- Submit News Tip
- Trending Now
- Special Sections
- Contact Us
Princeton Ground Search and Rescue volunteers are being credited with saving a…
President Donald Trump is meeting shortly with a North Korean envoy in the Oval Office
It’s alleged a 26-year-old man was seen taking photos or video of a woman in a change room
Each year in Canada, approximately 900 people are diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma
Penticton Vees defeat Wenatchee Wild in BCHL action
The musician took a break from music for a year to recover from his last EP
Vernon, Kelowna and Penticton stops on LA Bonfire tour
Martha Sandy and Dorothy Gorner are both 101 years old this year
Canadian Mental Health Association received a $1,000 donation from the Penticton Hospital Auxiliary
Jan 2nd, 2019>
Jan 2nd, 2019>
Dec 31st, 2018>
Dec 28th, 2018>
Dec 24th, 2018>
Dec 24th, 2018>
Veteran shark diver doesn’t think the general public should recklessly get into the water with the giants
Bertha Vickers says she got the two-in-one after missing four deer this season
Premier John Horgan promises reform at loggers’ convention
The first brick-and-mortar government retail location opened in Kamloops on Oct. 17
Let us know your thoughts!
Thank-you for all your efforts BC Corrections Service
Recently, the federal government implemented new legislation regarding driving impaired.
Under this new legislation, RCMP no longer require “reasonable suspicion” to request that a driver submit to a breathalyzer test. This change led to confusion among the public in regard to their rights and when an officer can request a breathalyzer test.
A concern and false rumor that quickly spread around social media was that RCMP now had the ability to track you down at a public place or your place of living and request a breathalyzer test because someone may have reported you as an impaired driver earlier. We spoke with Penticton RCMP and confirmed that officers do not have the authority to do this because they cannot prove you were operating a motor vehicle, even if you were impaired at the time of a breathalyzer test after the fact. This is called a loss of “continuity of the person and what they’ve done in the interim of events.”
“Say someone reports a drunk driver, they give us the licence plate and say, ‘I saw them drinking a lot and then they drove home and swerving around.’ and they went to an address and went inside their house,” said Constable James Grandy. “If we arrive 20 minutes later, 10 minutes later or even five minutes later for that matter, we can’t demand that the person provide a breath sample. Because they are no longer in their vehicle and the time has passed because they were in their house. That doesn’t apply.”
Given this clarification, are you in favour of this new legislation or do you think RCMP should still need “reasonable suspicion” to force a driver to adhere to a breathalyzer test?
To report a typo, email: email@example.com.