Topic: RIDE (Roadside Checkpoints) - Share, or Keep Quiet?

[Brigitte]

Just read this article in the Star.  In Ontario, especially during the holidays, there are roadside checks for impaired drivers in random (and formerly-unknown) locations.  Now, with social media (namely Twitter), these locations are being revealed.

Where do you sit on this issue?

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1108072--cops-and-tweeters-spar-over-ride-check-alerts

[tpl]

I don't do twitter  AND I have not even seen a RIDE since moving to G.

However as I believe that the Police should not be allowed to do RANDOM checks on anyone,  I would have no ethical problem broadcasting the locations of a RIDE unit if I saw it. 

But if, for example, I knew that the police were to be examining everybody in a pub car park at closing time I would certainly not let anybody know of that as the police would then have reasonable cause to believe people had been drinking.

[johngenx]

...everybody in a pub car park at closing time...

I don't get why bar parking lots at closing time (and other times) aren't hot spots for cops to nab people?

[The Mighty Duck]

I think talk of "enabling drunk drivers" is probably overstated. If someone is drunk enough to be unsafe on the roads, I doubt they're cognizant enough to check Twitter for RIDE locations.

I don't do twitter  AND I have not even seen a RIDE since moving to G.

However as I believe that the Police should not be allowed to do RANDOM checks on anyone,  I would have no ethical problem broadcasting the locations of a RIDE unit if I saw it. 

But if, for example, I knew that the police were to be examining everybody in a pub car park at closing time I would certainly not let anybody know of that as the police would then have reasonable cause to believe people had been drinking.

I actually disagree with both premises here. A RIDE check is not "random" - they stop and check every car passing through that stretch of road. This is as it should be - equitable treatment for all. Checking everyone in one parking lot is far more random, and is also presumptive. Just because one is parked at a pub does not imply they are drinking... I think the "reasonable cause" argument is a stretch.

[johngenx]

I wouldn't agree with lining up all the bar patrons, but if someone comes out of the bar tipsy, can't we pull them over within seconds of them driving?  It seems to be a good location to watch for drunk driving behaviour.

I saw an interesting tactic.  The police had a Checkstop on a major road and it caused serious gridlock.  Far down the road at an intersection, they had a sign indicating to have patience thanks to the Checkstop ahead.  I was NOT drinking, but sure didn't feel like waiting 30-45 minutes in line, either, so I bailed at the intersection.  Suddenly, I had a cruiser in front of me.  They figured the people bailing were the most likely to be drunk, not just impatient.

[richink]

Reminds me of a story in the news when I was a kid where a man tried to evade a roadside checkpoint by turning on to a side road that had an uncontrolled level crossing. We can all guess what happened next, I figured it was Darwin at work again.

That said, in theory I believe they should be kept quiet but in our untraceable social media world as it is there is no way to trully stop that.

Realistically I don't care if there are roadside checks or not and I have a rudimentary equation to help out. Number of hours at a venue divided by quantity of drinks consumed. If the number exceeds one, I don't drive. Plain and simple.

[wing]

They always setup on the main roads, take the less travelled route and avoid the hassle.

[tpl]

I think talk of "enabling drunk drivers" is probably overstated. If someone is drunk enough to be unsafe on the roads, I doubt they're cognizant enough to check Twitter for RIDE locations.

I don't do twitter  AND I have not even seen a RIDE since moving to G.

However as I believe that the Police should not be allowed to do RANDOM checks on anyone,  I would have no ethical problem broadcasting the locations of a RIDE unit if I saw it. 

But if, for example, I knew that the police were to be examining everybody in a pub car park at closing time I would certainly not let anybody know of that as the police would then have reasonable cause to believe people had been drinking.

I actually disagree with both premises here. A RIDE check is not "random" - they stop and check every car passing through that stretch of road. This is as it should be - equitable treatment for all. Checking everyone in one parking lot is far more random, and is also presumptive. Just because one is parked at a pub does not imply they are drinking... I think the "reasonable cause" argument is a stretch.

The doctrine of "reasonable cause or suspicion" that an offence may be or has been committed is as old as modern policing, just under 200 years.   A police officer standing at a RIDE stop has no reasonable cause to stop anyone but I agree that once he has stopped someone he may then have a suspicion that they have been drinking and so to test them.  The point is and I know the Supremes disagreed, that the officer has no reasonable suspicion.  IIRC the Supremes used that cop out ( no pun intended) of "as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. " to allow random stops.  I hate to think ill of the Court but I wonder if they were quietly pressured into that one.

[The Mighty Duck]

The doctrine of "reasonable cause or suspicion" that an offence may be or has been committed is as old as modern policing, just under 200 years.   A police officer standing at a RIDE stop has no reasonable cause to stop anyone but I agree that once he has stopped someone he may then have a suspicion that they have been drinking and so to test them.  The point is and I know the Supremes disagreed, that the officer has no reasonable suspicion.  IIRC the Supremes used that cop out ( no pun intended) of "as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. " to allow random stops.  I hate to think ill of the Court but I wonder if they were quietly pressured into that one.

And that is a very valid and reasonable expectation for something like, say, searching a person or their property. Not for stopping a car on a public roadway. IIRC police are entitled to stop a car simply to check the registration, no cause or suspicion necessary.

[Jaeger]

I don't get the whole " I don't believe in the law therefore I have no problem breaking it - or helping others to do so." line of reasoning.  Who has the greatest interest in avoiding a RIDE check, do you think?  Who stands to benefit from boradcasting the location? How would you feel if you broadcast a RIDE check location, then some drunk evaded it only to take out a minivan with someone's wife and kids?  This isn't some far-fetched fantasy.  Drunks kill more people in Canada each year than murderers do. Helping them evade detection as means of expressing dissatisfaction with the law seems bloody strange to me.

Random checks ARE constitutionally permissible within the context of the RIDE program.  Period.  If everyone who didn't like a law, didn't obey the law.....

Jaeger

[Arctic_White]

I don't get the whole " I don't believe in the law therefore I have no problem breaking it - or helping others to do so." line of reasoning.  Who has the greatest interest in avoiding a RIDE check, do you think?  Who stands to benefit from boradcasting the location? How would you feel if you broadcast a RIDE check location, then some drunk evaded it only to take out a minivan with someone's wife and kids?  This isn't some far-fetched fantasy.  Drunks kill more people in Canada each year than murderers do. Helping them evade detection as means of expressing dissatisfaction with the law seems bloody strange to me.

Random checks ARE constitutionally permissible within the context of the RIDE program.  Period.  If everyone who didn't like a law, didn't obey the law.....

Jaeger

Well said.

I've lost a friend to a drunk driver and I am NOT sympathetic to anyone drinking & driving, and getting caught.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I don't get the whole " I don't believe in the law therefore I have no problem breaking it - or helping others to do so." line of reasoning.  Who has the greatest interest in avoiding a RIDE check, do you think?  Who stands to benefit from boradcasting the location? How would you feel if you broadcast a RIDE check location, then some drunk evaded it only to take out a minivan with someone's wife and kids?  This isn't some far-fetched fantasy.  Drunks kill more people in Canada each year than murderers do. Helping them evade detection as means of expressing dissatisfaction with the law seems bloody strange to me.

Random checks ARE constitutionally permissible within the context of the RIDE program.  Period.  If everyone who didn't like a law, didn't obey the law.....

Jaeger

 

My paternal grandfather was killed by a drunk driver in 1972.

[rrocket]

I had to become an expert on what the laws were on random stops....because I was harassed so much by the police when I had my Supra.  In case anyone hasn't heard my bleating, the Windsor Police are a bunch of buffoons.  The seemed to break the law at every turn.  Anyways...I got the help from a lawyer and learned just about everything on random stops.  Those included RIDE programs or just a random stop.

R. v. Ladouceur was one of the case studies we used.  The biggest thing I took from it and wasn't aware of, was that police were only authorized to ask questions germane to the stop.  Such as "Have you been drinking?" or questions pertaining to the mechanical and road worthiness of the vehicle.  Anything beyond that (and it was strongly worded) was that any further questions not germane to the stop constituted an unfounded inquisition. This had always been my biggest issue.  The myriad of questions NOT pertaining to the stop.  Those included "Where are you coming from?" "Where do you work?" "Why are you out so late?" and the like.  Those questions go beyond a usual stop and I take great exception to them.  What's worse, is the police think they are well within their rights to ask anything they please.  I've even been told "I can ask you any f****** thing I want!"  Umm....no..actually you can't.

To date, every single time they've crossed the line I've called them on it.  I've requested badge numbers, meetings with the Chief or calling the on duty Sergeant to the scene.  I feel strongly that the point needs to passed along that a random stop is not a license to ask invasive questions.  I have written apologies from 2 local police forces, the mayor and the chief of police.

Random stops DO infringe on our rights, but the court has ruled that (when done properly) the infringement is minor and the greater good the stop does for society in getting drunks off the road outweighs any negatives.  BUT...the stops must not turn into more than just a stop or as they said an "unfounded general inquisition".

[sailor723]

Well put rrocket. I guess I can live with these random roadblocks (They often run them here looking for seatbelts,expired plates and safety stickers) Sometimes however,I do have an uncomfortable feeling that they're getting a little too close to the old movie image of an East German Stasi with his hand out demanding "papers!"

[safristi]

seems like R.I.D.E programmes have R.I.D Ontario of DRUNK DRIVERS.......i seem to remember figures like this from the local attempt last year......Cars stopped 1,350....."arrests"  4...!!!!!......


 if they are that effective !!!! why not run them year round.....at Churches on Sunday...all that sacramental wine..........Strip clubs....after work hot spots et al et al................the idiots that continually drive hammered are alcoholics i.e in these permissive times poor souls that have a disease.....give them a pill and the local AA address......................

[tpl]

They always setup on the main roads, take the less travelled route and avoid the hassle.

This is true.   Some friends of mine, people who I have never seen drunk but may, from time to time, get to 51 mg/litre have worked out a set of back roads around our area  which have so far proved free of RIDE.   IMHO these routes are ones I would not take in winter, in the dark, with slippery roads even stone cold sober...why?   Because that is where all the impaired drivers will be driving.

RIDE units really have no choice but to be on fairly wide roads with low ( <=80 km/h) limits for room to park the trucks and of course for officer safety. The staffing required for RIDE  also leaves less officers available to cruise around those back roads ( or residential streets in cities) looking for the "classic" impaired driver; that is someone who is driving badly.

[safristi]

... I'm suggesting to the local Police chief......B.R.I.D.E......BACKROADS R.I.D.E....................why am i always the bridesmaid and never the flower girl...

[Scarecrow]

If one is a dangerously drunk driver and gets caught at a RIDE stop, then this is OK in my books.

However...

As a rule of thumb, an average-sized man who consumes one drink per hour will have a blood-alcohol level of 0.08.  At this level or higher, one is exposed to a criminal charge.  Serious stuff.

Even at a BAC level of 0.05 -- which means consuming less than 1 drink per hour -- one can have his license suspended.  Also pretty serious stuff (think of what that would do to your everyday life).  Tripping a 0.05 BAC is easier than you might think; have a glass of wine or two during dinner with your wife to celebrate her birthday, or your anniversary or whatever, and you're over the limit.

IMO the threshold for so-called "drunk driving" has been lowered to the point where it can easily make a "criminal" out of the average person.  It's too easy to catch the "little fish" with laws like these, rather than the truly dangerous drunks that we all want off the roads for everyone's safety.

[safristi]

Please give actual scientific biochemistry FACTS for your >>>"One glass of wine celebrating your wife's birthday BULL CRAP ".......happy anniversary bye the way...........

[tpl]

If one is a dangerously drunk driver and gets caught at a RIDE stop, then this is OK in my books.

However...

As a rule of thumb, an average-sized man who consumes one drink per hour will have a blood-alcohol level of 0.08.  At this level or higher, one is exposed to a criminal charge.  Serious stuff.

Even at a BAC level of 0.05 -- which means consuming less than 1 drink per hour -- one can have his license suspended.  Also pretty serious stuff (think of what that would do to your everyday life).  Tripping a 0.05 BAC is easier than you might think; have a glass of wine or two during dinner with your wife to celebrate her birthday, or your anniversary or whatever, and you're over the limit.

IMO the threshold for so-called "drunk driving" has been lowered to the point where it can easily make a "criminal" out of the average person.  It's too easy to catch the "little fish" with laws like these, rather than the truly dangerous drunks that we all want off the roads for everyone's safety.

Right!    And the most annoying things are:
The truly drunk do not have their licenses taken away forever, say , on the 2nd offense or if they kill or injure someone. And their cars confiscated.  I have heard the argument against those penalties that it might mean a whole (innocent) family would be left with no income and no car out in the country and then starve to death.  
AND these provincial "administrative penalties" for being over 0.05 should not be permitted as they are gross overkill  AND allow the Insurance companies to penalize people who are not guilty of any offense.  If the federal government chooses to lower the limit to 0.05 that's ok by me. I'd vote against it but the Feds ARE the government.

I read recently, last week that an average healthy male with an undamaged liver completely metabolizes about one standard  drink per hour to keep their BAC below 0.015  (15 mg/litre)