That's what happens when you read instead of chatting face to face which is why I even tried to capitalize the DO to emphasize that I am saying for what ever reason that they HAPPEN to drive drunk, don't tell the cops.

Plus, I even said IF in the first quote. Not like I said anything close to: You guys should try driving hammered and then lie to the cops.

Second quote, I capitalized AND THEN to emphasize that you shouldn't drive drunk IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Jesus christ, never knew how hard it was to get my specific message out there.

Quoting 2 lines doesn't mean anything when I am sure you already understood what I am trying to say. Besides I am sure the sentences before/after the quotes will make the quotes have a whole different meaning.

Let me say this again because I am interested in seeing what you guys will say:
"Let me ask you guys this. So are you guys telling me if you had 2 beers and decided to drive right after, you will tell the cops you consumed alcohol when you get pulled over?"

I simply can NOT imagine anyone saying "HAI THERE OFFICER, I HAD 2 BEERS 5 MINUTES AGO BUT I HAVE TO GO HOME NAO. KTHXBAI"
And if you say anything but that, I am sure you will be lying because why risk complications?

on a related note...

Ian Mulgrew: B.C. court ruling punches new holes in impaired driving law

another judge says the 0.05 "warn" limit is BS

"He had “an odour of liquor on his breath” and “admitted to four beers hours earlier.” He provided two samples of his breath into two separate approved screening devices, and both samples registered a “warn” reading."

So, if the driver didn't admit to having 4 beers, he may not have been subjected to a test and got the "warn" reading...

"He concluded Section 215.41 of the Motor Vehicle Act “is clear. There are specific preconditions that must be satisfied before a Notice may be issued: 1) A peace officer must make a demand under the Criminal Code for a sample of the driver’s breath into an (approved screening device); 2) The result of the screening device’s analysis must register a WARN; and 3) The peace officer must have reasonable grounds to believe, as a result of the analysis, that the driver’s ability to drive is affected by alcohol.”

This could cause a big problem: Police manning a road block screening motorists at random rarely have evidence of someone’s driving when they pull up."

So clearly, if you don't admit to having anything to drink, that greatly impacts the 3rd requirement as the police officer can't use your statement against you

slurred speech, glossy eyes, the way he was walking /got out of his car when escorted to the PC for the ASD are all evidence that will create grounds for the officer, not just driving behaviour.

You can repeat nonsense as many times as you want, it'll still be nonsense.

Yes, actually... for three reasons:

One, as has already been covered: if you say you haven't had anything to drink, and the cop can SMELL THE ALCOHOL, then he knows you're lying, and he's going to dig deeper.

Two: cops aren't the dumb hicks you seem to think they are. They have extensive training AND experience on how to read people's actions, words, body language, etc. They can put two and two together and actually come up with four.

Three: it takes time for alcohol to process through your system and show up in your blood; two beers and then driving immediately, you probably won't blow as high if you're breathalyzed right then than you would a bit later.

Four: you're a retard.

Um... you got angry pretty quickly. Different people have different point of view at things. You can be the goody goody that you are and admit to drinking all you want but I am sure at least half the people here will side with me.

If I am a retard, I am sure more than half the population on earth is also a retard. You can make a poll if you want to prove me wrong, just ask the question again: Will you admit that you drank 2 beers to a cop?

answer my question, are you willing to bet me that 3 drinks in 2 hours won't cause your BAC to be over .08

This thread is so dumb lol. If you get busted drinking and driving or worse, cause an accident, I hope this thread will pop up in evidence.

You're asking ridiculous hypothetical questions and have a misconstrued perception of reality. In general, I don't think people plan ahead of when and when they will not lie to a police officer. Generally, those who have nothing to hide, will tell the truth, avoid an altercation and go make things easy for everyone.

Or you can just not drink at all and wait till you get home

Thank you!

More importantly, not just not "admitting to having anything to drink;" just don't say anything at all.

Every roadblock I've ever driven through I haven't said a word to the police and never will because it's my right not to R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 SCR 151 and because it will never help.

LOL. so you are one of those people eh? "it's my right". yea it is your right to be a jackass. Jackasses also don't get breaks, such as verbal warnings. Next time you play that game you better hope you weren't going 51 in a 50 zone. I just hope you realize you are obligated to state your name and address when asked, right? But I am sure you are aware since you are posting case law. There's a difference between the right to silence (incriminating oneself) and identifying yourself.

Wait what? Are you saying that at any time a peace officer can ask me for my name and my address and I have a legal duty to respond and provide that information!??

Read the preceding posts carefully next time please.
In addition, the current tolerance on all speed assessment instruments used by BC Police is ±1km/h and the general admissibility in court is ±3 km/h for speeding offences.

Onto the issue relating to this thread:
Roadblocks and (your example) speeding tickets are very different situations.

With a speeding ticket, the officer already has estimated your speed and often has used an instrument to corroborate their estimate. Providing you are not exceeding the posted limit by 41 km/h or greater, the officer has great discretion. The interview at the roadside can greatly influence the charge. I hate to call speeding tickets routine, but they are routine.

On the other hand, impaired driving is a Criminal Code offence 253.(1)(b) and can actually be tried as indictable (although extremely uncommon unless there is bodily harm or death involved).
When I drive up to a road block, these are serious allegations which could be put on me and I am not going to do a single thing which could help the police charge me (mistakenly or otherwise).

How many times has an officer written a $196 ticket down to $138 or cancelled it outright? Countless times I'm sure.
How many times has an officer let somebody who blew a warn drive home anyway? Never


When driving a car, you must produce a licence when requested.
When walking down the street, you don't need to identify unless suspected of a crime or charged with a crime.

Yes, thank you...I know that. But from my understanding of Spidey's post, it leads me to believe that a peace officer can ask for identification whenever they want and that you are obligated to tell them where you live and what your address is when really all you are required to do is show that you are legally licensed to operate a vehicle when they pull you over WHILE driving.

this whole thread has been on the topic of traffic stops, so I was referring to Section 73(2) of the MVA.
Depending on the judge and HOW the speed was measured, it can be as low as 1+ over. Laser and radar are not the only instruments used in estimating speed. Pacing is also used.

To reiterate, I was referring to section 73(2) of the MVA. You stated that you "never said a word to the police". You never said "I never incriminate myself". What you wrote gave me the impression that you would sit there in your car and not say a single word like a numpty.

But if you want to talk Criminal Code. If you are suspected of committing or being involved with an offence, and subsequently detained by Police, you must identify yourself or will be held until the cop is satisfied with your ID.

^ but can they hold you indefinitely? If you've never been fingerprinted, never been charged with a crime, don't have any ID and are not willing to identify yourself, how long can they hold you in custody?

If you're in a vehicle and fail to provide proof of identification (which is also proof of being licensed to use the road), I'm fairly certain they can detain you until they ascertain your identity.

If you fail to answer questions about your drivers licence you can be charged under the MV Act. The BB lawyers here would likely be aware of "Schrivers".

Failing to stop and state name
73 (1) A peace officer may require the driver of a motor vehicle to stop and the driver of a motor vehicle, when signalled or requested to stop by a peace officer who is readily identifiable as a peace officer, must immediately come to a safe stop.

(2) When requested by a peace officer, the driver of a motor vehicle or the person in charge of a motor vehicle on a highway must state correctly his or her name and address and the name and address of the owner of the motor vehicle.

(3) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) commits an offence and is liable to a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $2 000 or to imprisonment for not less than 7 days and not more than 6 months, or to both.

HA HA HA HA HA!!

I love this forum.

PS. See my sig.

One time I legitimately had 1 beer at 11pm waiting for my friend to get off work. Got pulled over at 2:30am, cop asked me if I had any drinks at all tonight and I truthfully said I had 1 beer about 3 hours ago. Cop then proceeds to lecture me on how irresponsible I am for driving while being drunk and how my mother would be disappointed and this and that... Didn't get the breathalyzer test or anything. Even when I restated that I only had one beer, 3 hours ago.... she wouldn't shut up. I was willing to do any kind of test to prove that I am completely sober, because who the hell wouldn't be, but no luck. Didn't know what else to say so I just shut my mouth and waited until she was done lecturing :badpokerface:. When she was finally done she wasn't able to give me a ticket or anything and just said have a nice night and don't do it again. Don't even think you can even smell that singular beer in my breath 3 hours and a meal later... It's because of that experience that I can relate to the OP when he says he wants to just lie sometimes about not having any drinks at all when it's nothing important. Not saying that's exactly the right thing to do, but..

It doesn't matter if you have no history, and how would the Police officer know if you have no history unless he knows who you are, and is able to run your name in the system for any warrants etc?? How does that not make any sense to you?

If you refuse to ID yourself, you are preventing the Police officer in doing his job, therefore could be arrested for Obstruction under the Criminal Code. You will NOT be released until you can be identified. Period. End of the day, drivers who refuse or lie to Police about their identity are hiding something... the most common, driving while prohibited.

You are being completely retarded, the law cannot differentiate between two people because their tolerances are different. Sure one guy could probably drink 6 beers and be fine, but there are people who are not fine after 2 beers. The law only takes into consideration BAC%.


Please just stop, nobody is asking you to continue.

:Orly:

No, your right we don't because none of us are as stupid as you, we don't drink two beers and hop in our cars 5 minutes later. And we don't talk like "HAI" and "NAO", cause were not 8 years old like you.

Our conversation goes more like "Hi officer, yes I did have 2 beers, over 3 hours ago".

Either way, this entire conversation is stupid, if you had anything to drink just DON'T DRIVE. Especially when you are 30 years old and you have kids. Why are you drinking and driving? Why can't you have the self control to not have that 1 useless beer or glass of wine when you go out?

WHY DO YOU HAVE TO DRINK?

If you didnt drink you wouldn't have to worry about shit on your drive home and this thread could just fucking die.

EDIT: and before you say I don't drink and drive, STFU, because nobody continues to argue this for this long, and states how many roadblocks he has been in and what he says everytime unless they drink and drive pretty often.

it doesnt matter if u tell cops u had one beer or 2 or 5, they will judge you regardless dependant on training ,/mood etc.

had only one beer driving back from whistler, with my mom in back seat and gf in other, told cop, had 1 beer, still had to blow , meter showed 0.

other time, had a couple shots of teq, and a beer, driving back with my gf besides me, told cop i had couple of shots, he said "u should be ok" and let me go.

both times i knew i wasn't drunk, or impaired in any way.

Summary:
1. Don't drink and drive.

2. If you drink, don't tell anyone you drank. It will only make things more complicated.

3. meme405 is retarded, he cannot read properly and repeats the same things over and over again even after my clarifications.

yes it makes things SOOOO complicated. You have to blow into an ASD. You pass, and are free to go. First world ******* problems.