Legal Help DUI

[Resolute 14]

Because we are cheaper than a lawyer, and almost half as reliable?

[hockeycop]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Axe Body Spray, Visine, Cepacol and chewing gum, and when the driver gets blasted by the mag light they would do well to react by looking away and raising their hand to block it, not just shutting their eyes and looking stupid.

Eye contact, using the words sir/officer, articulating your speech properly.

None of those things will help the "horizintal gaze test". Alcohol causes jerky movements of the eyes.

a 30 day suspension absolutely will show up on an abstract. I just had a client in the same predicament about a month ago.

Yup, I was confusing TSA S.89 (24 hour suspension - NOT reported to the registrar) ans S.90 (Novice Drive 1 month Susp - IS reported to the registrar). My mistake.

OP - You may have grounds for an appeal after all. As posted earlier, one of the grounds for appeal is "Not refusing to take a breath test". Since you were not afforded the opportunity, you MAY have grounds here. It may be in your best interest to read up on the appeal process (there was a link on page 1 or 2) and follow through. After re-reading S.90, this suspension IS forwarded to the registrar and therefore should appear on a drivers abstract. This will impact insurance hugely.

One-month suspension re novice driver

90

(1)

In this section,
(a) “approved screening device” means a device that is
designed to ascertain the presence of alcohol in a person’s
blood and that is
(i) an approved screening device within the meaning of
section 254 of the Criminal Code (Canada), or
(ii) approved under this Act by the Lieutenant Governor
in Council to be used for the purposes of this section;
(b) “notice of suspension” means a notice of suspension
referred to in subsection (4);

RSA 2000
Section 90 Chapter T-6

92

TRAFFIC SAFETY ACT

(c) “novice driver” means a person who holds a novice
operator’s licence;
(d) “novice operator’s licence” means an operator’s licence
classified as a learner’s operator’s licence or a
probationary operator’s licence;
(e) “peace officer” means a police officer as defined in
section 1 of the

Police Act;
(f) “temporary novice operator’s permit” means a temporary
novice operator’s permit issued under subsection (4).

(2)

If a peace officer reasonably suspects that the driver of a motor
vehicle who is a novice driver, having consumed alcohol, drove the
motor vehicle, the peace officer may require that the novice driver
forthwith provide a breath sample into an approved screening
device.

(3)

On being required to provide a breath sample under subsection
(2), the novice driver must provide a breath sample forthwith.

(4)

Where a novice driver
(a) provides a breath sample under subsection (3) and the
breath sample registers a result on the approved screening
device that indicates the presence of alcohol in that
driver’s blood, or
(b) without a reasonable excuse fails or refuses to provide a
breath sample when required to do so by a peace officer
under subsection (2),
the peace officer shall, on behalf of the Registrar,
(c) in the case of a person who holds a novice operator’s
licence,
(i) require that person to surrender to the peace officer
that novice operator’s licence and issue to that person
a temporary novice operator’s permit, and
(ii) serve on that person a notice of suspension of that
person’s novice operator’s licence;
(d) in the case of a person who holds a temporary novice
operator’s permit,
(i) require that person to surrender to the peace officer
that temporary novice operator’s permit, and

RSA 2000
Section 90 Chapter T-6

93

TRAFFIC SAFETY ACT

(ii) serve on that person a notice of suspension of that
temporary novice operator’s permit.

(5)

Where
(a) a person’s novice operator’s licence is surrendered and a
temporary novice operator’s permit is issued under
subsection (4)(c),
(i) that person is immediately disqualified from driving
a motor vehicle in Alberta and remains so
disqualified until the temporary novice operator’s
permit comes into effect,
(ii) the temporary novice operator’s permit comes into
effect at the expiration of 24 hours from the time that
the disqualification referred to in subclause (i) came
into effect, and
(iii) the temporary novice operator’s permit expires at the
end of the 7th day following the day on which the
temporary novice operator’s permit came into effect;
(b) a notice of suspension is served on a person under
subsection (4)(c), the suspension, with respect to the
surrendered novice operator’s licence, takes effect
immediately on the expiration of the temporary novice
operator’s permit issued in respect of the surrendered
novice operator’s licence;
(c) a notice of suspension is served on a person under
subsection (4)(d), the suspension, with respect to the
surrendered temporary novice operator’s permit, takes

effect immediately on the service of the notice.

[calumniate]

Well all I know is that you can have your car impounded for admitting to drinking even if you are not GDT or whatever it's called. My aunt admitted to drinking wine over dinner once and had it happen to her. The cops have complete authority to do this.

My question to smugger is, would you have rather had a breathalizer? You're gdt and had it registered one trace you would have been in the same situation, or worse a DUI. But you told the truth, regardless of your prior knowledge of the law and it may very well have saved your ass (had you said no they likely would have issued a breathalizer).

You can't go back on things now because you admitted to drinking after the amberlamps pulled you over, and you're a first year driver so it was a pretty simple decision for the cops. You could try and say 'oh I meant I drank once at a party a month ago', but I don't think that's the case. If it was then that's pretty silly. I hope that one month of no car is not a huge burden for you My assessment is that you're a good lad and told the truth, and had the best case scenario handed to you.

[calumniate]

Sorry double post - hockeycop I haven't seen those laws there. But I thought that police had authority to impound cars if they think that people are unfit to drive? This can include drugs, alcohol, fatigue or whatever?

[thesmugger]

Hockeycop. Why wouldn't they have asked for a breath test? GDL is zero tollorance I understand that. How could they prove to the courts my blood alchol level was over 0 without a test?

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by thesmugger

Hockeycop. Why wouldn't they have asked for a breath test? GDL is zero tollorance I understand that. How could they prove to the courts my blood alchol level was over 0 without a test?

Your admission plus what ever other indicators you had (smell on breath, eyes, etc.) would all be part of it.

[hockeycop]

Originally Posted by calumniate

Sorry double post - hockeycop I haven't seen those laws there. But I thought that police had authority to impound cars if they think that people are unfit to drive? This can include drugs, alcohol, fatigue or whatever?

Yes, TSA S.89 gives them the authority to issue a 24 hour suspension on the spot and have the vehicle impounded. The general rule of thumb for alcohol is minor signs of impairment of BAC 0.05. Drug use can result in a 24 hr suspension as well. Fatigue is not covered under this section.

[thesmugger]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Your admission plus what ever other indicators you had (smell on breath, eyes, etc.) would all be part of it.

I still don't understand this. I guess a lawyer is my best bet, just made this thread orginally opening someone had first hand experence. I know what I dd was wrong guys. Don't see the problem in trying to save my ass if I can

[hockeycop]

Originally Posted by thesmugger

Hockeycop. Why wouldn't they have asked for a breath test? GDL is zero tollorance I understand that. How could they prove to the courts my blood alchol level was over 0 without a test?

Admitting alcohol consumption along with the indicators observed by the Police Cst and EMS would be enough to suspend for 24 hrs under S.89. In your case, they should have tested for alcohol in your body (blood or breath). The law appears to be quite clear there, which is why I recommend you look into the process.

[thesmugger]

Originally Posted by hockeycop

Admitting alcohol consumption along with the indicators observed by the Police Cst and EMS would be enough to suspend for 24 hrs under S.89. In your case, they should have tested for alcohol in your body (blood or breath). The law appears to be quite clear there, which is why I recommend you look into the process.

Who is the best to contact via phone? All the stuff on the Internet is helpful but misleading.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by thesmugger

I still don't understand this. I guess a lawyer is my best bet, just made this thread orginally opening someone had first hand experence.

edit: didn't read what was replied to in the first place

[thesmugger]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Crikey... have you not read the appeal process that we posted and that is included on your paper?

There is no court date for this, so you can't contest it in the normal avenues.

CLICK HERE FOR APPEAL PROCESS

I didn't ask about a court date. I know the appeal process. I asked about talking to someone about why they didn't make me blow.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by thesmugger

I didn't ask about a court date. I know the appeal process. I asked about talking to someone about why they didn't make me blow.

My bad.

Only person that would know is the cop him/herself. I don't believe there are set guidelines stating when a cop must or must not request a breath sample.

The way I see it, as soon as you admitted drinking, you have alcohol in your blood and with zero tolerance, that's a strike. What an officer needs is evidence to backup the penalty, and I'm sure he's wrote that into his notes. However, if he wanted to actually charge you for impaired, then the breathalyzer would be needed in order to provide the proper evidence (someone correct me if I'm wrong?).

I'm guessing you were just given a break or they actually trusted what you said about only 1 or 2 drinks.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by thesmugger

I didn't ask about a court date. I know the appeal process. I asked about talking to someone about why they didn't make me blow.

Damnit, Ihad a number I called one time, but can't remember where I found it. I'll hunt around and see if I can help you. It's definately better to talk to someone if you can.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by opendoor

A drunk driving accident invariably creates costs for an insurance company whether they cover it or not. There are often lawsuits, red tape, and payments from under-insured motorist provisions in policies that come along with drunk driving accidents. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that they'd treat someone with a history of drunk driving as a higher risk to incur costs for the company and charge them accordingly. It also stands to reason that someone who shows little regard to their safety or the safety of others in one manner (driving drunk) is also willing to do the same in other situations (speeding, dangerous driving, etc.).

I personally pay for uninsured motorist protection and likely so do you so the cost of this service is born by all Customers and based on risk wether or not the company insures people with a drunk driving history.

I would bet there are plenty of behaviours that are done outside of vehicles that affect the probability of having accidents. I would bet drinking in general raises the probability of accidents. So should your insurance company ask you if you ever drink. Owning a Cell phone probably increases risk as well. The reasone drinking and driving is penalized by insurance companies is because they can. Its similar to persecuting smokers.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by thesmugger

I didn't ask about a court date. I know the appeal process. I asked about talking to someone about why they didn't make me blow.

Maybe they didn't ask you to blow because you were ugly? I only let the good looking ones blow me.

[thesmugger]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

My bad.

Only person that would know is the cop him/herself. There's nothing stating when a cop must or must not request a breath sample.

I'm guessing you were just given a break or they actually trusted what you said about only 1 or 2 drinks.

Understandable, well hockeycop who's a cop seems to think I have an outside shot. And becauce I didn't blow over 0 I going to try and stay positive

[hockeycop]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Crikey... have you not read the appeal process that we posted and that is included on your paper?

CLICK HERE FOR APPEAL PROCESS

Since this isn't a ticket with a court date, I'm not sure how else you can fight this? Hockeycop et al, is it even possible to get a lawyer to plea or squash this without going through this appeal process?

This.

Remember, your only grounds for appeal are listed clearly. You fall into this one:

That you did not fail or refuse to provide a sample of your breath when requested by a peace officer

It is an administrative suspension, so there is no court unless a charge was also layed. In this case, the OP says that there was no charge filed. A lawyer could fill in the paperwork for you and send it in, but that would probably be money better spent elsewhere. There is no plea or quashing process outside of this appeal process.

My bad.

Only person that would know is the cop him/herself. There's nothing stating when a cop must or must not request a breath sample.

I'm guessing you were just given a break or they actually trusted what you said about only 1 or 2 drinks.

It is in the law that the suspension can only be given after a breath test though.

Understandable, well hockeycop who's a cop seems to think I have an outside shot. And becauce I didn't blow over 0 I going to try and stay positive

I never said I was a cop. My user name is actually a reference to being a referee... That being said, you're not totally wrong either...

[GGG]

Originally Posted by thesmugger

I still don't understand this. I guess a lawyer is my best bet, just made this thread orginally opening someone had first hand experence. I know what I dd was wrong guys. Don't see the problem in trying to save my ass if I can

If you save your ass there would be no consequence to your action and therefore you would be more likely to repeat the action in the future. If you accept the punishment you may learn something and your behaviour might change.

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by thesmugger

I didn't ask about a court date. I know the appeal process. I asked about talking to someone about why they didn't make me blow.

It has been posted several times in this thread. They don't have to make you blow if you have a GDL. They just have to smell alcohol. It appears your only choice is to file an appeal, or maybe hire a lawyer to advise you to file the appeal.

If I were you, I wouldn't do either as they are a waste of money. The law here seems pretty black and white...ZERO tolerance for alcohol. All that the officer has to say is that he smelled it on your breathe and you are screwed. If he really wants to make you look stupid, he will use the EMS guy as a witness.

If you honestly feel like you have been wronged here, then file the appeal.