Banned?

I'll cut and paste a few selections, some leo, some not. Some random stuff.

There is no way this law allows law enforcement to come into your house and test you for anything without your consent. No warrant, no entry unless they are in hot pursuit or exigent circumstances such as imminent distruction of evidence.
BTW, I agree with you on the last part. Far too many people on here can't wait until the cops take our guns away
------------------------------------
leo-Have we not been noticing that these articles are being fed with “facts” by criminal defence lawyers? Nobody finds that suspicious? They have a serious agenda to get the public on their side for this. They are still reeling from the changes of a 90 day suspension to indefinite until its been decided in court. That took away a huge tactic for them of delay delay delay.

The new legislation takes away their main case law defences in court and they are pizzed.

Police can’t enter your house without a warrant. The new laws are written specifically with exemptions about the 2 hour thing that if you had no reasonable belief you may need to be tested you can drink legally to your hearts contenet. It simply closed the loophole of getting into a situation or running from police, and power slamming booze after the fact. The only change there is now the judge won’t even entertain the attempt defence. Police could always demand samples later and hope the judge used some sense. It’s rarely done anyway. Nobody is kicking in the door to randomly demand a sample. Police need a feeney warrant to go into your house, which means they already had enough evidence to seek out an arrest warrant on you anyway. Nothing has changed there.

This law closes those technicalities that the high priced impaired lawyers feed off.

The mandatory screening is a hot button topic, but in the first week here it took 3 impaired drivers off the road that would likely have been let go otherwise. None blew under 100. That’s what’s on the road. And honestly it’s disgusting how ingrained in the culture and socially acceptable drinking and driving is.

I’d encourage people to do some research, not get inflamed by every huff post style article getting pointers from the lawyers who are losing their meal ticket.

We don’t listen to people like Heidi rathehatever for gun control pointers and sensibility, why would we listen to people who’s entire career is getting drunk drivers back on the road? They both have agendas.
----------------------------------------------
guy -Police can enter your house without a warrant, you know this. It is a reverse onus law and you know it. You have to prove you are innocent, in the mean time they take your licence for an indefinite time. So stop down playing it. This is a police state law, it gives the cops way to much power and the "loop holes" they are closing are rights you did have but are now gone.

leo-Please point out what gives me that authority because I have a lot of people to update, and the town will be happy that I can just enter the drug houses whenever I want. This is very exciting news.
Except no we can’t. Only in emergency situations and no this won’t fall under that umbrella.

different leo answering same guy-Apparently you know very little of this. Show me in the Criminal Code where police can enter your house without a warrant and/or without fresh pursuit?
-----------------------------------
guy-Yes they can. Dont need a warrant and can come and test you anywhere. This includes drinking a beer while cutting your grass. Cop sees you and comes back 1 hour later and you are in your house, 4 th beer, ask for a test. If you dont provide one, criminal charge, if you do and blow over, DUI. Prove me wrong on this one , please.

leo-So much fail and ignorance in this. Police cannot just come into your house and test you. That is a fallacy. Fresh pursuit or warrant. That is the ONLY way that police can enter your house
----------------------------------
guy-
The "reasonable expectation" clause (about having to provide a breath sample) puts the onus on the accused. Not cool.

leo-Reasonable means it needs to meet the agreement of your average schmoe. Buddy who gets in an accident and flees yes. Buddy who just came home from the store and has a couple brews not so much. It’s not reverse onus as the police still have to prove evidence that they had reasonable grounds. Reasonable grounds hasn’t changed. You still need that to arrest and lay charges.
---------------------------------------

So while the law appears to me to be over reaching, it's not quite as bad as it seems, in the sense that if you have a basic understanding of your rights, you shouldn't get steam rolled. If a leo comes to your door (and assuming you are not recently involved in a hit n run), don't open the door. Don't even talk to them. If they legitimately have a right/reason to enter your home, your door is getting kicked in/knocked down. This is how it looks to me anyways.

 

I don't think the real problem Is cops coming into your house After the fact .
It's all kinds of other ways ,When people are out and about ,That they will be able to harass people that are doing nothing wrong, Like The bottle return .



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.