Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
With Bill 29, the same kid who lost his licence for a day because he has dilated pupils, would face 3 months, plus require an expensive breathalyzer device installed on his vehicle if he didn't want to lose his licence for another year at the discretion of the same officer who thought he was impaired. There's very little oversight, given that it's now simply the discretion of the officer without needing to provide evidence in court.
|
Except that he would have to be informed of his option to take a voluntary test (as put forth by one of the amendments in Bill 29) and would be able to appeal, which would have to overturn the ruling (if he was not offered a test or if the test proved negative).
That’s pretty strong oversight to me.