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

[Jacks]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2255233/

Justice Jon Sigurdson has ruled that automatic roadside suspensions are a justifiable infringement on Charter rights – except when the toughest penalties are applied when a motorist is found to have failed a roadside alcohol test. In those cases, the province needs to provide an appeal process, he concluded.

I don't see how the penalties should matter when it comes to what is constitutional. If the fine is $200 then it doesn't matter but if the penalty is bigger then suddenly it matters that you have the right to a fair trial and appeal process?

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.

The screening device is (usually) the only basis for charging someone who is under the legal limit also. How is it constitutional to give the police the power of a judge if the fine is low but it's not constitutional if the penalties are larger and you are actually breaking the law?

[Tiger]

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...

Originally Posted by transplant99

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.

Are you guys serious in you think this is the first step to the thought police... You guys sound really paranoid about this. Does it really honestly change anything except you really have to think about having a third beer when you are out with friends and you think that this is the start of the end of democracy or something like that. The argument is that it is a cash cow, but I assume that if it tied up the court system people would be arguing it is a waste of time and money... When all really anybody cares about is it effects their right to drink a few drinks.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Tiger

Are you guys serious in you think this is the first step to the thought police... You guys sound really paranoid about this. Does it really honestly change anything except you really have to think about having a third beer when you are out with friends and you think that this is the start of the end of democracy or something like that. The argument is that it is a cash cow, but I assume that if it tied up the court system people would be arguing it is a waste of time and money... When all really anybody cares about is it effects their right to drink a few drinks.

Believe it or not, but some of us really DO care about civil liberties. The right to due process is absolutely essential in a free and democratic society. Police officers should NEVER be given the power to act as judge and jury and dish out punishments at their whims.

My opposition to this has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to have a third beer. This law isn't going to affect my behaviour regardless; I doubt I've ever driven when I was above .05 -- let along .08 -- in my life.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tiger

Are you guys serious in you think this is the first step to the thought police... You guys sound really paranoid about this. Does it really honestly change anything except you really have to think about having a third beer when you are out with friends and you think that this is the start of the end of democracy or something like that. The argument is that it is a cash cow, but I assume that if it tied up the court system people would be arguing it is a waste of time and money... When all really anybody cares about is it effects their right to drink a few drinks.

I don't own a car and I don't live in Calgary (or Canada for that matter), so this doesn't impact me at all, and yet I care because I think basic civil liberties like the right to due process matter. People like to come down on the litigious nature of the US, but the upside is that something like this would never be allowed to stand.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't own a car and I don't live in Calgary (or Canada for that matter), so this doesn't impact me at all, and yet I care because I think basic civil liberties like the right to due process matter. People like to come down on the litigious nature of the US, but the upside is that something like this would never be allowed to stand.

You aren't getting a ticket or a criminal charge for this. They are suspending your license and saying you shouldn't drive. They can't leave your car there so they have to tow it away so you paying for the impounding. Would you rather get a criminal charge or a moving violation that would significantly increase your insurance just so you have a chance of taking a day off work (and possibly losing money doing that) so you can fight something that they probably won't let you off of and pay the ticket anyways and get demerits etc. etc. If you want those civil liberties than go ahead. Instead you are really getting a slap on the wrist and a small fine. But if you want more cost to yourself overall that is fine.

I really don't believe this is in anyway a slight on our civil liberties... We have it really easy in Canada if this is a huge civil liberty problem

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tiger

You aren't getting a ticket or a criminal charge for this. They are suspending your license and saying you shouldn't drive. They can't leave your car there so they have to tow it away so you paying for the impounding. Would you rather get a criminal charge or a moving violation that would significantly increase your insurance just so you have a chance of taking a day off work (and possibly losing money doing that) so you can fight something that they probably won't let you off of and pay the ticket anyways and get demerits etc. etc. If you want those civil liberties than go ahead. Instead you are really getting a slap on the wrist and a small fine. But if you want more cost to yourself overall that is fine.

I really don't believe this is in anyway a slight on our civil liberties... We have it really easy in Canada if this is a huge civil liberty problem

You're right, we do have it really easy in Canada, largely because people have stood up for civil liberties in past.

They are suspending your license and saying you shouldn't drive based upon a whim. Don't like the color of your shirt, suspended. Don't like your tone, suspended. Don't like your suspenders, suspended. Police officers may never actually do any of those things, but the door is now open for them to do so, and there is absolutely no mechanism by which a citizen can obtain review.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by valo403

You're right, we do have it really easy in Canada, largely because people have stood up for civil liberties in past.

They are suspending your license and saying you shouldn't drive based upon a whim. Don't like the color of your shirt, suspended. Don't like your tone, suspended. Don't like your suspenders, suspended. Police officers may never actually do any of those things, but the door is now open for them to do so, and there is absolutely no mechanism by which a citizen can obtain review.

you are right, blowing over 0.05 will lead to me getting fine because I wore a v-neck shirt. That is solid logic, you win this debate. Do you really think this is different then what happens with cops and tickets now. They judge you and can give you warnings or tickets based on your jib cut. This is not on a whim, but if you blow over 0.05 they can't judge your possible poor choice in clothes and your voice?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Tiger

Do you really think this is different then what happens with cops and tickets now. They judge you and can give you warnings or tickets based on your jib cut.

Yes, but you can choose to accept the ticket or challenge it and defend yourself in court.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Yes, but you can choose to accept the ticket or challenge it and defend yourself in court.

I agree, they don't take your car away now and they can't. The new rules give them the ability to do that without a day in court. Pretty sure that is one of the reasons the BC court just made their decision.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

I agree, they don't take your car away now and they can't. The new rules give them the ability to do that without a day in court. Pretty sure that is one of the reasons the BC court just made their decision.

On a 24 hour suspension your car is towed and held for 24 hours.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

I agree, they don't take your car away now and they can't. The new rules give them the ability to do that without a day in court. Pretty sure that is one of the reasons the BC court just made their decision.

And in BC, the judge determined that the IRP between 0.05 and 0.08 wasn't a charter breach, meaning that it was constitutionally allowed to impound your vehicle for 3 days and lose your licence for 3 days.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't own a car and I don't live in Calgary (or Canada for that matter), so this doesn't impact me at all, and yet I care because I think basic civil liberties like the right to due process matter. People like to come down on the litigious nature of the US, but the upside is that something like this would never be allowed to stand.

You make a good point overall except for the fact the U.S. is rapidly losing their liberty, and most Americans have been lazy and apathetic about it.

They have TSA checkpoints on some highways now.

On Thursday, they will be voting on a bill that puts America in an official "war zone" and the military will be able to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely without due process.

The Patriot Act etc..

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Tiger

You aren't getting a ticket or a criminal charge for this. They are suspending your license and saying you shouldn't drive. They can't leave your car there so they have to tow it away so you paying for the impounding.

In other words ... a big money grab.

You knew about the $200 re-instatement fee right?
You know it costs money for tows and storage right?

..all for not breaking the law.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by jar_e

And in BC, the judge determined that the IRP between 0.05 and 0.08 wasn't a charter breach, meaning that it was constitutionally allowed to impound your vehicle for 3 days and lose your licence for 3 days.

That is fine. But under the proposed law you lose you vehicle untill trial.. That could be over a year.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

That is fine. But under the proposed law you lose you vehicle untill trial.. That could be over a year.

Vehicle or licence?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I've read/skimmed most of this thread tonight.

Here's my biggest issue.

I'm at a party with friends over the holidays. Tonight is my turn to be the DD. I round up my friends, get them in my car and start to drive them all home. I turn the corner and low and behold what do I see? A roadblock. No big deal, I roll my window down and the police officer smells alcohol (natually I have have four drunks in my car). The officer asks me to pull over and get out of the car. I do.

I'm administered the breathalyzer to ensure I am telling the truth, I'm the sober DD. However, the breathalyser wasn't properly calibrated recently, and after several other people using it, it's results are off. To the point that I blow 0.05 BAC due to the machine not working properly.

I lose my car, it's impounded, my licence is suspended. I have to pay for my licence to be reinstated ($200) plus the impound fee.

I don't have any recourse. None what so ever. I was sober, and it was the Breathalyzer that was broken.

IF I had my day in court, then the records would show it wasn't properly calibrated, as well as how often it was used since it's last calibration. Additionally I could call a household full of witnesses that would state I wasn't drinking.

In this scenario I'm being punished for a law I didn't break, labelled a drunk driver when I wasn't driving while impaired, and victimized by malfunctioning equipment without being able to face my accuser in a court of law or question the accuracy of the equipment used.

IF I blew 0.08+ then I'd have all that recourse.

To me that's the biggest problem here.

If you want to lower the BAC to 0.05 by all means go ahead. However if you're going to seize my car, and revoke my licence for doing nothing wrong without allowing me any recourse to say "hold on a second here folks, I'm innocent" that's a problem.


Frankly if you wanted this law to stick, suspension should be after the accused is found guilty in a court of law, or pleads as such. If the court wants to impound the car as part of the punishment, so be it.

Guilt first, punishment second. Not punishment first and not give a flying fata about guilt.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I've read/skimmed most of this thread tonight.

Here's my biggest issue.

I'm at a party with friends over the holidays. Tonight is my turn to be the DD. I round up my friends, get them in my car and start to drive them all home. I turn the corner and low and behold what do I see? A roadblock. No big deal, I roll my window down and the police officer smells alcohol (natually I have have four drunks in my car). The officer asks me to pull over and get out of the car. I do.

...

Fantastic post. For all those that are in favour of this new legislation, ask yourself the question raised above: If you are sober (meaning below 0.05 BAC) and are stopped by a ride program, given a breath-a-lyzer test and blow over .05 due to a faulty device, are you okay with having no recourse when you are fined and your car is impounded? Looking at you Tiger...

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Fantastic post. For all those that are in favour of this new legislation, ask yourself the question raised above: If you are sober (meaning below 0.05 BAC) and are stopped by a ride program, given a breath-a-lyzer test and blow over .05 due to a faulty device, are you okay with having no recourse when you are fined and your car is impounded? Looking at you Tiger...

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

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Fantastic post. For all those that are in favour of this new legislation, ask yourself the question raised above: If you are sober (meaning below 0.05 BAC) and are stopped by a ride program, given a breath-a-lyzer test and blow over .05 due to a faulty device, are you okay with having no recourse when you are fined and your car is impounded? Looking at you 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.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tiger

you are right, blowing over 0.05 will lead to me getting fine because I wore a v-neck shirt. That is solid logic, you win this debate. Do you really think this is different then what happens with cops and tickets now. They judge you and can give you warnings or tickets based on your jib cut. This is not on a whim, but if you blow over 0.05 they can't judge your possible poor choice in clothes and your voice?

You quite clearly lack even a basic understanding of what this law entails