Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
I'm not arguing one way or another for it, just stating a fact. If PepsiFree is a proponent of the law, he should probably understand the actual law and he appears mistaken with his argument.
Alberta's Bill 29 appears different in that regard in that an officer could simply revoke a licence without any due process if he simply believes (or says he believes) that the person is impaired.
|
I understand both the current act and Bill 29 quite well, we’ll enough to stand behind my support of it.
From my reading of Bill 29 in conjunction with the current traffic act, it seems like you’re actually the one mistaken (because you’re looking at the traffic act, not the amendments Bill 29 proposes). Any revoking of a license due to an officer simply “believing” that the person is impaired would be immediately struck down on appeal, with any fines or suspensions returned/lifted. Not much different than now, and much faster than dealing with it in criminal court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducay
2A is very difficult to prove via "hard" evidence in court as it is, so hence why taking due process out of the equation is very scary. All I have to do is piss off the wrong cop on the wrong day and they can get me with a "2A" with no burden of proof, even if I were to blow a 0.01?
Sure cops can use 2A to get someone off the road, but I would imagine the conviction rate is damned near 0% unless they did something else (crashed, video of field sobriety, etc).
|
It’s actually less scary now. Bill 29 makes the use of an alcohol sensing device mandatory, and should that not be followed, you can appeal it (where the appeal board must cancel the suspension or disqualification and order any fees paid by you to the government returned).
The more I dig into this bill, the better it seems for both the safety of our roads and law abiding citizens passionate about due process.