PuckChaser said:
If he was hammered then I don't doubt he found weird things funny. So are you 1 for 1 with being able to suspend that pesky "probable cause" part, or is it now just a giant fishing expedition?
"Probable Cause" is an American term. It's not a thing here what you're referring to is the removal of the "reasonable suspicion" requirement.
I use it sparingly, and certainly not just 'fishing'. Usually at night, usually when I've seen either poor driving or I'm dealing with a novice driver with a probationary license and a zero alcohol condition attached. Generally speaking if I do a mandatory alcohol screen I'll do that in lieu of a ticket that would probably run $120 bucks. I'm showing that the driving behaviour matters, I'm verifying that they're licensed, registered, insured, and sober, I'm adding a bit more deterrence in the form of people knowing they could randomly get screened, and often as not I'm cutting them a break on a ticket. I've had several where people have denied drinking entirely, but the test shows that while they're below the limit they have definitely been drinking. I've been able to tell a few people that they were quite close, and one more drink would have seen them in a bad spot.
The one I mentioned- he wasn't 'hammered' or I would not have needed to use the random testing provision as I would have had ample evidence to constitute reasonable suspicion. He was speeding excessively past police that were out at an accident scene at 2:30 am, his passenger was obliterated, and there was open alcohol in the vehicle. But I had no smell off him, and he denied any consumption. I gave him the random testing demand, and he kept arguing it to the point where I deemed refusal after several minutes and arrested him for same. In the time he was then in the back of my car his behaviour continued to get more erratic and I was able to get a very strong smell of alcohol from his breath once in the enclosed space of my car. Despite this he continued to deny drinking, or for that matter the speeding that I had locked on my radar... I ended up adding the straight impaired by alcohol charge to the refusal based on these subsequent observations, but I would not have been able to argue impairment at first glance or based on a minute at the car window.
Despite all that I described, what initially presented to me would not have reached the threshold of 'reasonable suspicion', and I can't use things that happen afterwards to go back and retroactively justify a reasonable suspicion demand. The new provision worked exactly as intended- to catch someone who otherwise would have gone undetected. This is happening all across the country.
