On Dec. 18, 2018, impaired driving laws in this country underwent a massive overhaul. Police officers are now able to conduct warrantless roadside searches to compel drivers to provide a breath sample, and they don't need to form any grounds in order to do so.
Understandably, this has left a lot of people unclear about what it all means.
As a criminal defence lawyer, here are the answers to the most common questions I've received about Canada's new impaired driving laws.
How has the law changed?
While there have been a number of changes to Canada's impaired driving laws, the most notable change has to do with the procedure at the roadside.
Prior to December 18, police officers who stopped a motor vehicle were required to perform a preliminary investigation prior to making a breathalyzer demand. This was in order to determine whether or not they had reasonable grounds to suspect that the motorist had alcohol in their body.
In the course of this investigation, officers could ask a simple question like, "Have you had anything to drink tonight?" They could also make note of physical symptoms of alcohol consumption, such as bloodshot, glassy eyes, slurred speech or coordination issues.
The reasonable suspicion standard for alcohol-impaired driving has been done away with.
If, after considering these factors, the officer felt they had reasonable grounds to suspect the person had alcohol in their body, they could ask them to submit to a roadside breathalyzer test. Without such grounds, the officer couldn't make such a demand, and the motorist would be allowed to continue on.
Under the new law, the reasonable suspicion standard for alcohol-impaired driving has been done away with. A police officer no longer needs to form any grounds whatsoever in order to compel a driver to undergo a roadside breath test. The test is now arbitrary and mandatory in nature.
The sole precondition in making a breathalyzer demand is that the officer must have a device on hand. If they don't, then they must form a reasonable suspicion in order to detain the driver until one becomes available to them.
Why has this happened?
The rationale behind these changes boiled down to safety. Proponents of the changes said they were necessary in order to increase road safety and to better protect the community given the legalization of cannabis.
While community safety is always a concern, the reality of cannabis legalization did not really stack up to what many had envisioned. There is nothing to indicate that the number of impaired drivers on our roadways increased following legalization.
In fact, rates of impaired driving have been more or less declining since the 1980s.
So, while many will argue that these changes were required in order to curb drunk drivers, there is little in the way of practical justification for such drastic changes at this point in time.
Does this mean it's zero tolerance for alcohol and driving?
Although the law around impaired driving is strict, it's not zero tolerance.
When it comes to alcohol, the Criminal Codedictates that it's an offence to drive with an excess of 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. It's also an offence to drive if a person is impaired by alcohol, despite what their blood alcohol concentration may be.
This means that a person could be convicted of an impaired driving offence, even with a blood alcohol content below the legal limit or with no proof of a blood alcohol content at all.
In addition to our criminal laws, there are also administrative sanctions that can be applied to drivers provincially.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should.
In British Columbia, we have the Motor Vehicle Act, which boosts one of the country's toughest impaired driving schemes. Police can issue driving prohibitions, monetary fines and even impound vehicles for drivers whom they deem to be under the influence or who provide breath samples that register a "warn" or a "fail" on roadside breath testing equipment. The penalties start at levels much lower than our criminal standard.
Can I refuse to provide a breath sample?
This question really comes down to the age-old adage that just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should.
A criminal conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample comes with a mandatory one-year driving prohibition, a large monetary fine and a criminal record.
What can I do to protect myself against an unreasonable demand for a breath sample?
Police have almost unlimited powers to stop motor vehicles in this province and across the country. They often stop vehicles to check for valid insurance and driver's licenses, and to conduct routine sobriety checks. This is why, in part, we see so many roadblocks, particularly over the holidays and throughout the summer.
More from HuffPost Canada:
If you abide by traffic laws and don't commit any moving violations, then the chances of a police officer stopping your vehicle lessen. However, it's impossible to ensure you'll never be stopped by police for any reason whatsoever.
Some lawyer and community advocates have expressed concern that racial minorities may be more frequently targeted for so-called "random" sobriety stops than other groups, which is backed up by statistics.
At the end of the day, there's no sure-shot way to ensure that you don't end up the subject of a random, mandatory roadside breath test, and although we can expect that these laws will be challenged in due time, it's always better to be safe than sorry.
Also on HuffPost: