Driving under the legal limit? Doesn't matter, your vehicle is impounded anyway. - Page 9 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

MarchHare · 11-23-2011, 03:37 PM

The more I think about this, I don't see how this law could survive a Charter challenge (caveat: IANAL).

Impounding your vehicle when you're below the legal limit could be deemed a violation of article 8 (no unreasonable search or seizure). Immediately suspending your license and impounding your vehicle could also be seen as a violation of section 11 (right to be presumed innocent until guilt is determined by a court of law), especially since roadside breathalyzers are so unreliable that they are not permitted to be used as evidence in court.

DownhillGoat · 11-23-2011, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The more I think about this, I don't see how this law could survive a Charter challenge (caveat: IANAL).

Impounding your vehicle when you're below the legal limit could be deemed a violation of article 8 (no unreasonable search or seizure).

So how does BC get away with it?

MarchHare · 11-23-2011, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

So how does BC get away with it?

Has anyone challenged it yet?

DownhillGoat · 11-23-2011, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Has anyone challenged it yet?

I have no idea.

Hilch · 11-23-2011, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The more I think about this, I don't see how this law could survive a Charter challenge (caveat: IANAL).

Impounding your vehicle when you're below the legal limit could be deemed a violation of article 8 (no unreasonable search or seizure). Immediately suspending your license and impounding your vehicle could also be seen as a violation of section 11 (right to be presumed innocent until guilt is determined by a court of law), especially since roadside breathalyzers are so unreliable that they are not permitted to be used as evidence in court.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you get your license taken away then you can't drive the car so it will be towed.

MarchHare · 11-23-2011, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hilch

Also where are breathalyzers not allowed as evidence in court?

It says so in one of the links I posted in the OP:

Quote:

...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.

MarchHare · 11-23-2011, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hilch

Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you get your license taken away then you can't drive the car so it will be towed.

Driving is a privilege, yes. Being presumed innocent until proven guilty is a right. This law, from my non-lawyer understanding, presumes guilt and punishes the accused without the chance for due process.

AR_Six · 11-23-2011, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The more I think about this, I don't see how this law could survive a Charter challenge (caveat: IANAL).

Impounding your vehicle when you're below the legal limit could be deemed a violation of article 8 (no unreasonable search or seizure).

No it couldn't. In order to violate s.8 there needs to be a reasonable expectation of privacy being violated. Aside from the fact that the point of the impounding isn't to snoop around your car, there are plenty of s.8 cases out there (i.e. Belnavis) which clearly state that an automobile is generally subject to a reduced standard for s.8 purposes. Classic statement of Canadian constitutional law is that the charter protects people, not places, and it certainly doesn't protect your car. Long story short, your property rights are in no way enshrined in the Charter.

Quote:

Immediately suspending your license and impounding your vehicle could also be seen as a violation of section 11 (right to be presumed innocent until guilt is determined by a court of law), especially since roadside breathalyzers are so unreliable that they are not permitted to be used as evidence in court.

This, however, is far more likely, particularly if there is no avenue for judicial review built into this thing that would pass constitutional muster. There are plenty of absolute liability offences out there which is perfectly fine but I can't think of any off the top of my head that don't allow you to get in front of a judge to protest.

DementedReality · 11-23-2011, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiger

and your are crazy if you think 0.05 vs 0.08 is a responsible citizen! 0.00 is responsible for driving... 0.05 is questionable. But too many people justify it like that, and that is a major problem

precisely ..

why must people have even 1 drink when they need to drive?

alcohol impairs, period. sure 1 *might* be ok, maybe 2, some people seem to think 3 or 4 as long as they have a coffee and a glass of water in between each one. fact is, few people respect this law and figure it only applies if they get caught.

but if you arent drinking to get buzzed, then why not just choose to NOT drink alcohol if you are driving.

i would support a 0.00 BAC as the legal limit and get the cowboys off the road. its not that hard to NOT drink when you have to drive.

MarchHare · 11-23-2011, 04:45 PM

Quote:

but if you arent drinking to get buzzed, then why not just choose to NOT drink alcohol if you are driving.

I rarely, if ever, drink to get buzzed. However, I do enjoy a glass of wine or beer with a meal to compliment the flavour of the food. Why should responsible people who aren't a danger to anyone be denied that pleasure?

Tiger · 11-23-2011, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke

Your opinion is all well and good, but the majority of the civilized world maintains that a BAC under 0.08 is totally cool and an individual is still perfectly capable of driving a car.

If they dont like that anymore, they certainly can try and reduce the legal BAC limit to 0.05 if they're more comfortable with that. Then, when its the law it can be enforced as such.

Building in a gray area isnt doing anyone any favours.

People thinking that below 0.08 is perfectly cool is what need to change. and your right they need be more aggressive with the people above 0.08 for sure, they should have stricter laws. But I am one that like the stricter laws for the people that thinks it is alright to be a little buzzed and drive.

Hilch · 11-23-2011, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I rarely, if ever, drink to get buzzed. However, I do enjoy a glass of wine or beer with a meal to compliment the flavour of the food. Why should responsible people who aren't a danger to anyone be denied that pleasure?

By having one drink you're still impairing your ability to drive whether it feels like it or not. Even a BAC of .02% will effect your visual functions of tracking moving objects. Saying your aren't a danger is like a pot head saying I only had one joint so I'm fine.

AR_Six · 11-23-2011, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hilch

By having one drink you're still impairing your ability to drive whether it feels like it or not. Even a BAC of .02% will effect your visual functions of tracking moving objects. Saying your aren't a danger is like a pot head saying I only had one joint so I'm fine.

I agree. People who like a glass of merlot with their steak are just like potheads.

Wait.

DownhillGoat · 11-23-2011, 04:55 PM

So for the 0.00 crowd, how long after you have a beer would you say its acceptable to drive? 6 hours? 12? A day or two?

Hilch · 11-23-2011, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

So for the 0.00 crowd, how long after you have a beer would you say its acceptable to drive? 6 hours? 12? A day or two?

Just like the BAC level there are too many factors, but an average guy who has a beer should have a BAC of 0% after 4-5 hours after finishing it.

MarchHare · 11-23-2011, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hilch

By having one drink you're still impairing your ability to drive whether it feels like it or not. Even a BAC of .02% will effect your visual functions of tracking moving objects. Saying your aren't a danger is like a pot head saying I only had one joint so I'm fine.

Please. If drivers with a BAC of .02 were such a danger, jurisdictions around the world would have legal limits of that level or lower.

More stats from the Herald article I posted in the OP:

Quote:

In Alberta, 86 per cent of impaired accidents involve drivers over .08, and two-thirds of those are caused by people over twice that amount.

The problem is not responsible citizens who have a glass of wine at a restaurant. The problem is idiots who get bombed and then try to drive home. If you want to improve road safety, go after THEM, and go after them hard.

AR_Six · 11-23-2011, 04:59 PM

I wonder how many of the 14 percent are impaired by other means besides Alcohol.

I agree, though. Just make it absolutely ridiculous to drive wasted. I.e., double the legal limit and you lose your car for a year. Again, two years, etc. Once you're into "well, might as well sell my ride" territory it's a pretty effective disincentive.

Hilch · 11-23-2011, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AR_Six

I agree. People who like a glass of merlot with their steak are just like potheads.

Wait.

Forget the pothead remark and assume this person likes to have a joint before their steak. Would you want them on the road after? Would the excuse if it "compliments the flavour of the food"?

AR_Six · 11-23-2011, 05:11 PM

I will also forget the fact that the two intoxicants have wildly different effects and duration of said effects, and whether a joint is comparable in any way to a glass of wine in terms of potency. Wait, would that defeat the purpose of the comparison?

DownhillGoat · 11-23-2011, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hilch

Forget the pothead remark and assume this person likes to have a joint before their steak. Would you want them on the road after? Would the excuse if it "compliments the flavour of the food"?

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you've never sampled a joint if you thing a glass of wine with dinner is the exact same thing as smoking an entire joint are on the same level of impairment.