[jar_e]

Originally Posted by valo403

Unless you have another statute that's not listed here you're reading that completely wrong. (1) discusses potential grounds for disqualification, with sections (4) providing the term of the disqualification. (5) is in no way negated by (1), it's the complete opposite. (5) dicates that where the grounds under (1) are impairment due to alcohol the term of the suspension can be less than 24 hours upon proof of BAC <0.08.

Do you have links to any of these cases that would appear to say that it's okay to blatantly go against the text of the highway traffic act?

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I highlighted 5b, but both 5a and 5b apply as they both state the conditions to prove that you are under 0.08. Neither one says anything about being between 50 and 80 mg.

And how does section one negate everything below it? Why would they bother writing section 5 if it was negated by the section above it? Section one states that the officer can require a driver to surrender his licence and the sections that follow outline the conditions.

I understand the impaired driving charge being separate, but someone who got a 24 hour suspension isn't being charged with impaired driving. (That can't come without a trial and a guilty verdict)

The law to me though is pretty clear that a person given a 24 hour suspension can dispute it by proving that their BAC is below 80.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...POOYgmcBOpgfHw

Forgive the the horrible linking, but from this fact sheet regarding the new amendment...

What it doesn’t do:
Does not target responsible Albertans who consume small amounts of alcohol on an evening out
Does not add fines or demerit penalties
Does not change the existing BAC limits of .05 and .08

Penalties for BAC levels between .05 and .08
This is not new. Law enforcement officers in Alberta have been issuing 24-hour suspensions to drivers in this blood alcohol range for many years. Every Canadian jurisdiction, with the exception of Quebec, issues a minimum 24-hour suspension for drivers at .05. Nine of those jurisdictions have now introduced tougher sanctions at this level.

I'm not sure why there seems to be a discrepancy with the TSA or if there is some sort of amendment/addition to it regarding 24 hour suspensions. But this is common practice, it happens in all of Alberta, and if you currently blow 0.05 on a roadside screening device, you will be given a 24 hour suspension and you will not have the option to goto a breathalyzer and see if you're over/under 0.08.

Edit: and furthermore, I'm not trying to say that just because it happens, its right, but all of the municipal police departments and RCMP do it, and I'm positive they would do their due diligence with the Alberta Solicitor General and such to continue the practice. Obviously if this was not the case, there would be some sort of appeal/lawsuit against the officer/service for doing as such.