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

[MarchHare]

Unconstitutional

In a lengthy decision released Wednesday, the veteran jurist said the Liberal Government had gone too far with part of its year-old, anti-drunk-driving program and trampled individual rights.

“The ARP legislation infringes section 8 of the Charter insofar as it concerns the prohibition, penalty and costs arising from the screening device registering a “fail” reading over 0.08,” he said. “This infringement is not a reasonable limit which is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

[...]

“In my view, because of the significant prohibition, penalty and cost implications of a ‘fail’ reading, the province could easily have provided in the legislation a reasonable and meaningful review process where a driver subject to a lengthy automatic roadside prohibition could challenge the results of the screening device,” he said. “This is particularly so considering the province has legislated to base the consequences of a ‘fail’ reading entirely on the results of the screening device.”

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Tiger

so you are worried about the $200 ticket and there is a 40% drop in deaths in BC to drunk driving and you call it a fail.

Yes i am on both counts....why in the hell should i be dinged 200 dollars and lose my car for 3 days at the whim of a policemans discretion and no appeals process AND still haven't broken the law? It blows my mind that anyone who claims to enjoy this as a land of freedom within laws would support such action. Its ludicrous.

And this is why arguments on the internet fail, people ignore facts, don't like change, and are afraid of anything that might cost them money and are ingrained to there idea and stick with flawed arguments.

Get off your high horse. Nothing I have argued can be construed as anything but well thought out and, in fact, likely backed by the Charter of Rights in this country....nevermind the money grab aspect of things.

I'll save you guys from posting the next post of "your argument is fail", "target the worst ones". There that is your argument. I have agreed with stiffer laws for over 0.08 but you have to agree that fact shows targeting the lower range helps overall.

Some people get it.....you dont.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Unconstitutional

Its just common sense that thsi would be the ruling...and anyone who was OK with this whole thing needs to re-think what was at stake.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Unconstitutional

I haven't had a chance to look at the full opinion, but it seems like a very narrow holding from the article. I would expect to see this continue through the legal system through appeals.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Unconstitutional

That's actually a tad interesting way of quoting the article...

It was only a part of the law that was found unconstitutional...only regarding the punishment the province gave for blowing a fail (or > 0.08).

Unless I'm missing something, the article states it was only that part that was deemed unconstitutional...meaning that the stuff between 0.05-0.08 was upheld.

[jar_e]

Furthermore...

the whole decision can be found here (http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/...#_Toc310333396)

but the summaries are as follows:

J. SUMMARY OF DECISION

[382] My decision is as follows:
(a) The ARP legislation is not ultra vires the Province on a division of powers basis. The impugned legislation is within the Province’s jurisdiction to legislate with respect to the licensing of drivers and the enhancement of highway traffic safety.

(b) The ARP legislation does not create an “offence” as that term is used in section 11(d) of the Charter. Therefore, the legislation does not trigger the application of s. 11(d) of the Charter and it is not necessary to address whether the ARP regime violates the presumption of innocence.

(c) The ARP legislation infringes s. 10(b) of the Charter but the infringement is saved by s. 1 as it is a reasonable limit, prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

(d) The ARP legislation infringes s. 8 of the Charter insofar as it concerns the prohibition, penalty and costs arising from the screening device registering a “fail” reading over 0.08. This infringement is not a reasonable limit which is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

(e) The ARP legislation does not infringe s. 8 of the Charter insofar as it concerns the prohibition, penalty and cost consequences arising from the screening device registering a reading in the “warn” range of between 0.05 and 0.08.

[valo403]

From what I can tell the whole .05-.08 aspect of the law was upheld in its entirety.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by ken0042

That doesn't look like a year to me.

oops oct 2010

[Locke]

Well, looks like I can sit on the bench for the BC supreme court. They came to the same decision that I did.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yes i am on both counts....why in the hell should i be dinged 200 dollars and lose my car for 3 days at the whim of a policemans discretion and no appeals process AND still haven't broken the law? It blows my mind that anyone who claims to enjoy this as a land of freedom within laws would support such action. Its ludicrous.

Why is this ludicrous... how does this snowball? How does this lead to me losing freedoms? I can still drink as much as I want... I just have to be more responsible about it.

Let me know what you think this leads to... because according to you I have to get off my high horse and I don't get it!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tiger

Why is this ludicrous... how does this snowball? How does this lead to me losing freedoms? I can still drink as much as I want... I just have to be more responsible about it.

Let me know what you think this leads to... because according to you I have to get off my high horse and I don't get it!

Well for one thing it leads to police being able to impose a punishment upon citizens at their own discretion with no opportunity for judicial review.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well for one thing it leads to police being able to impose a punishment upon citizens at their own discretion with no opportunity for judicial review.

but you broke a rule and deal with the punishment... what are they suppose to do, let you drive off after a ticket?

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Locke

Well, looks like I can sit on the bench for the BC supreme court. They came to the same decision that I did.

So you agree that the 0.05-0.08 punishment is constitutional?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tiger

but you broke a rule and deal with the punishment... what are they suppose to do, let you drive off after a ticket?

Huh? The issue isn't the punishment, it's the ability to have your day in court. I don't think you actually have much of a grasp on the issues at play here.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Tiger

but you broke a rule and deal with the punishment... what are they suppose to do, let you drive off after a ticket?

Yes.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Tiger

Why is this ludicrous... how does this snowball? How does this lead to me losing freedoms? I can still drink as much as I want... I just have to be more responsible about it.

Let me know what you think this leads to... because according to you I have to get off my high horse and I don't get it!

And thats the law NOW. This legislation is not about reducing anything, its all about fining someone at a cops discretion.

And yes...if they want to write a ticket that i can actually have due process on, give it to me and let me go.....you know...much like any other ticket one receives. When you are given a speeding ticket, it is meant as a deterrent to stop you from speeding, yet they allow you to leave immediately after the process is complete...weird eh?

You truly dont see how this is a slippery slope? Charged and convicted at the side of the road.....by a cop no less?

Yeesh.

[VladtheImpaler]

There is absolutely no recourse. If it turns out the cop was wrong, is the Minister of Transportation going to send you a letter of apology along with a cheque to compensate you for the loss of use of your vehicle? Just another step on the road to 1984...

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

There is absolutely no recourse. If it turns out the cop was wrong, is the Minister of Transportation going to send you a letter of apology along with a cheque to compensate you for the loss of use of your vehicle? Just another step on the road to 1984...

Out of curiosity, do you feel the same about 24 hour suspensions? Actually a legitimate question, I'm curious on your views on it.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by transplant99

And thats the law NOW. This legislation is not about reducing anything, its all about fining someone at a cops discretion.

That's not entirely true...if you blow a warning (0.05-0.08) on a roadside, you get a 24 hour suspension and your vehicle towed if appropriate. The amendment and new bill is simply increasing those penalties.

So don't say that people who are between 0.05 and 0.08 are getting off without punishment...cause they aren't. There's already legislation in place.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Out of curiosity, do you feel the same about 24 hour suspensions? Actually a legitimate question, I'm curious on your views on it.

Yes. If I was a judge, I would rule any punishment from which there is no recourse unconstitutional. Obviously, if a person is "impaired" you either arrest them and let them sleep in the holding cell or call them a cab, but any actual administrative action (suspension, loss of license) needs to be subject to appeal and review.