Drunk driving to be largely decriminalized in Alberta in 2018

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Changes are coming to the way drunk drivers are policed and prosecuted in Alberta with the provincial government set to issue a directive to police that will largely decriminalize impaired driving, CBC News has learned.

Officers will be given wide discretion whether to criminally charge those who blow over the legal limit. But, for the most part, first time offenders will see roadside administrative sanctions rather than face criminal charges according to CBC sources.

The model Alberta is working toward looks much like British Columbia's, with fines, roadside towing and licence suspensions issued by police instead of criminal charges being laid.

The changes follow an Alberta Court of Appeal decision in May that struck down existing drunk driving laws. The province's top court found tying the suspension of a driver's licence to the outcome of their court case was unconstitutional.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ence-1.4468021

[Canehdianman]

Makes sense. The legal system has been clogged with these charges for far too long.

It will decimate the criminal defense bar in Alberta though.

[DuffMan]

Glad I didn’t order that BAC unit yet.

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Makes sense. The legal system has been clogged with these charges for far too long.

It will decimate the criminal defense bar in Alberta though.

Might improve business for all the other bars though.

[killer_carlson]

This really concerns me. As I've mentioned before my father was killed is a drunk driving accident when I was 2.

Has there been studies of the impact on road safety in BC?

[SebC]

Why stop at drunk driving? Think how much money we could save by disposing with the presumption of innocence "decriminalizing" everything!

[InglewoodFan]

I have to say the recent uptick in examples of poor judgement and unethical behavior by CPS doesn't give me the warmest of fuzzies about them having the ability to hand out penalties unfettered by due process. Are 90%+ of them good? Sure, but the remaining few could really turn these expanded powers into a nightmare for anyone who gets on their bad side.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

This really concerns me. As I've mentioned before my father was killed is a drunk driving accident when I was 2.

Has there been studies of the impact on road safety in BC?

I think BC has seen a reduction in deaths related to drunk driving...

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/b...egin-1.4430462

The point here is that cops want to be able to continue enforcing roadside impoundment and fines. Not connecting those tactics to criminal charges is the only way they can do that. So in a weird way it's kind of better if you're not concerned about the presumption of innocence we used to have.

[Jacks]

Next stop roadside judges to speed up the system.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Makes sense. The legal system has been clogged with these charges for far too long.

It will decimate the criminal defense bar in Alberta though.

Oh I dont know, I think criminal defense attorneys will have lots of depression to drink their way through.

[flamesforcup]

Originally Posted by InglewoodFan

I have to say the recent uptick in examples of poor judgement and unethical behavior by CPS doesn't give me the warmest of fuzzies about them having the ability to hand out penalties unfettered by due process. Are 90%+ of them good? Sure, but the remaining few could really turn these expanded powers into a nightmare for anyone who gets on their bad side.

Cps are a bunch of thugs. Doesnt matter if "90%" of them are good they let the others get away with it with silence

[transplant99]

So now police will be judge and jury?

That is outrageous.

[Johnny199r]

I'd estimate that 50% of criminal trials heard in Alberta are impaired driving/over .80 trials.

Should solve the R. Jordan issues pretty quickly.

[GGG]

Wouldnt this then be administered and have the same due process you would for speeding tickets and other administrative actions?

It's just a non-criminal act, how does making it non-criminal remove due process?

[Northendzone]

Wow, I am stunned that MADD supports this approach.

Will be interesting to see how this is appealed

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GGG

Wouldnt this then be administered and have the same due process you would for speeding tickets and other administrative actions?

It's just a non-criminal act, how does making it non-criminal remove due process?

There are immediate punishments.

As I understand this,

At the discretion of the officer they not only tow your car, they immediately issue a 3 month license suspension. If you want to drive in 3 months , you then at your expense must install an interlock machine. If you don't you don't drive for a year.


Sorry to all the good and fine police officers out there, but i certainly do not think they are qualified to make such life altering decisions on the spot. That should be a court decision, period.


With speeding tickets and such, you still get a court date and a judge to make an informed decision.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

Wow, I am stunned that MADD supports this approach.

Will be interesting to see how this is appealed

It will be appealed the second they issue the first roadside suspension.

There is no way the courts will allow the police to issue 15 month license suspensions or 3 month suspensions and forced interlock participation with no court appearance.

[woob]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Sorry to all the good and fine police officers out there, but i certainly do not think they are qualified to make such life altering decisions on the spot. That should be a court decision, period.

Nah, you blow over you should lose your license. On the spot. I would presume that if you want to challenge, then you take it up with the court system.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by woob

Nah, you blow over you should lose your license. On the spot. I would presume that if you want to challenge, then you take it up with the court system.

Yeah who needs due process anyhow?

Actually I think they should just send suspected murderers straight to jail without a trial either.

Who cares if the cop just suspected them or in the case of possible impaired driving, a completely faulty device.

Foster says the B.C. model is faulty, pointing to an incident in 2010 when more than 2,000 roadside screening devices (portable breathalizers) were recalled because they had been improperly calibrated.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ence-1.4468021

This is an extremely slippery slope.

[Mr.Coffee]

One thing I don’t understand is can they not just keep it in the courts but speed up the legal process? Make it more efficient?

Speaking from pure ignorance here.