything of significance. A much broader case is currently winding its way slowly through the system, and I am helping to fund that. The same Charter protections do apply. The draughters of the legislation clearly knew that, which is why they use weaselly words to try and disguise what they were doing. It was one of those protections that the second case upheld. The others have not yet been tested.
As for the individuals to whom you refer, were any ever thus impaired while on duty? If so, then a case can be made from the safety point of view but I would still say that the case would be weak; the problem was already known (to their peers, at least, and I'm presuming that it was reported), so what further benefit would random or blanket drug testing have achieved? If there was no impairment, then this falls back into the criminal sphere and normal investigations need to take place just as for any other crime.
I get the impression, if I understand what you are saying, that the problem is not so much the original detection, as specific incidences of drug use by specific individuals have been observed, but actually having that drug use taken seriously and dealt with. Was the chain of command informed? Were the MPs informed? Perhaps treating those who do not report drug use, or those to whom it is reported but do not act, as accessories and charging them might achieve the desired result. The only benefit that I can see of the TF 1-07 testing is that the wilfully-blind may open their eyes, however I still do not believe that safety will be improved.
At least then the focus is on those who misbehave rather than thousands of innocents who are, in effect, being accused of drug use until they prove themselves innocent.
It's not the time, it's the principle - the insult and the implied accusation of untrustworthiness and criminal activity.
If we are not trustworthy, then of what value is our oath/solemn affirmation of allegiance? Of what value are the Commissioning Scrolls of those who hold them, and the fancy words contained thereon?
' It's possible that because the police infringed upon their rights and seized the firearm, they may have prevented a more serious crime. How would you justify that to the families of potential victims?'
- The same way the Police, the Courts, and the Parole system does when an ex-con murders again; "We are not responsible for factors beyond our control." We can't seize stuff because a crime 'might' happen, otherwise every drug dealer in town would be shook down every day. Can't have that, right? Criminals are one of the three pillars of the Justice Industry. If we don't keep recycling our criminals onto the streets, we can't keep the Lawyers and Judges in hookers and SUVs.
- Besides, we need the test failures to be drivers for OCTs on Maple Guardian Exercises, so they can (deleted on edit).
- No, we just love the human trash druggies coming on Ex, so we can waste time babysitting other peoples mental defectives.
- The same way the Police, the Courts, and the Parole system does when an ex-con murders again; "We are not responsible for factors beyond our control." We can't seize stuff because a crime 'might' happen, otherwise every drug dealer in town would be shook down every day. Can't have that, right? Criminals are one of the three pillars of the Justice Industry. If we don't keep recycling our criminals onto the streets, we can't keep the Lawyers and Judges in hookers and SUVs.
- Besides, we need the test failures to be drivers for OCTs on Maple Guardian Exercises, so they can (deleted on edit).
- No, we just love the human trash druggies coming on Ex, so we can waste time babysitting other peoples mental defectives.
