Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz
I don't see this mentioned anywhere in the legislation that I read.
|
The law just says that to be convicted of dui after exiting the vehicle two hours prior, you have to have known that you will be required to give a breath sample sometime in the next two hours. So absent any conclusive toxicology report that says you were drinking two hours earlier while you had been driving, you would not be convicted for drinking at a bar or at home and not driving. What would cause you to know that you would be expected to give a breath sample? Fleeing an accident, fleeing a traffic stop and hiding in your basement chugging beer. It's meant to curtail that sort of excuse. I don't see it being a tool for cops to wreck your life for no reason but it's spooky none the less. If toxicology reports are valid, you should be able to prove you were not drinking at the time of driving and that you had no reasonable expectation of giving breath samples. However it should absolutely be the crown that has to prove your guilt via that report.