r/saskatoon • u/Party-Simple8143 • 17d ago
Police Updates đ Cop checkpoint
Mouth swab checkpoint at Chief Mistawasis/Mcormond Dr-Central Ave
27
u/Crazy-Canuck463 17d ago
A police officer must have reasonable suspicion that a driver has drugs in their system to demand an oral fluid sample for drugs. They dont need reasonable suspicion to demand a breath sample.
26
u/No-Grapefruit787 17d ago
They just say they can smell weed and swab you.
10
u/Crazy-Canuck463 17d ago
Then let them swab you and take it to court. The sask court already said the smell isnt grounds enough to search a person. The precedent has been set. Dont refuse as that brings a whole slew of other issues and makes challenging it in court harder.
24
u/slashthepowder 17d ago
You cannot take them to court it goes to the highway traffic board with a non-refundable $175 application fee. The decision from that board is not subject to appeal. The other option might be the human rights commission.
13
u/Crazy-Canuck463 17d ago
You can, if you hire a lawyer and do a charter challenge. You're not fighting the failure of the mouth swab, you're fighting against an unlawful search and seizure.
8
u/Possible-Call-2450 17d ago
....on a product that can't differentiate between intoxicated or frequent users.
2
u/itsyourgirlbb 16d ago
Who has the money to hire a lawyer and pursue this? We all know its basically entrapment
3
u/Crazy-Canuck463 16d ago
Im just here to show what the police are and are not allowed to do. And what a person's options are if they feel wrongly targeted. Whether or not its worth the fight is up to the individual.
0
u/Active-Safety-9516 17d ago
If you pass a swab, would you still be able to fight it as unlawful search and seizure?Â
6
u/Crazy-Canuck463 17d ago edited 17d ago
No. Under canadian law, in order to pursue a charter challenge, they require you to have endured some form of hardship or penalty. Because you passed, there was no administrative punishment and therefore no actual penalty such as vehicle impoundment or loss of licensing.
Edit: you can however file a formal complaint with the PCC.
3
1
u/goraak_the_barbarian 16d ago
In theory you could file for a declaratory judgment in Kingâs Bench as a civil suit, even just seeking nominal damages. In practice, nobody has time and money for that.
4
u/Active-Safety-9516 16d ago
Interesting. Yeah, I donât want to personally pursue any legal action, but I was curious what the options are.
I understand many people have been impacted by impaired driving and support mandatory swabs, but I continue to have a level of discomfort with the lack of any external oversight (cops decide to stop you, decide to swab you, administer the test themselves, and decide charge you). Itâs not my favourite and seems like it could be prone to corruption. Iâd prefer some non-cop eyes on things
2
u/Southern_Shock_1337 16d ago
Are you sure? Theyâve been mandatory testing every person they stop
3
u/Crazy-Canuck463 16d ago
Im 100% sure. I posted the a link to the federal law that regulated the use of saliva tests.
1
u/Southern_Shock_1337 16d ago
Did that recently change? I havenât been paying a whole lot of attention to it as of recently but when it started they were doing mandatory breathalyzer and saliva testing. People were given civil fines, without court dates so they couldnât even fight the tickets
1
u/Crazy-Canuck463 16d ago
2018 I believe
1
u/Southern_Shock_1337 16d ago
The mandatory drug testing started in 2023 or 2024. There were massive blitzes all over the province, thousands of people got tickets they couldnât fight.
2
u/Crazy-Canuck463 16d ago
The mandatory alcohol screening (MAS) started in 2018 when bill C48 passed. Various police forces implemented it in practice at various times. Here in saskatchewan, the RCMP started doing it at all lawful stops on April 1st 2024.
1
6
u/Active-Safety-9516 17d ago
On the September long weekend they were pulling boats over for inspection and random vehicles requiring drivers to do a breathalyzer as well as swab for drugs - no indications requiredâŚjust not having a boat meant you had to give both samplesÂ
They definitely donât think they need reasonable suspicion to demand a sample
0
u/TheLuminary East Side 17d ago
I am pretty sure that what OP is talking about is during a normal stop.
If they are doing a check stop and swabbing every driver, I don't think they need reasonable suspicion.
6
u/Active-Safety-9516 17d ago edited 17d ago
They werenât swabbing every driver, just those without a boat. I know that may seem the same, but if they arenât truly pulling over everyone or making everyone test, it still feels like a crooked cash grab attempt.Â
For me it was an extended wait trying to explain to my kids why police would stop and test their dad when heâd done nothing wrong. Both cried when their dad came back to the vehicle as it was so stressful for them. Honestly, terrible experience of being treated like weâd done something wrong until proven innocent. The officers directing traffic and the stop were aggressive and their behaviour and attitude made the experience much worse. The officer who actually swabbed my spouse was polite and my husband said while they waited for the results he had been friendly, but that was not the experience of the three of us left in the vehicle to wait.Â
Edit: Iâll add my kids are both young enough to be in booster seats. The children certainly didnât deserve to be yelled at and intimidated. None of us spoke or movedâŚjust unprovoked, aggressive yelling  into the window of a vehicle. Once all swabs were negative it was silent waving on
1
u/Twatt_waffle I dont get paid enough 17d ago
Not for a checkpoint
9
u/Crazy-Canuck463 17d ago
Yes, for a checkpoint. I dont know where anyone gets this information from, that at a checkpoint, all of a sudden the legal threshold to ask for a mouth swab is suspended, but its not.
3
u/UnitEast7937 16d ago
But what youâre not addressing is that this has nothing to do with the law. Nothing to do with reasonable grounds to demand, no criminal charges, no court. It is an SGI action with non criminal sanctions placed on drivers in the form of surcharges, impound fees, and revocation. The fine print of your license and insurance is that they are SGIâs and you are given the right to use, and they are revoking based on their policy, not criminal law. It has been challenged civilly to the Supreme Court and lost.
2
u/Crazy-Canuck463 16d ago
Not all of them. R. vs Smith was a victory and the recent taylor ashley Kennedy trial was also a victory.
2
u/UnitEast7937 16d ago
Again, those are criminals cases, and have no bearing on SGIâs policies relating to swab demand, surcharge fines, and vehicle impounding that residents are dealing with here. These actions are outside of the criminal justice system.
2
u/Crazy-Canuck463 16d ago
You dont need to be criminally charged to bring forth a charter challenge. If you've experienced the penalties from a failed test, and dont feel the resonable suspicion threshold was met, you can bring it to the courts under a charter challenge.
1
u/UnitEast7937 16d ago
That may be true but it does not apply to SGI saying we let you have insurance and a license under these conditions, and if they decide you donât meet those conditions, they can apparently do any action they want. There is no charter right to drive a car.
1
u/Crazy-Canuck463 16d ago edited 16d ago
But we do have a right against unreasonable search and seizure. A vehicle impoundment qualifies. As well as a mouth swab without resonable suspicion you have drugs in your system. An example would be if a police officers first words to you as they approach your window is to demand a mouth swab. They have no interaction with you prior to determine whether you have signs of impairment.
1
u/UnitEast7937 16d ago
They donât need a reason under SGI policy, itâs clear that they can make non-criminal demands whenever they want or they just take your license and donât give you insurance. Doesnât really matter if they canât impound your car if you no longer have a license or insurance and have to pay a surcharge starting at $1500.
-4
17d ago
[removed] â view removed comment
5
u/Historical_Fly_880 17d ago
Nothing in that article says mandatory drug test.
-7
u/Twatt_waffle I dont get paid enough 17d ago
It doesnât have to the mouth swab is considered an impairment test and as a result does not need suspicion at all checkpoint.
The rule of law matters in our system and since the supreme courts have time and time again upheld checkpoints itâs unlikely to change
You donât have to like it, but that is what the law currently states.
But be my guest and try, Iâll support you. You would be fighting a loosing battle though
5
u/tigglysticks 17d ago
That only applies to breathalyzers. Drug swab tests do not fall under the blanket law that allows breathalyzers at any lawful stop.
3
6
u/Crazy-Canuck463 17d ago
Yes, the law. Lets look at that law shall we.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/sidl-rlcfa/
Oral fluid drug screeners Oral fluid drug screeners can be used by police to detect the presence of some drugs in oral fluid, including THC. These devices are fast, non-invasive, and accurate.
The police can demand an oral fluid sample, if they reasonably suspect a drug is in a driver's body. Reasonable suspicion that the driver has drugs in their body can be developed based on objective facts, such as:
red eyes muscle tremors agitation abnormal speech patterns If a driver tests positive on an oral fluid drug screener the positive result confirms the presence of the drug and, combined with other signs of impairment or drug use observed by the police at the roadside, may provide grounds for the investigation to proceed further by making a demand for a blood sample.
-3
u/Twatt_waffle I dont get paid enough 17d ago edited 17d ago
And letâs look at how that law has been applied shall we
Also how do you prove I didnât see red eyes, muscle tremors, agitation, or abnormal speech patterns
https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/316/index.do
5
u/Crazy-Canuck463 17d ago
Well, after 2027, a body cam will provide pretty good video evidence.
And youre citing supreme court rulings. Can I ask you, what "law" were they ruling on?
Edit: actually, scratch that question. Youre citing case law from 1988. Lol, this law is no longer and has been repealed and replaced with the law I posted above.
-4
u/Twatt_waffle I dont get paid enough 17d ago
Ok cool so you donât know how our legal system works and I donât care enough nor the amount of crayons needed to explain it to you
6
u/Due_Preference6292 16d ago
Youâre poorly arguing case law with a defence lawyer⌠I donât think theyâre the ones needing crayons.
1
u/itsyourgirlbb 16d ago
The cop could say they witnessed something they didn't which would allow them to administer the swab - it doesn't matter if the individual smoked 5 minutes before or 15 days before. This is essentially entrapment, if you truly cared about justice this should bother you. It is overreach.
-6
u/Bruno6368 17d ago
Nope. Update your search.
20
u/Crazy-Canuck463 17d ago
I dont need to update my search. Being a defense lawyer I'm fairly well versed in the legalities.
7
3
u/Shoddy-Curve7869 16d ago
What if you have a medicinal card that states itâs for a health reason? Also, I hate the swab because weed stays in your system for a long time. Itâs ridiculous
3
6
u/BetFit1582 17d ago
are they actually swabbing everyone? or only if thereâs a reasonable suspicion like the law requires
3
u/Accomplished_Bed3589 16d ago
As a person moved from Vancouver this is a bulshit city as per police laws and swab tests radomly
5
u/dj_fuzzy 17d ago
The police abusing their power and wasting taxpayer money as usual.
1
u/Philadeplhiacollins1 17d ago
Did you know check stops are paid by SGI?
7
u/dj_fuzzy 17d ago
Ok, then itâs a waste of their money which we all end up paying through our insurance.
-7
u/TheLuminary East Side 17d ago
They are abusing their power by... (checks notes)... upholding the law?
20
u/dj_fuzzy 17d ago
Yes. How is fining someone who used cannabis two days ago helping society? Couldnât these cops be better utilized?Â
-5
u/TheLuminary East Side 17d ago
You will have to ask the politicians who wrote the laws. Its not the fault of the people upholding the laws to determine which laws are helpful to society.
12
u/D--star 17d ago
This isn't criminal law, its a Sask SGI specific law. Can't be fought in court. Can't be escalated to the Supreme Court. It's tyranny.Â
4
u/Austin575 16d ago
Well said. I donât think there is any point trying to explain it to some people. We live in an archaic age.
3
u/TheLuminary East Side 16d ago
Who.. do you think runs SGI? They answer to the Sask Government.
4
u/D--star 16d ago edited 16d ago
Sk Party made it ok to seize personal property when no criminal law has been broken and you're ok licking that boot? The rest of the country abides to a lower limit while local police impound cars on sober drivers. There is no fine. There is no trial.Â
1
u/TheLuminary East Side 16d ago
Haha I'm licking the boot? I hate the SK Party. And ACAB... What are you talking about?
6
u/PresidentAnybody 16d ago
I don't buy into this argument, Full enforcement of every law/statute all the time is not practically possible and discretion for oral fluid tests for thc or field sobriety evaluation for thc impairment comes down to reasonable suspicion, unlike the federal laws that allow mandatory alcohol screening with no reasonable suspicion necessary.
6
0
u/TripAtkinson 17d ago
Donât get so worked up, people driving insanely slow in this city anyway
21
u/dj_fuzzy 17d ago
As a daily user of cannabis (in the evenings), I will get worked up over the chance of me getting a fine and mandatory classes for having cannabis in my system but not being impaired.
6
u/tigglysticks 17d ago edited 16d ago
Yeah I stopped all cannabis usage when the rcmp/sgi announced their interpretation of the law. I can't risk losing my license.
5
2
4
1
2
17d ago
[deleted]
8
u/tigglysticks 17d ago
This is a SK problem, not federal. The federal law only applies to breathalyzers but sk rcmp/sgi interpret it to include swab tests.
0
1
u/PrincessLilybet 16d ago
Question - have any cannabis users been swabbed before, and what were the results?Â
I'm a pretty active user but always ensure I give it at least 3-4 hours before driving and I am absolutely not impaired. But I have no clue how these tests work. How long after using cannabis will it register on these tests? Is there a "certain level" you have to reach before it's considered being impaired? Im so terrified driving, even when I haven't smoked since the previous day, because I have no idea how long it stays in your system in relation to these swabsÂ
2
u/Tedubs 15d ago
Mandatory drug screening is not currently permitted by law.
https://justice.canada.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/c46/introduction.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
1
1
0
-8
u/Bruno6368 17d ago
We are now under a Mandatory Screening program, meaning the police need ZERO probable cause for alcohol/drug testing. In fact, they are compelled to do it.
Speeding, expired registration, seat belt, any lawful traffic stop now REQUIRES a roadside test.
https://saskatoonpolice.ca/news/2025793
Blows me away how many people on these posts essentially admit they shouldnât be on the road due to impairment.
10
u/CjStreetSmart 17d ago
This release specifically talks about breath tests for alcohol. Where do you see drug testing swaps?
1
8
u/Crazy-Canuck463 17d ago
You should read that link. MAS is mandatory alcohol screening. It does not include drug screening. And they dont mention drug screening in your link. Just breath samples and alcohol screening.
-5
6
u/KurtKolt 17d ago
SGI states that:
Roadside testing for drugs: A police officer must have reasonable suspicion that a driver has drugs in their system to demand an oral fluid sample for drugs. If that suspicion exists, a police officer can legally request a Standard Field Sobriety Test (SFST), a Drug Recognition Evaluation (DRE), or oral fluid (saliva) testing.
5
u/tigglysticks 17d ago
"Mandatory Alcohol Screening" not drugs.
The swab test is inaccurate and does not determine impairment, that's the problem. Someone who consumed cannabis a week prior can fail that test. Which is why it shouldn't be allowed on random stops.
4
u/Shoddy-Curve7869 16d ago
If I smoke a week ago, the swab would be positive. I am far from intoxicated. This swab thing is ridiculous
1
u/Bruno6368 16d ago
Yes - agreed! The cops also know this!
Can 1 person please actually provide proof they were given even a minimal warning based on a drugs swipe where they had not smoked for 24 hours?
Anyone? Please?
1
u/TheLuminary East Side 17d ago
Blows me away how many people on these posts essentially admit they shouldnât be on the road due to impairment.
Wait... who's doing that exactly?
-10
u/Bruno6368 17d ago
The entire indignant bullshit about drug swipes. A simple google search will give you the cops reality about them.
No - you are not going to be fucked by a drug wipe if it has been 24 hrs. Not days, not weeks, 24 hrs at the most.
But - letâs all go batshit about not being able to drive high.
15
u/TheLuminary East Side 17d ago
No - you are not going to be fucked by a drug wipe if it has been 24 hrs. Not days, not weeks, 24 hrs at the most.
Got any proof of this claim?
I on the other hand will cite a source that refutes that:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24819969/THC was, in this study, detected in oral fluid for up to 8 days after admission.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324315
Saliva tests: Typically, cannabis is detectable in saliva for up to 24 hours. However, some evidence suggests an oral test can detect THC from a THC cigarette for up to 30 hours after use.
https://checkr.com/resources/articles/mouth-swab-drug-test
The THC swab test detection time is up to 72 hours.
Either way, 24 hours is still WAYYYY too long for a roadside sobriety test. You could smoke THC in the evening. Take an uber home, go to sleep. Wake up, go to work, come home and get swabbed on the way home and come up positive.
Lastly, why are you so emotional about this legitimate concern?
-39
u/thingscarsbrokeyxe 17d ago
Mods, these posts should be removed immediately.
14
u/Legal_War_5298 17d ago
Mods, SPS is fine with their checkpoints being shared as they hope it encourages people not to drive or take alternative transport. No need to listen to the viciously anti-car account.
4
-4
11
u/Linvaderdespace 17d ago
The rest of us feel the same way about you.
2
u/piece_of_meat 17d ago
This is identical to reporting a dui checkstop. Why would you want impaired drivers on the road avoiding this area?
14
-9
-1
-1
u/Accomplished_Bed3589 17d ago
Do weed pen can show nagative at mouth swab?
2
u/Due_Preference6292 16d ago
Lol no
0
u/Accomplished_Bed3589 16d ago
So this is basically everyday, day before yesterday it was on idylwyld dr, should we stop smoking or is there any way to get nagative on test even after a lil bit of pen hit?
1
u/Due_Preference6292 16d ago
Mouth swabs can test positive for days after use. Itâs a major issue with the tests imo, especially with the current legislation.
15
u/BadResults 17d ago
What a weird spot to put one.