Driving under the legal limit? Doesn't matter, your vehicle is impounded anyway.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tiger

I know that if I got pulled over and a drank nothing and blow a 0.05 I would ask for a second breathlyzer test if if was at a checkstop because there is more than one cop there. Machines could have error, so that could happen. Temperature has an effect on calibration, exertion can lower a reading, body type can have an effect on reading. I never had to do a test at a check stop. Blood test are more accurate and you can have that done I assume you could ask for one of those done as well. But also what if you are in a similar situation and you blow a 0.08 or more, what would you do then! it is the same situation.

I also assume the police have the devices for calibration and I assume you could ask to see the calibration results.

You don't get all of those options champ. Way to be up on what you're arguing for though.

And no it's not the same situation if you blow over .08. In that situation you have due process rights, it's only when you don't commit a criminal offense that you have no rights whatsoever. Makes sense huh? No criminal offense = no rights. Criminal offense = Charter protections.

The biggest BS part of this whole thing is no politician can actually raise the issue out of fear of the neo-prohibitionists at MADD going on a campaign to label them as pro drunk driving.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by valo403

You don't get all of those options champ. Way to be up on what you're arguing for though.

And no it's not the same situation if you blow over .08. In that situation you have due process rights, it's only when you don't commit a criminal offense that you have no rights whatsoever. Makes sense huh? No criminal offense = no rights. Criminal offense = Charter protections.

The biggest BS part of this whole thing is no politician can actually raise the issue out of fear of the neo-prohibitionists at MADD going on a campaign to label them as pro drunk driving.

And so it should be that no one should be arguing this. It has shown to be a successful deterrent to drunk driving lowering death, and therefore it should be implemented.

But instead people are making arguments and forgetting to bring in probability into there scenarios. sure it could prevent deaths but there is a 0.001% chance the machine is out of calibration and it cost me some more. This is against my rights. If it saves lives and the odd person is 'fined' i'm fine with that. All systems are flawed, innocent people go to the courts and get convicted, how in this scenario is going to court going to get you out of the fine. How much are you willing to pay to fight a fine like that?

The best example I can thing of for this is if you get a speeding ticket in Montana (land of better freedoms I'm told earlier) you have to pay the ticket right away. Is that the same attack on freedoms.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by valo403

You don't get all of those options champ. Way to be up on what you're arguing for though.

And no it's not the same situation if you blow over .08. In that situation you have due process rights, it's only when you don't commit a criminal offense that you have no rights whatsoever. Makes sense huh? No criminal offense = no rights. Criminal offense = Charter protections.

The biggest BS part of this whole thing is no politician can actually raise the issue out of fear of the neo-prohibitionists at MADD going on a campaign to label them as pro drunk driving.

I wouldn't know what goes on at the check stops really, I've been stop they ask if I've been drinking. I say no, and they let me drive on by. I actually have never heard of a person that hasn't been drinking and doesn't smell like alcohol ever getting tested. Has that happened to you?

[MarchHare]

It has shown to be a successful deterrent to drunk driving lowering death

No it hasn't. Go take a Statistics 101 course before you make that argument again. The best you can say is that the law may or may not have contributed to a decline in alcohol-related fatalities.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Tiger

It has shown to be a successful deterrent to drunk driving lowering death, and therefore it should be implemented.

You may be willing to give up your right to a fair trial that easily but many people are not.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Tiger

I wouldn't know what goes on at the check stops really, I've been stop they ask if I've been drinking. I say no, and they let me drive on by. I actually have never heard of a person that hasn't been drinking and doesn't smell like alcohol ever getting tested. Has that happened to you?

Happened to me. Maybe I just look guilty

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tiger

And so it should be that no one should be arguing this. It has shown to be a successful deterrent to drunk driving lowering death, and therefore it should be implemented.

But instead people are making arguments and forgetting to bring in probability into there scenarios. sure it could prevent deaths but there is a 0.001% chance the machine is out of calibration and it cost me some more. This is against my rights. If it saves lives and the odd person is 'fined' i'm fine with that. All systems are flawed, innocent people go to the courts and get convicted, how in this scenario is going to court going to get you out of the fine. How much are you willing to pay to fight a fine like that?

The best example I can thing of for this is if you get a speeding ticket in Montana (land of better freedoms I'm told earlier) you have to pay the ticket right away. Is that the same attack on freedoms.

These are the arguments of a 10 year old. You aren't making an argument, you're saying "I'm cool with giving up my rights, you should be too". Sorry, but some of us don't think that essential rights in a democratic nation are things that you allow to be discarded on a whim.

And seriously, if you want to discuss this at least demonstrate an elementary understanding of the law proposed. You keep referencing things that only exist in a world of make believe.

[ResAlien]

I wanted to reply to Tiger but it seems the gangbang has been started without me.

This happens to me far too often. I'll just say that I agree with pretty much every post after my last in this thread.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Tiger

And so it should be that no one should be arguing this. It has shown to be a successful deterrent to drunk driving lowering death, and therefore it should be implemented.

But instead people are making arguments and forgetting to bring in probability into there scenarios. sure it could prevent deaths but there is a 0.001% chance the machine is out of calibration and it cost me some more. This is against my rights. If it saves lives and the odd person is 'fined' i'm fine with that. All systems are flawed, innocent people go to the courts and get convicted, how in this scenario is going to court going to get you out of the fine. How much are you willing to pay to fight a fine like that?

The best example I can thing of for this is if you get a speeding ticket in Montana (land of better freedoms I'm told earlier) you have to pay the ticket right away. Is that the same attack on freedoms.

You do not have to pay the ticket, it is just easier than waiting to go in front of a court down at the city cells. You still have a choice.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

And before you answer, keep in mind that roadside breathalyzer results are inadmissible in court because the devices are so unreliable...

That's not even close to being true in regards to being charged with impaired. Roadsides are approved by the criminal code of canada as being allowed as evidence.

The amount of misinformation in this thread is baffling and concerning if anyone is reading this thread for any sort of legal advice.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

A few things I don't want to get lost in the mix

1) If they want to lower the BAC to 0.05 I don't have a problem with it. There is debate here that says it won't make a difference. But no one is actually saying "Drinking and driving is absolutely fantastic!" The opponents attaching the 0.05 BAC is too low is actually saying "we should be putting those resources to the chronic repeat offenders and those driving way above the limit that are a far greater danger" as resources are limited.

2) In the scenario I presented two things have been brought up to state how it couldn't happen. First of all, a driver that doesn't smell of alcohol wouldn't be asked to provide a breath sample. However, in the same scenario the car is full of drunk people and thus the car smells of alcohol, thus providing it reasonable to ask the driver to prove he's sober. Secondly, there's an assumption that the driver can demand a second breathalyser if he/she believes the current one if faulty. If that request is denied (it's a check-stop they're busy and the officer could believe you're wasting their time) you have no recourse what so ever.

3) I'm not arguing the law is stupid and shouldn't pass. I personally am arguing put in an amendment for due process.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by jar_e

That's not even close to being true in regards to being charged with impaired. Roadsides are approved by the criminal code of canada as being allowed as evidence.

The amount of misinformation in this thread is baffling and concerning if anyone is reading this thread for any sort of legal advice.

From the Calgary Herald article linked in the OP:

stiff penalties for people who are not convicted of any criminal offence is going too far, especially considering that hand-held roadside testing devices can be inaccurate and their results are not even admissible in court.

Emphasis added.

Are you disputing this point? If so, please provide a link to support your claim. I would also suggest you write to the editor of the Herald and ask them to print a correction if their reporting is inaccurate.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Vehicle or licence?

How does it matter? You lose you license you can't drive your vehicle

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by jar_e

That's not even close to being true in regards to being charged with impaired. Roadsides are approved by the criminal code of canada as being allowed as evidence.

The amount of misinformation in this thread is baffling and concerning if anyone is reading this thread for any sort of legal advice.

Yeah, I was once told by an RCMP officer that if I was drinking and pulled over, that you are better off just refusing the breathalyzer if you think you might end up in court. He said it was better to look like a jackass for refusing than to have a breathalyzer reading that is over the limit. That would suggest that they have some value in court.

As for this law change, if you vote for Conservatives enough times, don't be surprised if more conservative applications of the law follow. It wouldn't be the first time that the "tough on crime" approach amounted to loss of freedom in the general population.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

How does it matter? You lose you license you can't drive your vehicle

Because if you lose your vehicle and not your licence you can drive another vehicle.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Tiger

And so it should be that no one should be arguing this. It has shown to be a successful deterrent to drunk driving lowering death, and therefore it should be implemented.

But instead people are making arguments and forgetting to bring in probability into there scenarios. sure it could prevent deaths but there is a 0.001% chance the machine is out of calibration and it cost me some more. This is against my rights. If it saves lives and the odd person is 'fined' i'm fine with that. All systems are flawed, innocent people go to the courts and get convicted, how in this scenario is going to court going to get you out of the fine. How much are you willing to pay to fight a fine like that?

The best example I can thing of for this is if you get a speeding ticket in Montana (land of better freedoms I'm told earlier) you have to pay the ticket right away. Is that the same attack on freedoms.

I just re-read this. Are you saying that because all systems are flawed you're totally fine without having any due process?

Really?

You don't believe if you get a speeding ticket you should get your day in court? You realize that's exactly why radar guns are calibrated as often as they are?

Most charges don't go to trial unless the crown (DA) believes there is enough evidence to convict. So why bother going to trial? Let's save all the taxpayers money and do away with trials, just treat everyone charged as guilty. Yes, some innocent people will be harmed but it's better for the greater good.

In fairness, I'm probably reading too much into what you're saying. I don't want to put words into your mouth. Clearly I'm exaggerating here.




Again, I'm not arguing that the BAC shouldn't be lowered to 0.05, I'm not arguing that it should be. I'm just saying that if you're effectively giving people a $200 charge, and seizing their property (car) without any due process is wrong.

I'd be totally fine with getting a summary offence ticket, not being allowed to drive that night (either have a taxi called or have someone pick you up) and given the option to have someone drive your car home for you.

24 hour seizure is too much, suspension without due process is too much. Ticket the accused and let them handle it in court.

Actually under this proposal it could end up costing them more.

• ticket/charge
• possible taxi
• possible towing/impound fee
• possible lawyer
• suspension of license ($200 reinstatement fee)
• impounding of car

Under this process you get the same effect with harsher treatment, and still has due process. Wouldn't this be a better deterrent/punishment?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

From the Calgary Herald article linked in the OP:



Emphasis added.

Are you disputing this point? If so, please provide a link to support your claim. I would also suggest you write to the editor of the Herald and ask them to print a correction if their reporting is inaccurate.

To clarify this point: the roadside testing device is not the device that takes the "breath sample" that is admitted into evidence in court. It's merely a screening device, where a "fail" on the screening device prompts the officer to read you the breath demand. At that point, a different device (in Calgary it's usually an Intoxilyzer 400D) is used to collect a breath sample, and that's where you get your reading from.

The roadside devices are considerably less accurate, partly because they're really only designed to place you into a broad range of readings for the purposes of screening people who will be given a breath demand. This may partly account for the confusion--there are actually two separate devices in issue here)

So this law essentially proposes imposing criminal sanctions (and let's not pretend these aren't criminal sanctions--losing your car and paying a fine are criminal penalties. To pretend otherwise is sophistry) without imposing a burden on the Crown to a) provide you with an opportunity to contest the charges against you or b) obtain, or lead in court, any evidence satisfactory to establish your guilt.

I'm actually a bit puzzled by the BC court of appeal's decision on this basis--I'll have to read the whole thing and see what their reasoning was.

To clarify one other point: a number of people have said that driving with a BAC under .08 is not an offence under the Criminal Code. This is not, strictly speaking, true. There are two separate offences under the Code with respect to impaired driving: driving with a BAC over .08, and driving while the ability to operate a motor vehicle is impaired by alcohol.

If drivers between .05 and .08 are such a problem, surely we can just instruct the Crown to attempt to obtain a conviction on the second offence, without resorting to some backdoor provision in a provincial act. Of course, the bizarre mess that is impaired law in Canada is partly the result of the Crown's continual inability to regularly obtain convictions on this charge; as a result they've continued to move the goalposts--the objective seems to be an offence without a defence in law, which is problematic in a whole new set of ways.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by valo403

You don't get all of those options champ. Way to be up on what you're arguing for though.

And no it's not the same situation if you blow over .08. In that situation you have due process rights, it's only when you don't commit a criminal offense that you have no rights whatsoever. Makes sense huh? No criminal offense = no rights. Criminal offense = Charter protections.

The biggest BS part of this whole thing is no politician can actually raise the issue out of fear of the neo-prohibitionists at MADD going on a campaign to label them as pro drunk driving.

Originally Posted by Tiger

And so it should be that no one should be arguing this. It has shown to be a successful deterrent to drunk driving lowering death, and therefore it should be implemented.

But instead people are making arguments and forgetting to bring in probability into there scenarios. sure it could prevent deaths but there is a 0.001% chance the machine is out of calibration and it cost me some more. This is against my rights. If it saves lives and the odd person is 'fined' i'm fine with that. All systems are flawed, innocent people go to the courts and get convicted, how in this scenario is going to court going to get you out of the fine. How much are you willing to pay to fight a fine like that?

The best example I can thing of for this is if you get a speeding ticket in Montana (land of better freedoms I'm told earlier) you have to pay the ticket right away. Is that the same attack on freedoms.

Originally Posted by valo403

These are the arguments of a 10 year old. You aren't making an argument, you're saying "I'm cool with giving up my rights, you should be too". Sorry, but some of us don't think that essential rights in a democratic nation are things that you allow to be discarded on a whim.

And seriously, if you want to discuss this at least demonstrate an elementary understanding of the law proposed. You keep referencing things that only exist in a world of make believe.

valo, I think Tiger is one of the people you alluded to in your initial post. No sense continuing on that track without being branded as 'pro-drunk driving.'

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Locke

valo, I think Tiger is one of the people you alluded to in your initial post. No sense continuing on that track without being branded as 'pro-drunk driving.'

It's tough because drunk driving really is a legitimate public policy issue. But in a free society you can't address an issue like that through the institution of draconian laws that do away with the presumption of innocence, require accused persons to provide evidence against themselves and limit the kinds of evidence they can lead in their own defence, all of which Canadian impaired law has basically done.

Impounding vehicles and imposing a fine, on a non-reviewable basis at a police officer's discretion is a particularly alarming step to take.

And to clarify, it would be totally different if the Criminal Code contemplated a "between .05 and .08" offence, and prescribed penalties in law accordingly--and required the Crown to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, as they do with every other offence in the Code. But that isn't what's happening here.

What we have is provinces (who cannot validly enact criminal laws) creating rules under their respective Highway Traffic Acts that impose criminal penalties without the benefit of a hearing. That's not acceptable in a free society, and if the judiciary isn't willing to stop it, then the people in office who are eroding our civil liberties in this manner need to hear about it from their constituents.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

What we have is provinces (who cannot validly enact criminal laws) creating rules under their respective Highway Traffic Acts that impose criminal penalties without the benefit of a hearing. That's not acceptable in a free society, and if the judiciary isn't willing to stop it, then the people in office who are eroding our civil liberties in this manner need to hear about it from their constituents.

We have an alarming trend in Canadian judiciary of deferring to the police - it's almost an attitude of "well, this wouldn't affect me, so it's OK". The search provisions, etc, I don't know if it's the Quebec/French poison affecting the rest with their tradition of "the state knows best", "don't worry it won't affect you if you don't do anything wrong"...