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

[Pacem]

Another thing people don't realize.

You don't have to blow a .05 to face the driving ban. You can blow a .02 and still face the same penalties. If the officer believes you to be impared he can give you these penalties and you have no way of disputing the penalties. You can't ask to go down to the station and take the breathalyzer. Previously before these changes you at least had that right. In fact that was the only way you could dispute a 24hr suspension. If you ask to go down to the station and they refuse to do that, they the 24hr suspension is no good.

The admission of having anything to drink or blow any level into the roadside devices leaves you vulnerable to these new laws. Doesn't matter if the machine is malfuntioning or not. Any amount of alcohol and you are impared. A cop could suspect you of being of being high cause you were acting antsy, or you could have red puffy eyes from allergies and he can assume your high on pot. The police for the most part do their job well. However, as with any profession there are jerks in the trade. We have police that will physically beat innocent people, its only natural to assume that these powers will be abused.

[AverageJoe]

This echo's the same as the gun registry.

We're attempting to solve the wrong problem by penalizing the wrong people.

Alcohol related deaths have been on the decline anyway.
MADD has literally gone MAD on this one.
The obliterated drunk that causes the problem will still be the obliterated drunk regardless of what you set your little number to.

Social awareness and societies intellectual growth are directly responsible for the 5 year downward trend. NOT the damn number. Similarly to smoking, less and less people are taking up the habit cause society dictates that it's on the outs.

In my circles, everyone looks at you like you have 4 heads if you think you're driving after having more than 2 glasses of wine and expect to drive home. The trend will continue.

This is literally a couple small steps away from prohibition if we're not careful.

Educate, educate, educate.

[wookster]

Originally Posted by Tiger

not matter how you car gets impounded to you have to pay fees for that with no recourse. How is getting charged the impounding too any different from when your car gets stolen and found and you still have to pay the impound fee.

You get the impound fee back through insurance. I had my vehicle stolen and I had to pay the impound fee to get it back but it was re-imbursed in full by my insurance company.

[AverageJoe]

Originally Posted by wookster

You get the impound fee back through insurance. I had my vehicle stolen and I had to pay the impound fee to get it back but it was re-imbursed in full by my insurance company.

I highly doubt insurance would cover the impound fees for a DUI situation.
It's not like the cops "stole" your car.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by AverageJoe

I highly doubt insurance would cover the impound fees for a DUI situation.
It's not like the cops "stole" your car.

But that was his point. He was responding to Tiger, who was using the fact that you have to pay impound fees when your car is stolen and recovered as a way to minimize the fact that you have to pay an impound fee when your car is taken by the police at their discretion.

[Hockeyguy15]

flameswin wins

[transplant99]

I think my DAMM idea needs to grow some legs....and i am only half kidding.

Lobby groups are clearly getting their way, so a lobby group againt a lobby group may be the way to go?

Who's in?

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I think my DAMM idea needs to grow some legs....and i am only half kidding.

Lobby groups are clearly getting their way, so a lobby group againt a lobby group may be the way to go?

Who's in?

What is that again? Drivers against mad mothers?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

What is that again? Drivers against mad mothers?

Yup....wouldnt be a very PC group, but a necessary one.

[Locke]

Lets all get drunk and drive to their head offices! That'll show 'em.

Oh! Even better! Occupy MADD!

Its been a while since I've occupied a mother, let alone a mad one, and we can hang around out front and live in tents and get leathered.

That'll show those hags who they're dealing with! A bunch of drunken unemployed trespassers. What a lobby!

[VladtheImpaler]

It's a good idea. You have to stand up to the police state and the forces that seek to bring it closer.

[shaner154]

This new law is complete BS. I dont smoke, but I have taken a puff on occasion and get a head rush. What is next no smoking and driving. How about no talking and driving, or no driving with your pet in the vehicle, better yet lets just outlaw cars all together how about that! .8 is the LEGAL limit if we let special interest groups sway our governments decisions then there is no end to the power that they will yield and what they will try to get taken away from us. Poor bar industry they are about to get a beating. My company designs and programs websites and we lost quite a few bar customers in BC because they had to shut their doors as a result of this BS law. Now that it is coming to Alberta I am suspecting we will lose a few more. People became scared to even have an after work pint and a bite to eat. I'm just going to get a beer and snack vending machine and some cots to put in my office so my guys can at least enjoy a beer, grub and banter after work and then then sleep off the 1 or 2 beer before heading home.

[jar_e]

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.

A link to support my claim:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/reg...si-85-200.html

Approved Screening Devices Order

SI/85-200

CRIMINAL CODE
Registration 1985-11-27
Order Approving Certain Screening Devices for the Purposes of Section 254 of the Criminal Code

The Attorney General of Canada, pursuant to the definition “approved screening device”* in subsection 238(1) of the Criminal Code, hereby revokes the Approved Road-Side Screening Device Order, made on April 7, 1983**, and makes the annexed Order approving certain screening devices for the purposes of section 238 of the Criminal Code, in substitution therefor, effective December 4, 1985.
*S.C. 1985, c. 19, s. 36
**SI/83-81, 1983 Canada Gazette Part II, p. 1642
Ottawa, November 7, 1985
JOHN C. CROSBIE
Attorney General of Canada
SHORT TITLE


1. This Order may be cited as the Approved Screening Devices Order.
APPROVED SCREENING DEVICES


2. The following devices, each being a device of a kind that is designed to ascertain the presence of alcohol in the blood of a person, are hereby approved for the purposes of section 254 of the Criminal Code:
(a) Alcolmeter S-L2;
(b) Alco-Sûr;
(c) Alcotest® 7410 PA3;
(d) Alcotest® 7410 GLC;
(e) Alco-Sensor IV DWF;
(f) Alco-Sensor IV PWF;
(g) Intoxilyzer 400D; and
(h) Alco Sensor FST.

Speficially (H) which is this:



Which is now what is the standard in alberta.

Even with the old ones, which are being grandfathered out.

And in regards to "experience", I know first hand of a trial last week that included a roadside screening device part of evidence and it was admitted. I think the Herald needs to fact check more.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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)

Roadsides can be used as evidence as previously discussed. Also, the intoxilyzer 400 D is the older roadside screening device:



The actual machine you "blow" into at an office would be Intoxilyzer 5000 Breathalyzer pictured below:



Both are admissible in court.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Roadsides can be used as evidence as previously discussed. Also, the intoxilyzer 400 D is the older roadside screening device:



The actual machine you "blow" into at an office would be Intoxilyzer 5000 Breathalyzer pictured below:



Both are admissible in court.

Well, that's all very interesting, but two points:

1. The fact that Roadside Screening Devices are contemplated in the regs to the Criminal Code does not mean their readings are "admissible as evidence." You'd need case law for that. All the section you quoted tells you is that when they administer the Roadside test for the purposes of later giving the breath demand, they must use one of those devices.

2. Even if the RSD was "admissible" (and--are you sure you don't mean that a police officer's testimony with respect to the reading on the RSD is admissible? That's quite different.) what would it prove? That you blew a "fail"? That would be insufficient to make out the charge, so there would be no point in the Crown leading it.

The other stuff is interesting--I'm not an expert in this area by any means--"over .08" is like the income tax act; it's not for dabblers.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, that's all very interesting, but two points:

1. The fact that Roadside Screening Devices are contemplated in the regs to the Criminal Code does not mean their readings are "admissible as evidence." You'd need case law for that. All the section you quoted tells you is that when they administer the Roadside test for the purposes of later giving the breath demand, they must use one of those devices.

2. Even if the RSD was "admissible" (and--are you sure you don't mean that a police officer's testimony with respect to the reading on the RSD is admissible? That's quite different.) what would it prove? That you blew a "fail"? That would be insufficient to make out the charge, so there would be no point in the Crown leading it.

The other stuff is interesting--I'm not an expert in this area by any means--"over .08" is like the income tax act; it's not for dabblers.

Sorry I should clarify on what I mean...you can use a roadside screening device as part of your grounds to arrest for impaired driving. A police officer needs to believe that your ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol, and a roadside can help come to that conclusion. Courts usually put into their exhibits the calibration records for said roadside and accept that a "fail" warning is sufficient grounds for a justifiable arrest...numerous case law on this and this is pretty much common practice if you're asked to provide a sample on a roadside. Obviously the reading of "fail" is based on the officers testimony, as there is no print out or such like a breathalyzer.

Thus, in that respect, a "fail" reading on a roadside is enough to get you arrested for impaired driving. Furthermore, you could just get charged on impaired driving based on the indicia of alcohol within your system and the "fail" on the roadside. The second charge (ie. blowing over 0.08), is based on the results from the breathalyzer. The majority of time they go hand in hand and you get charged with both (or refusal if you refuse to provide a sample on the roadside or on the breathalyzer).

I know first hand that such things are common practice in Calgary and I'd presume Alberta as well. But ultimately, just cause you blow a fail, doesn't mean it can't be used against you in court. There's a reason you are read a breath demand before they administer it and explains the jeopardy you can be facing if you refuse.

Its definitely not something to take lightly and I hope people take it first hand that all this debate aside on the proposed amendments that being on the wrong side of the roadside is a horrible, (should be) life changing experience and I'd hope no one has to go through it if they put themselves in that position to drive. Chances are, charges will be dropped or a deal is plead, and quite often you come out of it pretty scotch free for all the hoopla (there's a reason that there is so much case law for impaireds...I believe some of the most for a criminal matter) but hopefully take this to heart that even the process is a horrible thing to be involved in.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Sorry I should clarify on what I mean...you can use a roadside screening device as part of your grounds to arrest for impaired driving. A police officer needs to believe that your ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol, and a roadside can help come to that conclusion. Courts usually put into their exhibits the calibration records for said roadside and accept that a "fail" warning is sufficient grounds for a justifiable arrest...numerous case law on this and this is pretty much common practice if you're asked to provide a sample on a roadside. Obviously the reading of "fail" is based on the officers testimony, as there is no print out or such like a breathalyzer.

Thus, in that respect, a "fail" reading on a roadside is enough to get you arrested for impaired driving. Furthermore, you could just get charged on impaired driving based on the indicia of alcohol within your system and the "fail" on the roadside. The second charge (ie. blowing over 0.08), is based on the results from the breathalyzer. The majority of time they go hand in hand and you get charged with both (or refusal if you refuse to provide a sample on the roadside or on the breathalyzer).

I know first hand that such things are common practice in Calgary and I'd presume Alberta as well. But ultimately, just cause you blow a fail, doesn't mean it can't be used against you in court. There's a reason you are read a breath demand before they administer it and explains the jeopardy you can be facing if you refuse.

Its definitely not something to take lightly and I hope people take it first hand that all this debate aside on the proposed amendments that being on the wrong side of the roadside is a horrible, (should be) life changing experience and I'd hope no one has to go through it if they put themselves in that position to drive. Chances are, charges will be dropped or a deal is plead, and quite often you come out of it pretty scotch free for all the hoopla (there's a reason that there is so much case law for impaireds...I believe some of the most for a criminal matter) but hopefully take this to heart that even the process is a horrible thing to be involved in.

Sounds like we agree--sorry for the confusion.

In my experience, people are generally charged with both "Impaired" and "Over .08"--and the Crown only has to make out one of the two charges. Usually, the Over .08 is easier for them, unless there's a Charter issue that winds up excluding some of the evidence--which since R v Grant is harder.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Sounds like we agree--sorry for the confusion.

In my experience, people are generally charged with both "Impaired" and "Over .08"--and the Crown only has to make out one of the two charges. Usually, the Over .08 is easier for them, unless there's a Charter issue that winds up excluding some of the evidence--which since R v Grant is harder.

Yeah I've only seen a single impaired charge < 6 times based on a variety of things. Obviously charter issues (and the grey area around them) is the hot topic for any defense lawyer and a large reason why case law is so extensive with impaired chargers.

0.08 is definitely easier (or the refusal is easiest) since most breathalyzers are ridiculously calibrated and its a lot more objective compared to the original (possibly subjective) impaired charge.

[Jacks]

However the strict procedures that you guys are discussing don't mean anything if the officer can simply decide to take your vehicle (and license) away. You have no day in court and are allowed no appeal so it doesn't mean diddly squat if the breathalyser is properly calibrated or not.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Roadsides can be used as evidence as previously discussed. Also, the intoxilyzer 400 D is the older roadside screening device:



The actual machine you "blow" into at an office would be Intoxilyzer 5000 Breathalyzer pictured below:



Both are admissible in court.

You know what I tak out of all this? Hilarious names.

Oh, Intoxilyzer 5000, you had so much potential. You used to be cool.....