LAWYER: Canadian Cops. Here's why...

Everyone complains about American cops, but are they really the worst? Here's how intrusive Canadian cops get to be, and it's legal!
Leave Andrew a voicemail with questions or ideas: www.speakpipe.com/flusche
NOTE: This description may contain affiliate links for you to find the items mentioned in this video and support the channel at no cost to you. Thank you for supporting the channel!

[@mikeburns703]

Canadian here. Once he answered the door he had to comply. however, he is not obligated to answer the door to begin with.

[@vesubioromo9425]

Well, at least that's some saving grace. Thanks.

[@roadmonitoroz]

Here is a perfect time to advertise the Ring doorbell or some cctv at your front door with a monitor inside.

[@profribasmat217]

So what happens if you go home and drink?

[@joelmartin2549]

How about just one of those little peep holes.

[@roadmonitoroz]

@@joelmartin2549 For one... Hard to see through (you'll know when you're older), 2: When you put your eye up to them they can see from outside that you're looking because it goes dark inside (blocking light), 3: You're standing behind a door now which can be detected by a thermal camera , hear you and therefore shoot at you, 4: You have to put your beer down and get up to walk over to see who it is. 5: Those peep holes can actually be used to see in (with the correct equipment)

[@aegisranger]

So Canadians should answer their door while drinking a beer... Then tell them you've consumed three beers since you've arrived at home.

[@neilwilson944]

This is correct. But - they can still require submission - and then in court have them prove how was sonsumed before/after

[@TessaBain]

@@neilwilson944 The best part is you don't even have to own a car to drive it. Good luck trying to prove you weren't driving an imaginary car without a license while drunk because the asshole neighbor said you were.

[@joelmartin2549]

That’s sounds like an extremely risky approach.

[@diefenbakersown]

Doesn't matter. Trudeau and his progressives made this law in a way so as to presume guilt until you can prove innocence.

[@JM.TheComposer]

No. They changed the law so it's criminal to be intoxicated within a certain time period after driving, even if you started drinking after you got home. It's stupid, but the law was changed after a police officer got into a suspected DUI accident, then immediately ran home and started doing shots.

[@randyfromthepeg4994]

in Canada we have so many potholes in the springtime, everyone drives like they have been drinking, trying to dodge all the potholes

[@yl9154]

True.

[@JxH]

"...everyone..." Not true. The impaired drivers drive straight through. There's even a meme/cartoon on this point. 🙂

[@theunaimedarrow4903]

"Don't answer the door for the cops." This applies to a whole lot of things. It doesn't have to be complicated. Just don't even answer.

[@brianbagnall3029]

Even in Canada I suspect if you ignore them they will go away.

[@Finnssssss]

Yep, don't answer the door period. We (Canadian's) do NOT have to legally perform a field sobriety ever. Basically the difference between us and the US is driving is considered a privilege not a right. Up here the police do not have to have probable cause to pull you over. They can pull you over anytime to A) Validate license, registration and insurance B) Check sobriety C) Confirm vehicle fitness Passengers do not have to ID and they need probable cause or an infraction to prolong a stop past the criteria listed above. However, here's the biggest difference...unlike in the US where your supreme court has ruled that removing the driver and/or passengers from a vehicle is deemed a simple inconvenience and how Officer Safety is basically a catchall for them to do the F they want. In Canada and the UK btw, you only have to legally exit your vehicle for 2 reasons and 2 reasons only. A) To determine sobriety but since you're not obligated to perform a field sobriety test, that can't be the reason and for a breathalyzer to be the reason, the police HAVE TO have a valid reason why it couldn't be administered at your window. B) Officer Safety but up here not only do they have to clearly verbally state the nature of their concern, you have to be given a reasonable opportunity to alleviate that concern. There are no ands, if's or but's to this, no grey area open to interpretation. This stuff is ALL clearly spelled out in the Highway Road Traffic Act. Basically while driving in the US, your rights are front loaded and far too often overcome by something as simple as saying your license plate lights are too dim. Driving in Canada, while you are more subject to random checks, your rights are more back loaded and more importantly CLEARLY spelled out.

[@deebee4575]

@@Finnssssss Driving is NOT a right in the U.S.

[@Finnssssss]

@@deebee4575 let's just say that it can be more of a grey area by US laws and court rulings from state to state. All I'm saying is up here it is more clearly identified as a privilege by our laws and courts universally across the country.

[@brianbagnall3029]

On a practical note, city cops do almost no interactions with the public at random. You don't even notice their presence usually. No radar traps or anything (they contract those to private companies). They mostly respond to calls like domestic disturbance. Rural cops can be real a***oles, trying every trick in the book like tailgaring you, setting up unfair traps, etc..

[@TheLunarLegend]

2 rules of my house. Don't let the cats out, and don't let the cops in.

[@CosmicHarmony58]

Excellent rules.

[@ezekielanderson9055]

That’s mean to the cats. They hate staying indoors

[@e174]

Let me fix that quote for you, Lunari, "2 rules of my house. Don't let the cats out, and don't let the pigs in." There, that's better.

[@bobstaylowkey]

@@e174 They're pigs until they save your life, right?

[@e174]

@@bobstaylowkey “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” - Robert A. Heinlein I don't need these corrupt thugs to turn my life upside down. They don't deter crime in any way, shape, or form. They will however, lie, give false testimony, get easily triggered, and even kill; and who pays? Not them. We, the taxpayers do. Here's the latest one of these nazis. kzbin.info/www/bejne/a6a0o2eYqNaFeac

[@earltealjr6334]

DONT ANSWER the DOOR, you DONT HAVE TO ANSWER the DOOR IN CANADA EITHER

[@johnshaddick6858]

Yes, true. You also do not have to answer any questions from cops, even if they tell you that you have to. This goes for opening the door too.

[@rodmacrae3611]

In Canada one is not required to open their door. Cop must get a warrant to enter the home.

[@xentrix89]

Just a little fact here in Canada the RCMP just dress like normal cops the red uniform is only a formal thing its a dress uniform

[@randyfromthepeg4994]

and they are corrupt

[@kayecastleman6353]

I grew up in Montreal, but I've lived in rural Canada most of my adult life. The local police force has always been RCMP, and they've been reasonable and helpful at every turn. I raised two boys who tested the limits, and when I went to the police for help they recommended a co-operative community/police program to help young offenders keep a clean record if they clean up their act. No issues since. Nothing but praise for our RCMP.

[@randyfromthepeg4994]

@@kayecastleman6353 what about the rcmp and the way they handled the NS mass shooting

[@kayecastleman6353]

​@@randyfromthepeg4994 I can only speak to the direct contact I've had with RCMP in my community over decades. What is happening thousands of miles away and how their local press is interpreting the situation is beyond my ability to analyse. Do individual officers or detachments make mistakes? Sure. Are some officers and their leadership incompetent? Probably. Can corruption be found from the lowest to the highest ranks? As much as in any organization, I would guess. But I have had only excellent interactions with the officers of our local detachment, from traffic stops to more serious brushes with the law. My sons, who have both been on the wrong side of those interactions, also find them to be fair and honest.

[@randyfromthepeg4994]

@@kayecastleman6353 its nice to know that there are good ones out there still.

[@REXOB9]

"Require peasants to submit" - priceless! Thanks you Andrew!

[@robertsandberg2246]

I appreciate Andrew Flushe more than I can say.

[@Greg-yu4ij]

So true! There is no longer correlation between public opinion and public policy. Your vote doesn’t matter

[@cheryllunn2827]

Yeah, but we don't shoot people for "walking while black", sitting while black, eating while black, etc. we don't shoot drunks either. Or speeders.

[@johnshaddick6858]

@@cheryllunn2827 Not yet.

[@joller805]

If you didn't call the cops, don't answer the door. That also applies to various delivery companies.

[@jaghow1531]

If there's someone you don't like and you know they've been drinking at home you just phone up the police and say that they've been driving

[@Accrovideogames]

The fact that it's so easy to abuse is proof that the law is unfair.

[@suedenim9208]

Yeah, that's way worse than in the US, where you can only call the cops and have SWAT show up and kill somebody.

[@niemi5858]

In my area of Canada, giving a false report to the police will probably result in charges.

[@jaghow1531]

@@niemi5858 Yes filing a false police report could result in charges. But reporting a possible drunk driver can be done anonymously

[@celluskh6009]

@@niemi5858 Think you can find those cases?

[@black487]

“Don’t interact with other humans” Me: I can do this.

[@johnshaddick6858]

Correction, police are not human, they are one of the lowest life forms on this planet, they are called tyrants.

[@godsamongmen8003]

Ian Runkle covered this. The law actually says you're not allowed to drink for 3 hours after you stop driving, but there was never a requirement to answer the door. The cops would still have to have a search warrant to enter without permission (in theory anyway -- they actually do it all the time and usually never get punished).

[@stevepettersen3283]

Yeah, like that's going to happen!

[@johntracy72]

How can that realistically be enforced?

[@godsamongmen8003]

@@johntracy72 Likely on a complaint basis. Someone could call police because they saw you driving a car, and if you're now drinking within the three hour cutoff then its off to jail.

[@seanidiot8949]

I don't think there's any judge that would convict you beyond a reasonable doubt if you ended up in court for drinking in your home

[@godsamongmen8003]

@@seanidiot8949 Do you mean a judge would acquit and nullify the verdict? A sympathetic jury might do that. To actually prove the case isn't that hard. A brethalyzer test can show your BAC on the spot, and if it falls in that three hour window then you're screwed.

[@michaelbubly]

Our DUI laws up here are incredibly fucked up.

[@robertthorpe2179]

Along with our government.

[@jacktattersall9457]

They keep people safer though.

[@steelcom5976]

You want to drive while drunk? Yeah that's pretty f**** up for sure.

[@TYRONE_SHOELACES]

Well ....here is some truth ...I am a drunk....I go to a bar everyday and drink about 5 beer and then drive home, the back streets. Sometimes I get hammered and still drive home because I need my car for the next morning....but when these laws were changed in 2018, it was calculated out that IF I were to get a DUI, by the time all was said and done and my life was back to normal, like for intance, my insurance has now lowered to the regular amount ...I have lost 20,000 DOLLARS from my bank account ...this is taking into consideration taxi cabs to work, they calculated every cent and it works out to 20 Grand for a DUI. As of today, I have not had a drink in 6 years...I have gotten used to drinking Diet Pepsi with the boys in the bar, but because I'm sober now, I don't buy a round of drinks for the whole dam bar ..I have money to burn compared to my drinking days AND...AND...AND ....Thank GOD I did not run down and kill someone in a crosswalk during my drinking days ...THANK GOD, while being an absolute asshole, I did not ruin a family by killing some young kid.

[@chucksurgeonertribute2113]

What about down there?

[@srdool]

Don't open the door , don't answer the phone , don't text anyone until you can pass any test they might give,and a witness or two plus video would help.

[@Mintstar_Oceanpop]

Almost sounds like a plot to a dystopian horror movie.

[@Mewa_BM]

I can’t stop watching and learning from you videos. Thank you sir

[@malcolmchevrier6866]

I am constantly surprised by the competition between the US and Canada for the worst example of how a free country enforces laws. Neither appear to have the freedom of citizens as attainable. In Canada, we are now presumed guilty until we can prove otherwise.

[@Zach-sg5uu]

It’s the same for white men in the US!

[@malcolmchevrier6866]

@@Zach-sg5uu That is all too true and equally disturbing.

[@seashackf1]

You’re not really free in the first place if there are any laws. Let alone thousands restricting what you can and can’t do. If you still define being a free country as having laws, where is the line and who decides where it is?

[@malcolmchevrier6866]

@@seashackf1 I agree with your position completely. If anyone else still thinks we live in a free country, just wait until the court system gets ahold of you. You are free to use all your resources to defend yourself against a branch of government with unlimited resources.

[@bloggershoot4006]

No, in Canada it's innocent until proven guilty

[@artvance8251]

Always great information, so that WE know our rights. Thank you Andrew. 😊

[@handygent45]

Open the door with a bottle of vodka in your hand and wearing a party hat. Offer the cop a piece of cake.

[@devilsoffspring5519]

It's Canada. Offer him the bottle! If he says no, offer him a doobie :)

[@TYRONE_SHOELACES]

As soon as I seen the words " Open the door" ...I'm never telling you any secrets.

[@jasonme493]

Holy crap. Just don't answer the door!! I'm Canadian and my house is a castle!

[@johndriskell4081]

I wonder if one can call the police and complain that a police officer appears to be driving under the influence while on duty?

[@Alsatiagent]

I'd ask Ian Runkle about this. I don't think it's as simple as portrayed.

[@TYRONE_SHOELACES]

I used to drink here in Canada ... I have spent like 100 hours fact checking all this and YOU ARE RIGHT. It really is based on reasonable suspicion and not just hearsay or a quick 911 call. For instance, video from a bar you were drinking in and then left, but you told the server you were getting a cab, but you actually got in your car, and she then called 911 ...the bar video is the proof you were drinking. The cop will still give you the breath test and charge you, but lets say the bar video got erased, your charge would be dropped. . . or, somebody sees you driving badly, records you with their phone or dashcam, follows you to your house and THEN calls 911, shows the cops when they get to your house and then you open the door, you are caught. They really need concrete proof of drinking and driving in order to use the 3 hour laws against you. This law was implemented based on a 1% problem prosecutors were having in court in Canada. The Government said that people were downing bottles of hard booze and THEN driving home before the effect of the whole bottle had taken effect ...so they had to come up with something to stop that, so this 3 hour law was invented ...but for the love of God, in your whole life, when have you ever heard anybody ever talk about or admit that they drink huge amounts of booze and then rush home to wait for the effects to kick in? ...no one. It was a very poor excuse to get the law passed, but it worked ..why ...because EVERYBODY in Government makes so much dam money off of a DUI driver. The courts collect thousands of dollars in fines, and then installing mobile breathalyzers in the cars for the next year so the guy can still drive to work ..it's like 1500 dollars to install, 1500 to remove, monthly fees to rent the unit .. insurance rates triple for years ...everybody who can rape this system of cash loves the new DUI laws.

[@rb239rtr]

I think you are missing a huge point on cultural differences between Canada and USA regarding how government and laws are intended to deal with the population as a whole. In USA, it is state's rights, individual rights and one's pursuit of happiness that originated in an armed rebellion. In Canada, it is Peace, Order and Good Government (POGG), a note found buried deep in the British North America Act, which was the british law which gave Canada self government. 1. State's rights-- in Canada, the federal goverment can intercede in a province's jurisdiction based on POGG, this rare, but most recently the Feds and the Supreme court overuled a couple provinces and implemented Carbon Taxes against the province's wishes. 2. Gun control- back in the 1920s and 30s, the Canadian government was appalled by the violence of organised crime in America, they did not see the purpose of citizens being armed and carrying their guns around. The government enacted a restrictive gun law which allowed guns for hunters, farmers, wilderness workers but severely restricted guns and gun mobiltiy for city folk. This same law has been amended through the decades to make gun ownership more restrictive. Now, the purchase and sales of handguns are illegal. So yes, criminals do get handguns, these are smuggled in from the us and cost $5k each in Toronto, but is still remains extremely rare that a handgun is used in violence against random individuals. Armed robberies of a couple walking down a street are extremely rare, and most murders are among people who know each other, plus significantly less suicides and accidents, so overall better for the population, less so for an individual who wants a particular gun. 3. Alcohol- back in the 1980s and 90s, drunk driving and the needless deaths became a flash point. Police started implementing Ride Check road blocks during the drinking seasons (christmas and new years, the May 2-4 weekend, outside of large alcohol serving venues and compelled people to submit to sobriety tests. This went to the supreme court who agreed with the government, the court said you can stop an individual or hundreds of individuals for the purposes of alcohol infractions. This latest law gives no refuge to a person fleeing an alcohol impairment charge- again POGG 4. Rights and Freedoms- Canada does have a Charter of RIghts and Freedoms which gives individuals a whole host of rights as strong as the USA, except for guns. However, there is a piece in this legislation that starts limiting one's rights when it starts impacting another person's rights. For exampe, you have the right to protest, however if your protest impacts anothers right to peace, there becomes a time when your protest becomes illegal. For the Ottawa anti-covid protest, it started in the early afternoon with truck horns blaring, by the time 11pm rolled around the horns were blaring, they blared all day and night for 14 days. This protest likely became illegal at 11 pm the first night.

[@jacktattersall9457]

Andrew, you might want to avoid Australia and the EU then as well, because there laws are like Canadas. In Australia, cops can randomly stop a car for no probable cause or reason just to do a random breath test (RBT), random drug test (RDT), and/or check your license. There is a TV show all about called RBT. These powers have existed since 1983 and have saved countless lives on Aussie roads.

[@royalcityjazz]

And don't forget "conveyance" can be anything from an 18 wheeler to a bicycle or roller blades. Eh. And don't get me started about home defence! A couple of months ago a legal gun owner got charged with attempted murder for shooting an armed and hostile home invader who was threatening to shoot his mother. The legal gun owner / home owner will spend $250K to defend himself and may still end up in prison for a longer sentence than the assailant. That's Canadian criminal law!

[@honestabe411]

If you shoot an intruder you must always finish the job

[@streamingnowstreamingnow2568]

Yeah but that's One Less Armed Intruder The World and his Community have to worry about. If good decent people keep defending themselves and putting violent armed intruders into the ground evenutally the only people in jail will be good people defending themselves and all these Evil Armed Intruders will be dealt with. You can't get rid of Evil but you can thin out the numbers.

[@weswes10]

@@streamingnowstreamingnow2568 Dont know if all the bad guys can be gotten rid of... but you can keep that one from ever assaulting another person again...

[@rb239rtr]

All the facts are not out on that case. If the intruder was running away, outside of the house and was shot in the back that can be murder. I think over the last ten years or so, i remember two owners charged with murder. The one in Hamilton and teh one in Saskatchewan were real sketchy as to the need of shooting the perpetrator, but both were found innocent by a jury.

[@honestabe411]

@@rb239rtr good job by the juries, usually it’s only cops who can get away with shooting people in the back

[@scatch037]

No, in Canada, you do not have to answer the door for police ever. If they have a warrant or exigent circumstance, they’re gonna come in anyways. And the laws have changed, it’s no longer within three hours of operating a motor vehicle. It’s now two hours, but the owner is on you to prove that when that two hours ended. For instance, if you drive home, totally sober and open a few beers once you get home the police can demand sample if you do open the door. So again with that warrant, you have no obligation on the door and you can pretty much tell police to go away unless they have a warrant.

[@rockyhighwayroad7365]

This is unconstitutional

[@guardrailbiter]

So, in Canada, it's not safe for you to drive home and knock back a few beers within _three hours_ after arriving home?

[@Rellikplug]

Correct

[@kerriwilson7732]

Not exactly. The test may be evidence that you are impaired, but it is still the prosecutor's responsibility to prove in court that you were DUI. This clip is pretty dramatic.

[@canardchronique3477]

​@@kerriwilson7732 The title is unquestionably clickbait.

[@ashswereda]

Guilty till proven innocent. To Collect and Enslave. That's the Communist way

[@kirkyorg7654]

exactly

[@tonydamiani7353]

Now what if I'm home drunk and someone else (sober) borrows my vehicle for a beer run ? This law just doesn't make any sense. Just like Trudeau

[@TYRONE_SHOELACES]

No, the cops have to have REASONABLE SUSPICION that you were driving, they don't charge the car, they charge the driver.

[@tyler-rr6dy]

@@TYRONE_SHOELACES if cops do not see you drive, then they do not have rs.and they can not demand a breath test over a phone call alone .and they can not use just a phone call that you were driving to demand you prove you are sober..

[@JacquesLeChat]

so if someone accuses you of driving poorly and you can't refuse being tested by police even if they're only going off the word of another person, do you have the opportunity to face your accuser? do they face any consequences for reporting something falsely?

[@ItsNotMeItsYou007]

No

[@1776WillCommenceCanada]

nope

[@dwvw]

Yes, if you claim to not have been driving, the accuser will need to identify you in court. And yers, filing a false report with the police is illegal and you will be charged.

[@devilsoffspring5519]

Next thing you know, the cops will be asking if you've played any hockey in the past 6 months

[@mikeross801]

I'm confused, if somebody falsely reports you and the police show up and you're drunk and feel of breathalyzer. Breathalyzer can they arrest you and take you to jail where you have to bond out or potentially sit in jail till you go to court and then try and prove your innocence later? Or do they have certain limits on what they can do? Like maybe give you a citation or a summons instead? It seems right for abuse without the police having some firsthand evidence that you were involved in a crime!

[@stonep11]

The entire point of laws today are to keep people in fear and give the government carte Blanche to oppress you whenever they feel like it

[@jupitercyclops6521]

Right, but let's say I'm drinking whiskey on my way to work. Someone sees me swerve a little & report me. I get to work & start my day. My boss answers the door to coppers. Do I have to take breathalyzer? Can I hide in attic crawl space until I'm out of whiskey & slept it off , then take test sober? (Asking for a friend )

[@ashswereda]

Welcome to the Communist country of Canada

[@Hellbane224]

There are no limits. Police have unlimited power and zero accountability. They have this power everywhere. They are the enforcers of the will of the ruling class. They maintain the illusion of "rights" by generally playing by a standard of rules, but you actually have no rights and they can do anything they want, anytime they want, because the courts automatically take EVERYTHING they say as factual evidence, even if it's nothing but lies. Police need no evidence. The burden of proof of your innocence lies SOLELY on you. Their word alone is enough to convict you. It's why you NEVER talk to the police. Even if they arrest you, you never, EVER, say more than, "I want a lawyer."

[@Vonstevenstien]

@@jupitercyclops6521 What? That doesn't answer the question at all. What are you talking about????

[@castrinecubique983]

The claims that we're considered guilty until proven otherwise in Canada is extremely false. This was only true in Québec generations ago, when we were still under France's laws. Source: I'm from Québec, and we're taught that in history classes

[@00dfm00]

I would MUCH rather interact with - or even get arrested by - a Canadian cop.

[@Mouserjan0222]

Ok so you go to the store at noon get a case of beer for poker night and 3 hours later a cop makes you blow into the gizmo? How do you prove you were sober until you got home? Terrible

[@Jesusholmes64]

This has happened, a woman went to a party after someone reported her, cops showed up 2 hours latter and she already had a few drinks in that 2 hr framework, and she was charged. I could do this to my boss who pounds beer the second he gets home and get him charged with no proof and do it all anonymously

[@TYRONE_SHOELACES]

But the cops can ASSUME how much alcohol she ingested in that time frame while at the party ... deduct that percentage from what the Breath test shows and IF that number is above 0.08, then she is charged . Many Canadians don't know that the cops in Canada can now ADD your booze number AND your weed number together and if it is above 0.08, you are charged with DUI ...If you have 0.05 alcohol AND say ...0.03 NANOGRAMS of THC in your blood, you get a DUI in Canada ...BUT unlike breath tests, the cops have to have reasonable suspicion that you are on drugs ...like finding weed and papers, or a big bong in your car, or a weed pipe ...only THEN can they demand a blood test for drugs.

[@tyler-rr6dy]

@@TYRONE_SHOELACES assuming is not legal and would never hold up in court. unless the cop see you drive then they have no proof. and can not demand any type of tests,

[@bluefm7370]

At 65 years of age, and having been introduced to numerous police agencies through my careers, there are no words to describe how far below an acceptable level of public service that has materialized in modern policing. As a child the HERO in my mind and on the TELEVISION was the police. Sadly today few HERO'S left among members. Instead, weak, lazy, unskilled, uneducated bullies in uniforms. Free wheeling on our city streets, costing tax payers obscene amounts of money in wages and civil claims the public never hears about for repeated professional isconduct. Police work has become repetitive, boring and unchallenging, unless of course imposing your disrection on the homeless, disenfranchised and otherwise helpless segment of society. Naturally those who violate the laws that require oversight: murder, physical and sexual assualt, child molestation, abductions, extortion, torture, professional misconduct to the degree that it ruins citizens lives, will continue to experience lower and lower clearance rates. Citizens the coverage your communities recieve with law enforcement can be summed up as abysmal on your city streets. Of course you can find a police officer travelling back and forth non stop to the court house. I feel better...and of course safer...lol Appreciate the channel, and as always to those members that respect the oath they took, demonstrate courage, common sense and apply the laws ppropriately when using their discretion with a mi dful approach, stay safe.❤ Members safety depends on weeding out all dishonest and unskilled members❤

[@deboraboylen7132]

There aren't any when they will lie to protect the WORST of the worst. ALL Canadian cops are sanctioned thugs with a badge and an attitude who protect NO ONE but themselves and their image

[@laurentmauduit7143]

Michael is far to kind. After this, I would have told him to get the f... of my property. Peace x

[@snickel2584]

I'm Canadian I don't answer the door anymore if police knock on the front door.

[@FrancesNobles]

Most of the time, if the cops knock on your door, they are looking for assistance finding a missing person, escaped convict or other reason that has nothing to do with you. And if you got nothing to hide, why can't you help them out? I mean what if your kid was missing and no one would talk to the cops who are searching for them? It wouldn't feel very good. Also, I have found that the police are not out to get you. They need help as I said or perhaps are warning of imminent danger or an emergency evacuation.

[@thefarbookkeeper]

But how do they know which person in the house or which person answers the door was the driver?

[@chefjamesmacinnis]

In Canada car are required to have sections made of glass. That way you can see the driver and offer a description. Such as old white male.

[@suedenim9208]

@@chefjamesmacinnis It's a brilliant, but simple idea. They should do it everywhere.

[@Primalxbeast]

@The Man's Kitchen Oh yeah, someone who's driving behind a swerving vehicle at night can see the driver quite clearly. 🙄

[@thefarbookkeeper]

@@chefjamesmacinnis You should add untinted glass because I've seen many cars in my state that are so dark you can't see who the hell is in there. Yes, it's illegal, in Texas where I live for sure, but nobody cares to enforce it.

[@TYRONE_SHOELACES]

They don't ....that is why the cops HAVE TO HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION that is was indeed YOU driving....hearsay from 911 cannot convict you ...video camera recording you drinking in a bar before driving home CAN convict you ... because that is proof that you were drinking....

[@Outlander34]

"In the land of bagged milk" LOL

[@libbyd1001]

Answer the door with a beer or glass of booze in your hand and hey "it's my 4th one since I got home..." 😂🙄 kidding aside, they don't know if you've been drinking since arriving home and it's perfectly legal to do so. In fact I just got home and I'm on my second already! Cheers!

[@lornegilbert9734]

In that case, you would have to prove that you had not been drinking when you had last been driving your vehicle.

[@Groteskfull]

​@@lornegilbert9734In court, I think it would be more on them to prove your guilt, and not on you to prove your innocence.

[@lornegilbert9734]

@@Groteskfull In this case, that's not how it works up here.

[@evictioncarpentry2628]

They changed the law for them to be able to take a sample within 3 hours of you driving.

[@stevecooper2873]

@@lornegilbert9734 Impossible to prove a negative.

[@pattaccone]

See a cop at the door , answer with bottle of liquor in hand ! Yes officer I’m drunk 😂😂

[@SalemKorso-lj9kl]

Never EVER answer the door when the coppers come knocking. You are under NO obligation to answer the door for them or anyone. Ring doorbell cameras are a good investment.

[@dericksmith2137]

Lawyer mentions ‘coordination test’ or a FST, thankfully I’ve never seen a Canada cop enforce a FST (I’m 55). But the breathalyzer is common, and ‘providing a sample’ is becoming more common. Here’s my concern: Say the cops are investigating you but have insufficient grounds to get a warrant for a DNA sample. So the cops use this anonymous call with an allegation to force your to blow in a straw or provide a fluid sample- That’s DNA! So being 100% sober, you submit to the test, but now the cops have a sample of your DNA supposedly obtained thru ‘lawful means’? I’ve had to perform the breathalyzer. After I was found to be not drinking and was being released from the stop, I asked for the ‘straw’ back. The cop refused! (I’m not under any investigation that I’m aware of, but I just wanted to test my theory about my DNA sample. Sure enough I was correct, they will not give you the sample to dispose of.)

[@deborahmcdowell6871]

“Peace officer”, that is funny.

[@MorriganEshara-vb8tz]

In our town, cops know when single moms are alone. NEVER answer cop at door. They will protect their own - all the way to the top.

[@killumination87]

Canadian here.. Fail to blow is a far worst offence than blowing in most instances...also cops can come to your home and arrest you within few hours of driving of being drunk... say you are sober you get into an accident, you exchange info and go home.. the other person calls the police.. when they come to your house, and you have been drinking at home, you will still charged and have to prove you were sober at the time of driving... and they changed the laws, you cannot challenge the device, use experts to prove certain things you used to be able to prove..

[@nickwest1476]

You said we should be respectful of officers! Why do officers have the power to get put and lecture us and speak down to us?

[@Philosopherkey007]

There was a situation in Ontario Canada where a person was involved with an accident while driving drunk. The first thing he did was call his lawyer and explain his situation to the lawyer and his lawyer asked him if he had any alcohol in the car. He stated that he did and his lawyer told him to begin consuming it and to be seen consuming it when the police arrived. The burden of proof was on the police to prove that he was over the legal limit at the time of the accident. Another situation occurred when an individual who was driving drunk was involved in a hit and run. He went home and a couple hours later when the police arrived he had been drinking at home. The burden of proof was placed on the police to prove that he was above the legal limit at the time of the accident. This law was put in place to keep people who use these tactics to avoid a DUI conviction to get away with it. This law has a great potential to be abused if the integrity of the officers is greatly lacking.

[@JAM661]

Well in the USA that would be illegal because you cannot have any open containers. Your passangers cannot be drinking either which is a big problem with Uber drivers and there customer does not want to dump there drink.

[@marcleblanc6293]

Integrity and officers is an oxymoron. Police's job is to charge and get convictions, integrity does not enter into the equation.

[@TYRONE_SHOELACES]

All these stories you telling are from BEFORE 2018, or you just enjoy lying to get people feathers all ruffled up. Everybody knows that ALL drunks that drive keep a bottle of rum in the trunk and one tucked behind the door or garage at home in case you get chased home.

[@y2ksw1]

Say I finish work at 5 PM and have a beer in front of my TV, at 8 PM a cop can make me blow the torch? There must be something wrong.

[@davidvandyk1171]

If You have been home for more than a few minutes, just answer the door with a stiff drink in your hand.

[@godbeIess]

I live in Toronto, and a drunk driver hit my parked car. The police informed me of this. I had a chat with the cop. He said we knew they were drunk leaving one of my neighbors house because the neighbor said they were drinking. I asked the cop if she was going to be charged with dui? He explained because the women made it back to her home, she could have drank alcohol there and there is no way of determining if she was legally intoxicated when she was driving. Thus a cop coming to a door with a breathalyzer appears to be moot.

[@TYRONE_SHOELACES]

What you did Sir was have a conversation with an under trained Police Officer. She was not a DUI trained cop, just a beat cop, but she felt cool Copsplaining bullshit to you.

[@tyler-rr6dy]

@@TYRONE_SHOELACES the cop what she was talking about

[@iamnolegend2519]

Well that’s why we tossed out the Crown back in 1783.

[@FrancesNobles]

No, we didn't really sice we flew the Union Jack until 1967.

[@OneWildTurkey]

Really.Great.Videos! Always enjoyable, entertaining and definitely educational!

[@jake78787]

As a Canadian I didn't know about this law and thank you for making this very educational video, I didn't realize we had so many oppressive and unjust laws in Canada. Things need to change here, big time.

[@Chemist1076]

Peasants... yep.. we are...we have a king...

[@Razor-gx2dq]

"Dictator"

[@priayief]

How would this go in real life? After watching this video, I tried to imagine if, right now, there was a knock at my door, and I looked outside and saw law enforcement at the door. Would I answer the knock, or would I ignore it? Yes. But let's change the circumstances a bit. Let's say I had just arrived home after drinking and driving? I'm aware that I had too much to drink and shouldn't have been driving. As a Canadian, whether I knew this law or not, I wouldn't answer the door. What possible good could come from voluntarily talking to police while you're intoxicated?

[@theromulanwarhawk]

Yeah. You CAN and will be charged for refusing a breath test at home as if you were caught driving under the influence. So much for innocent until proven guilty in Canada.

[@jacktattersall9457]

Refusing a drink driving test is itself a criminal offence in Canada, so the constable could have arrested and charged him for refusing a breath test, the penalties for which are the SAME as if he drove drunk (BAC over 0.08), including fines, license suspension, jail time, and/or criminal record.

[@snakemanmike]

But Canada does have legal marijuana!

[@RicardoRoams]

Marijuana is legal in Canada. But it is illegal to cross the border into Canada with marijuana. Most Americans crossing the border into Canada think it's OK if you have a medical marijuana card. It's not! They will arrest you, put the cuffs on you, the whole 9 yards. Leave your pot at home if you're going to Canada.

[@MoonbeameSmith]

(Canadian) If you blow bad at the door step or the road side, they usually take you in, and in the course of events, they will retest you using a larger more complicated testing apparatus and That's the one the use in court. Then the argument becomes Can you get to those levels since you got home. If the level was noticeably higher at the station, they will retest you again. If it is higher still then you would prolly win as it indicates your story may be true. May, might.. In Ontario they can take your car for up to 2 weeks Even if you blow Under the .08, (but greater than 0.00) because they consider buzzed to the same as impared. Oh and you would have to pay toing and storage and around the cities that well over a grand

[@colind7678]

Plus, they would have to prove you were driving.

[@TYRONE_SHOELACES]

JESUS ...I SWEAR OUT OF ALL THE CANADIANS THAT POST COMMENTS ON KZbin, YOU AND I ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT SEE THE BIG PICTURE !!! hahaha .....If you piss a cop off in Canada, he can simply say get out of the car, give you a test, say you failed it, take you to the station for a formal test, where you blow zero, so he says well then, this guy must be on drugs or strong legal medication .. and then force a blood test out of you ...which comes back clean....BUT, because he arrested you on the roadside, you end up with your car towed and stored here in the City pound ...which ends up to being about 1000 dollar for the 7 days AND you get a charge of DUI ARREST on your record but not a conviction ....but when you apply for a Government job, like I have, the DUI ARREST shows up !!! ..I have a Navy security clearance level 1, only because I'm a pipe welder and I have contracts with the Navy to work there ...BUT any arrest, criminal charges takes that clearance away from me, meaning ... I love my $200,000.00 a year job....so to make a long story short ... piss that cop off and HE WINS ...HE WINS EVERY TIME.

[@mike62mcmanus]

If your in fifty feet of your vehicle when drunk and you have the keys on you then you are considered in command of your vehicle and can be charged in Canada...

[@cliffvandersluis1112]

In Canada if you are home already. Go to the door with an open beer. They can’t prove you had drinks before driving or only had them after you got home.

[@TYRONE_SHOELACES]

YES THEY CAN ... they calculate your BAC, for instance ...you drank at a bar ...7 beers, you came home and 2 hours later they show up ...they calculate how high your BAC would be for drinking while home for 2 hours and DEDUCT that from your BAC at the station and if it's over 0.08, you get a DUI ....and if you try to say something like " Well, I'm a drunk, I slammed a quart of rum as soon as I got home" ...they say well, that is NOT what a reasonable man does, and this new law is based on a reasonable man ... think of it this way, what's the sense of making this law if doing what you just said will make it invalid? ....In the courts eye, there is no way you can come home, and within 2 hours have a blood alcohol so high that you are drunk UNLESS you were drinking BEFORE you got home ... I not saying all this is right ...but that is how it's done.

[@TheMelnTeam]

Wild. They won't even know who the driver was for sure in some cases. And you could drink after getting home, then be penalized despite not actually breaking law. Pathetic legal setup.

[@canadaiswatching]

Your channel is cool, I appreciate the Canadian content! Hopefully you post more of it!!!

[@puravida809]

Pour yourself a drink as soon as you get home if you think they're after you. Show up at the door with a mojito.

[@elcheapo5302]

I actually expected their heads to be two pieces. South Park has ruined me.

[@zt5547]

You could just not open the door. ;)

[@SirStanleytheStumbler]

Long story short the law that allows for this hasn't exactly been well thought out. I expect at some point someone will arrive home, drink at home, be forced to take the test, and have video evidence proving they were drinking at home. That said field sobriety tests are inadmissible in court here. So breathalyzers are the standard test at roadside. Proper tests are done at the station. Refusing the breathalyzer is an admission of guilt here and unlike the states it's a criminal code violation with actual jail time on the line. If you plea guilty to it the first time you can avoid jail, 2nd offence and up your going to jail.

[@rb239rtr]

The law makes good sense. Just as there is no refuge for a bank robber, there should be no refuge for an impaired driver. By and large, the courts are fair, the Crown attorney would only charge if it was vialble and worth his time, most likely most cases are of a cop following a motorist to his driveway

[@ianbrown5955]

Is there anything that requires you to answer your door to cops? Just ignore the door in Canada? You never heard anybody knocking?

[@ChosenOne41]

What if you are out driving, come home and immediately crack open a cold one? Like you answer the door and have a half-finished stubby in one hand?

[@oldmanjim2376]

Apparently, in the People's Republic of Canada, you are not permitted to drink within 3 hours of driving and the burden is on YOU to prove you haven't.

[@ChosenOne41]

@@oldmanjim2376 We are just called Canada. We aren't a people's republic, I've never heard that one. We used to be an English colony, but later became our own country. I think you have us confused with a different country. Italy is a republic, are you thinking of them, perhaps?

[@oldmanjim2376]

@Chosen SCIM apparently you are incapable of reading sarcasm.

[@ChosenOne41]

@@oldmanjim2376 Which part was saracsm?

[@TerryProthero]

@@ChosenOne41 The People's Republic of China. The People's Republic of Canada. Notice any similarities? He's calling Canada a communist dictatorship.

[@_Sammmy_]

What would have happened if he didn’t answer the door?

[@terryjwood]

What if he was Deaf and didn't hear them knocking on the door?

[@streamingnowstreamingnow2568]

We'll never know because he was "Nice Good Citizen" listening to Police.

[@Pfsif]

@@streamingnowstreamingnow2568 he's a Subject.

[@TYRONE_SHOELACES]

Nothing ....but if they have probably cause ...which is much higher than reasonable suspicion that you indeed were drinking, like the cameras in a bar recording you drinking and it was shown to the cops, THEN the cops rush out and find a Judge to issue a warrant to knock your door in. Also, because of modern computers and new laws ...the cops don't have to literally find a Judge after hours and knock on his door to get him to read and sign the warrant ...they phone the Judge, tell him the story, then the Judge electronically signs a .pdf document on his phone and hits SEND and goes back to bed. There is always a Judge on call to answer a phone for case just like this.

[@a-liberal-patriot]

Not surprised. I grew up on the US/Mexico border. Mexico has the same style: guilty until proven innocent. Most Americans don't realize just how good we have it. Thank you, Andrew.

[@probuilder961]

You got that right!

[@redsoxmom66]

Not under MAGA. Look at Trump's performance at Lafayette Square. He's already said he will invoke the Insurrection Act in an effort to stop protestors if he gains the presidency via the Electoral College again. I'm a dual citizen who moved to Canada 🇨🇦. We have way more freedoms. I'm free to go everywhere anytime of day without the fear of mass shootings, I'm free to say and read what I want. I'm free to protest without some imbecile running me down when "standing their ground ". Leaving the US and living in another country has shown me how fucked up the US is.

[@ScottM1973]

In 2022 I once followed an impaired driver 44kms on the phone the whole time with Ontario 911. The guy wondered all over the road twice almost driving off the road on the opposite side. Multiple vehicles including 3 transport trucks needed to swerve to miss head on collisions with him. They never had a car "available" to intercept him. I have video of all this including the drivers face! They told me they'd send him a letter in the mail.

[@vesubioromo9425]

This is absolutely ABSURD! If he would've come home and drank a beer, what then? He would've taken the ride. RIDICULOUS.

[@stevelemmen7048]

Makes me glad we have a Bill of Rights.

[@dpjbdpjb]

even that seems to be eroding

[@seanidiot8949]

Canada has "the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ". Is similar to the US' Constitution.

[@canhamducbet]

How about answering the door while drinking a beer?

[@littlebunnywar]

The skiing thing was adorable. Love your videos, extra helpful as I also reside in VA.

[@adanieltorres]

If the officers have reasonable suspicion that you were driving under the influence, and they know you are home, could the body's metabolism removing the alcohol from your blood be considered an exigent circumstance of destruction of evidence allowing them to enter without a warrant?

[@Generik97]

Speaking as a Canadian we have no rights. Trust me it gets worse than this. Look into the Not Withstanding Clause. The government has the power to nullify any of our fundamental rights as long as they promise to review the infringement every so often.

[@B345T1N355Official]

Canada is not a free country.

[@colind7678]

Lol, the US and many other countries have the same laws.

[@bigjay6743]

Canadian here just don't answer the door they're not allowed in your house unless they have a warrant. One thing I will say Canada is really starting to suck.

[@homewardboundphotos]

Starting too? It's sucked horribly for a while and is only getting worse. I wish I could leave

[@jimanderson7648]

since the Fidel son as become PM

[@allanhill7179]

Sure.....why sont you move to the USA where the guy next to you o the bus, or in line at a movie, in a hospital emergency room probably has a handgun for self protection because their society is i the toilet.

[@jimfogarty6385]

In Alberta, drivers are now obligated to blow in a breathalyzer any time a cop demands it. At a DUI check stop all drivers are checked with a breathalyzer. No suspicion or probable cause required.

[@stevecooper2873]

That must've been just great during the 'vyrus' years.

[@thevinmeister5015]

You can fight it in court and argue that they can't prove you were driving.

[@johnshaddick6858]

The judge will always take the cops side.

[@ksw501]

If one holds a commercial drivers license in the US there’s a whole bunch of penalties for refusing breathalyzer and field sobriety tests

[@samuelkeystone]

I think they pull your CDL for a year or something similar.

[@markstoudt7769]

Only when driving a commercial vehicle

[@ksw501]

@@markstoudt7769 perhaps you’re right, all I know is I know 3 people who held commercial drivers licenses, got pinched for driving under the influence while driving a personal, non commercial vehicle and not one of them has a commercial drivers license anymore.

[@markstoudt7769]

@I. M. Spartacus what I know came straight from a D.O.T. cop in PA. He said if you read the the law it tells you only if driving a CMV, I have not read the law and cannot tell you for sure but he did tell me that even other cops get that law wrong. Just because someone has a commercial license does not mean they lose rights when driving a noncdl vehicle.

[@janineplamondon8893]

It’s true.. my country 🇨🇦 is fu€ked. 🤷‍♀️ that was a fun break down, sir. Stay safe out there!

[@Kevin-gg2bl]

And just remember, if you do get charged with a DUI, have the judge throw out the case against you as there was zero evidence, you could still have your driver's license removed indefinitely, if you live in Manitoba. I'm not making this up. I know someone, personally, who was in the passenger seat of a car, got written a DUI, had it thrown out as he was in the passenger seat in the police report (the report also mentioned there was a driver) and he's since not been able to get his license back and it's been almost ten years. We do not have rights up here.

[@marcleblanc6293]

Ignore the knock.....refuse to answer....if you do, do not open the door, ask if they have a warrant if they don't tell them to leave your property.

[@rydplrs71]

I believe in Canada you don’t have to answer the door, but should you do that the rest of the process is exactly as you describe. One key note is Canadian law says if you reasonably might expect to face a test…..if you don’t know someone called you in why would you reasonably expect to face a test. Canadian judges apparently ignore that part.

[@humansvd3269]

Canadian law is designed to dupe the people into thinking they are free while giving the govt to do whatever it wants.

[@jakolu]

This kind of thing makes sense, especially after an accident. I don't think that breaking this rule should be considered guilt of impaired driving in that case but maybe a lesser violation.

[@ImigrentfromMars]

So if Karran sees you came home and started a BBQ and opened a beer she can call and have the cops charge you with drunk driving.

[@ronclancy40]

No

[@greatrp]

The thing about drunk driving in Canada is that it is taken more seriously, as it should. An American with a drunk driving record can't even get into Canada.

[@Salty_Balls]

When someone comes knocking here in the States and utters the word "demand", things can get spicy. And it won't be in the form of apologies and french fries with gravy.

[@riblets1968]

It's worse than that. If acquitted at trial, the crown can petition the court for a NEW trial! Double jeopardy does not exists in Canada.

[@PrezVeto]

The _prohibition_ of it doesn't exist.

[@seanidiot8949]

The US court system appeals losses also.

[@jackcoleman5955]

Most Americans have no idea how great our limiting Constitution is. The very simple, yet extremely important rule of innocent until PROVEN guilty is life giving to a republic.

[@colinm.7652]

Cause my kids are of this Era I've told them that to just listen to the cops. 1 you dont know what the cops call was before you. You don't know where that cops at mentally 2 if the cops being abusive in some manner we'll get a lawyer to deal with that

[@RobertCampsall]

Which is how it is in Canada, too. And most of Europe. And we don't have to send our children to school w/ the daily fear they may not come back. Great laws you have.

[@foglight8075]

Justice Dept now say's you cant drink at home until 3 hour's has passed

[@johnshaddick6858]

The big question that we, should be asking . Is when this 3 hour time starts ?

[@st.george007]

How can it proven that the person was actually driving without a date stamped picture or a handful of witnesses? One crack pot calling in seams awfully thin. Does the crank pot have perfect vision, perfect recall and can identify without a reasonable doubt? Does the accused get access to traffic cameras that may clear them?

[@XtomJamesExtra]

The problem with the Canadian law, as described, is that if the person gets home and then has a drink, and the cops come knocking they could be arrested for DUI even though they were perfectly sober prior when driving. I suspect that a DUI lawyer in Canada would recommend not submitting to this test, given they were already home and the cops didn't actually observe them driving, let alone driving under the influence.

[@Rellikplug]

The problem with that scenario is that it adds another charge to defend against. Failure to submit to the breath test is a criminal offence. Likewise, failing to submit to a FST may also result in a criminal charge.

[@XtomJamesExtra]

@@Rellikplug Both of which could defended against quite easily by stating; "I was in my home, they have no proof I was driving, and it is not illegal to drink and sit in one's home."

[@SirStanleytheStumbler]

@@XtomJamesExtra but it is illegal to refuse the test. It is not a well thought out law.

[@XtomJamesExtra]

@@SirStanleytheStumbler While it might be illegal to refuse the test, it would still be best to do so, and then challenge the law's legality in court. Again, the fundamental defense is that the cops didn't see you drive, didn't see you operate the vehicle intoxicated, and you being in your home when they demanded the breathalyzer isn't a lawful grounds for arrest or citation. This is because it is not illegal to be drunk or to drink in one's own home. One might argue that it'd be better to take the test, even when intoxicated, in this situation, and then go to court and argue the officers have no proof that you were driving while intoxicated. However, if you refuse the breathalyzer and demand they leave and they arrest you, you have many more defenses and you haven't offered them proof they can use against you. Including constitutional arguments under Canada's Bill of Rights. Under section 2 of the Bill of Rights this law in question would be unenforceable. As it deprives a person of their Section 1(a) and 1(b) rights, and clearly allows officers in Canada to effectuate a detainment based solely upon an unreliable complaint or report from a third party. In effect this law could be used to claim anybody was driving under the influence, even if they in fact weren't driving at all, giving the officers the ability to demand someone, who is otherwise innocent, give a breathalyzer test. A clear violation of their rights. Any lawyer worth their salt would have a charge against someone who refuses to cooperate under this law tossed in court.

[@bindletorc]

In Canada: "Mandatory alcohol screening only applies to individuals who are driving. The police can only make a demand if they have lawfully stopped the driver, the demand is made immediately on stopping the driver and the officer has an approved screening device in his or her possession."

[@Rellikplug]

This is not accurate.

[@optophobe]

@@Rellikplug How is this not accurate because it is accurate. Look it up.

[@SirStanleytheStumbler]

@@optophobe law was changed in December 2018, now they don't even need suspicion to ask for a breath test, and they can demand a sample up to 2 hours after you have been driving. *that last part was incredibly unthought out.

[@optophobe]

@@SirStanleytheStumbler True. In Alberta they stated that they'd breath test every driver they pull over, suspicion or not, likely to not show any prejudices I assume? Not sure if they're actually doing that. I would think that a breath test after someone has been home for that long would be very defensible in court.

[@Rellikplug]

@@optophobe Throughout Canada, police whether federal, provincial, or municipal may demand a breath sample of anyone whom they have reasonable suspicion may have operated a conveyance in the previous three hours. The police may initiate a stop on any conveyance at any time solely to demand a breath sample of the operator of the conveyance. So far there has not been any consequential challenge to the current law. Although there are some reverse onus exceptions, refusal to submit to a breath test comes with some substantial administrative and potentially, criminal penalties. To defend against a PBT result registering above the limit administered at, or around, 2 hrs after operating a conveyance is now near impossible.

[@kdavis1492]

Always answer the door with a drink in hand. As for walking the straight line, I'll just pull up the picture on my phone, showing all the metal in my legs.

[@TheFalconJetDriver]

My answer to that the hell with Canada! don't go there. And best of all Don't answer the door for the police! Because Andrew said Do not Talk to the police! you are my hero Andrew! 😁🛫