Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Why would the bill include anything about needing a breathalyzer or blood test for any reason if an officer can just suspend based on the belief of impairment without any recourse?
|
In theory, to give an officer the ability to remove and punish other illicit substances. Or, potentially, those who can't handle their liquor in a sense. Some people at 0.4 should not be driving, even if legally (without the discussed clause) they are.
If I'm ####ed up on fentanyl, but I don't blow over because I haven't drank or done any weed, I should still receive the same impaired driving sanctions as those who drank.
The problem is, how does 88.1(2)(a) actually get administered. Prior, and even though unconstitutional for them to suspend your licence, it was through the court that you would be found guilty or not and you had a chance to defend yourself - even if it was a complete pain, and if you did indeed lose your licence until you were found not guilty (again, that had to be repealed because it was unconstitutional and Alberta Transportation explicitly stated you would not if you didn't blow over 0.05). The officer still had to enter evidence, provide field sobriety tests, and make a case against you for criminal charges. It's not something a vindictive cop would go through lightly as you don't want to go to the courts without some proof. Now though, if a cop determines you are impaired, you are punished all the same unless you successful appeal it, which we don't really know the burden of proof there if any.
Ideally, if someone fails a sobriety field test because they are impaired, having them punished for it makes sense. But then we do run into things like the person being found to be impaired because his eyes were dilated due to a medical condition.