It’s a Fine Line
Filed Under: Canada, Local, Other
Where do you draw the line between civil rights and public safety?
Imagine police sneaking up to your car while you’re inside a store and slapping a little magnetic box under the fender that tracks the vehicle everywhere you take it, without you even realizing it’s there.
That’s the length cops in Fresno, Calif., have gone to in order to track repeat drunk drivers heading to bars and liquor stores.
Sgt. Eric Eide explained how police in that city have used the tactic since 2006 in response to a horrific crash involving a drunk driver who had 9 previous convictions.
Police here in Winnipeg said they have never discussed the idea but believe the only way it could work would be if it was a court imposed condition. The Province of Manitoba added it would consider the idea if proposed by police.
Thanks for visiting! If this is your first time here why not grab the RSS feed. You can also follow this discussion by checking the "Notify me of followup comments via e-mail" box or by subscribing to the comments RSS feed. Please scroll down to leave your comment.
5 Comments so far. Add Yours Now!
real conservative
The law, and media taking tips from the elites hidden behind the curtain are test driving restriction of freedoms of people and watching reaction from the public. Some idiots will jump up and down demanding that they have nothing to fear cause they are good. Even a conspiring accomplice can become useless in time and thus be disposed of. (real conservative)
Jan 6th, 2008
Michael
This is an excellent topic. In my opinion, allowing police officers to place tracking devices on cars may be a good idea, but there needs to be some specification on who’s cars they are allowed to put them on. For instance, they should only be allowed to place these devices on the cars of people who already have more then 1 impaired driving charge.
Jan 6th, 2008
Len Kutchma
As Winnipeg police explained it wouldn’t really work here as an investigative tool but may be of use as part of a court ordered condition but of course in which case it loses its element of surprise, yes?
There is a difference between physically following a person of interest in an investigation and actually placing a tracking device on that person’s vehicle. Where do we draw the line? Tracking devices on the person? Implants? We are treading dangerous waters.
Jan 7th, 2008
dave drake
Treading dangerous waters, indeed. The example of covertly installing a black box to a car linked to a repeat drunken drivers is the camel’s nose in the tent forever and ever. What’s next - covertly installing cameras and microphones for surveillance in homes of people just in case they “might” do something against the law?
I’m not in favor or supportive of drunken driving, but to covertly attach a black box to a car - with or without a court consent - is anathema to civil liberties and privacy.
Jan 11th, 2008
Dave Hodson
Interesting question. I wouldn’t support such a procedure unless there was a strong reason to believe there was a danger to the public of a repeat offence and a court ordered it. Problem is, the only reason you would have cause for such a concern is if the offender has a history of such behaviour. If this is the case, then why does he still have a driver’s license? If he’s that big a risk, then he shouldn’t be driving at all. Perhaps the penalties for the first offense is not harsh enough?
Jan 12th, 2008
Reply to “It’s a Fine Line”
Please note: Comment moderation is in effect. It may take some time for your comment to appear. There is no need to resubmit it.
Management does not necessarily endorse or agree with comments left here. Management reserves the right to not publish comments it deems unfit. Play nice.