Oh (No), Canada! Parliament Considers Random DUI Stops

Look at what’s going on north of the border. Canadian Parliament is considering allowing police to stop vehicles – without probable cause – to check for drunk drivers. This is a very dangerous path Canada is heading down.

Random testing for drunk driving must be implemented carefully

The potential exists for police abuse of power

Vancouver Sun October 5, 2009

A proposal by a parliamentary committee for random breath testing for impaired driving could save lives.

Without strict controls, however, it would create for police a tool that is susceptible for abuse and that doesn’t meet the test of reasonable search and seizure.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has recommended that the Criminal Code prohibition against drunk driving be amended to allow police to randomly test drivers for drinking even if an officer has no reasonable grounds to suspect alcohol has been consumed.

The committee is rightly concerned that too many drivers are still getting away with being drunk behind the wheel. They are particularly concerned with experienced drinkers, who are better at masking their impairment and who are more likely to be repeat offenders.

The battle against drunk driving in Canada has made progress in reducing the carnage on the roads since the passage in 1969 of the Criminal Code provisions that set a blood alcohol limit of .08 and made it a crime to refuse to give a breath sample.

But drunk driving causing injuries and death is still a big issue in B.C. and Canada. According to the committee report, it is the number one criminal cause of death in Canada.

In 2006, 907 Canadians were killed in a crash involving a drunk driver. Almost one in four Canadians have a friend or relative that has been involved in a collision where the other driver was drinking; another one in six had a relative or family member who caused an accident after drinking and getting behind the wheel.

And after years of decline, the number of people killed by drunk drivers has started to rise again.

So the committee members are rightly concerned that too many people are getting away with drinking and driving.

They argue, based on experience in other jurisdictions, that eliminating the requirement that a police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that a driver has been drinking before asking for a breath sample would make our streets safer.

Every time a drinking driver escapes detection now, they argue, the message that he or she can continue to get away with this dangerous behaviour is reinforced.

The problem will be in how the law is interpreted. If it gives police a tool with which they can pull over any vehicle at their whim and require the driver submit to a breath test, the temptation for misuse may be great for the tiny minority of officers who may be tempted to abuse their authority.

If research supports the idea that random testing will act as a deterrent to drinking and driving and save lives, then a testing system must be developed that is truly random and that does not allow officers to pick and choose who they test.

It might be as simple as counting cars going through a roadblock and testing every 100th driver.

Such a truly random system should have a better chance of standing up to a Charter challenge, since it is based on the reasonable suspicion that all drivers are under since we know that at any given time, some of them have been drinking.

It should also have the same deterrent effect of random audits performed by Revenue Canada. Drivers will know that their ability to appear sober won’t help them if they are randomly picked for a test.