Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger
I guess you are probably right in that.
I just like the result of BC law, it has reduced deaths, and it has obviously reduced the amount of drinking as restaurants have complained. That has to be good for drivers overall. People argued to go after the higher drinker with stiffer penalties, that would help some but not completely, so you have to have stricter rule at the low end too to change societies views.
the argument that the law is unconstitutional, at the low end that people are arguing it was found to be constitutional. So what is the counterargument now that the BC courts said that part of the rule and the 3 day suspension they have is fine.
|
My guess is this will go to the BC Court of Appeal in relatively short order. There's a major evidentiary problem here--the BC court has said that where the roadside screening device reads "fail" that sanctions under the Motor Vehicles Act infringe s. 8. This makes sense: where there's a "fail" reading there is a requirement that a breath demand be read and a breath sample taken pursuant to the Criminal Code, which provides for specific penalties upon conviction.
With the greatest of respect for the Court it makes no sense to then uphold the imposition of sanctions on persons who blow "warn" where they've been deemed unconstitutional for people who blow "fail."