Regardless of whether it's effective or correct from a policy standpoint, I don't see how this possibly passes any sort of Constitutional challenge. You can sell a one-day impound as being a non-punitive measure with the aim of road safety. But when you bump it up to three - no one is still going to be drunk and a dangerous driver more than 1 day removed from the initial stop (and if they are, they're going to be blowing a ridiculous number on the breathalyzer anyways.) It's pretty obvious that rather than a public safety measure, it's designed to punish people who drive at between 0.05 and 0.08, because there's no other explanation for bumping the impound time from 24 hours to 72 hours. If that's the case, it's going to be really hard for the province to justify that the law is within their Constitutional jurisdiction, and not criminal in nature.
|