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

[Madrox]

Originally Posted by Aleks

You refused a breathalyzer because you were annoyed with the officer......

So your point here is bunk...You had the opportunity and refused it from your account of the event...

Try reading. He ASKED for a breathalyzer.

[Green Machine]

So your point here is bunk...You had the opportunity and refused it from your account of the event...[/QUOTE]

That opportunity came with an official arrest and a trip to the station where this prick of cop, obviously on a power trip, would have let me wait who knows how long in a holding cell while he flaunted his authority; and when whatever test they administer came back with a BAC of 0.00 what would it accomplish for me.

Do you think I would get a refund of my towing and impound fees. Fat chance. Maybe they would pay for a taxi so I don't have to call someone to pick me up at the police station.

It seems that some people have the impression that you can follow the cop to the station to get a breathalyzer reading. That is definitely not the case. Why would I want to be arrested and have my car towed and impounded just to be able to say I told you so to the cop when my BAC comes back with a zero reading. That option is provided for those who wish to dispute the accuracy of the Roadside Screening Breathalyzer. It would provide zero benefit to me as my vehicle would be impounded anyway and at the time there was no extra license reinstatement fee or fine tied to a 24hr suspension making the financial impact identical.

I find it hard to believe that this cop was following procedure when issuing a 24hr suspension with no screening device or signs of impairment. Especially since he issued me other tickets that were complete bunk. I woulda been all for following him to take a test or waiting for another officer to bring a breathalyzer, but having given him no cause to arrest me, I wasn't super eager to pursue having an arrest record and being detained by a cop who came across as dishonest and arrogant. Especially when the net result would, at best, be that I could pick up my truck earlier in the next day.

You seem to think that all the hassle could be avoided by asking him to arrest me. I kind of figure that he was just using intimidation to up his quota or something as the cop made it clear that my vehicle would be impounded either way.

[GP_Matt]

I think that is proper procedure if he judges that you are in fact impaired. That is his call and erring on the side of caution is probably for the best. For most officers anyway, there are always going to be a few bad apples to abuse a rule.

[Green Machine]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I think that is proper procedure if he judges that you are in fact impaired. That is his call and erring on the side of caution is probably for the best. For most officers anyway, there are always going to be a few bad apples to abuse a rule.

Fair enough. The spirit of the rule makes sense. But my personal experience makes me very wary of giving more power to traffic cops with no avenue of recourse available. I should note that I have encountered many other cops who conducted themselves professionally and fairly due to having somewhat of a lead foot in my younger days. This was the sole encounter with a cop that went against the norm. But some sort of process to appeal needs to be available. Or Roadside breathalyzers should be made mandatory to prevent Cops like that one from bullying innocent people into bogus suspensions.

[GP_Matt]

I agree with you completely. There is a reason that we have checks and balances in the system.
This isn't the first piece of legislation the PC's have written that specifically bypasses the courts. There was a big stink when their Land Use Framework had a clause that prevented people from going through the court system and forcing them to accept whatever compensation the province offered. People were outraged and they eventually amended the bill to allow access to the courts so maybe it will happen again.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by flameswin

lol. Yeah, let's take this right back to the beginning of the thread.

Its been so much fun lets do it again!

[jar_e]

So got some clarification on the "second test" wording....

Anyone who blows between 0.05 and 0.08 will be given a sheet saying you're allowed to submit a voluntary, second test to make sure it is accurate. This can be done on another roadside device or a intoxilyzer machine at an office.

The jeopardy you face is that if your body has metabolized more alcohol, or the first device was too forgiving, and you provide a "fail" (ie. >0.08), you will be charged with impaired driving. So its definitely a crapshoot....you can obviously consent to a second test, but face the chance you may have your licence suspended upgraded to that plus a criminal code charge.

[GP_Matt]

Does anyone know if this will show up on your abstract or affect your insurance?

Many people need a clean abstract as a condition of employment so this could potentially result in someone losing their job for committing a non-crime where they are judged and sentenced on the spot with no hope of a judge or trial.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by jar_e

The jeopardy you face is that if your body has metabolized more alcohol, or the first device was too forgiving, and you provide a "fail" (ie. >0.08), you will be charged with impaired driving.

But if you were driving, wouldn't you still be metabolizing that alcohol in your systemso that you would "be over 0.08" if you hadn't been pulled over and still driving/pulled over later?

[Doodlebug]

This brings up an interesting point if your second test puts you over 0.08. Say your second test is like 2 hours later. Couldn't you argue that you were driving 2 hours ago not now, when your BAC was under 0.08?

[CaramonLS]

Has anyone heard the new commericals?

"The limits haven't changed".

Isn't that just blatently misleading?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Has anyone heard the new commericals?

"The limits haven't changed".

Isn't that just blatently misleading?

They frame it as "but the penalties have".

It's a tad misleading but if you read deep enough into it, it all makes sense.

The limits haven't changed, still .08, but the penalties have, except they don't explicitly mention that it isn't the .08 penalties that have changed, it is the penalties for being UNDER .08 that have changed. In fact there didn't even used to be a penalty for being under .08 (for the most part).

So yeah, the limits haven't changed but they've increased the penalties to punish all those scumbags driving under the legal limit.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by chemgear

But if you were driving, wouldn't you still be metabolizing that alcohol in your systemso that you would "be over 0.08" if you hadn't been pulled over and still driving/pulled over later?

Originally Posted by Doodlebug

This brings up an interesting point if your second test puts you over 0.08. Say your second test is like 2 hours later. Couldn't you argue that you were driving 2 hours ago not now, when your BAC was under 0.08?

Obviously there's a lot of variables, but the second test should be administered pretty quickly (ie. under 30 minutes). It will create some interesting charter issues as the person who provided the first sample may not be fully aware of the jeopardy they're facing just from reading the sheet.

[Jebus]

What would be the result if you asked to have legal counsel present before submitting to a test at roadside? If your reasoning was that you are confused by the changes to the legislation and wanted to consult counsel before submitting, is this allowed?
Would this be viewed as a refusal to submit; or a case of asking the authorities for access to legal counsel and being denied if forced to submit?

Just curious, and I know we have some legal minds on board here..

[return to the red]

I'm actually interested in how many people have actually seen a breathalyzer and one in use....not being intoxicated.

Having been on a few ride-alongs and witnessing the administration of them I think, judging from some of the responses, there are many posters that are not familiar of all the regulations and procedures that officers have to follow regarding them.

[return to the red]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

They frame it as "but the penalties have".

It's a tad misleading but if you read deep enough into it, it all makes sense.

The limits haven't changed, still .08, but the penalties have, except they don't explicitly mention that it isn't the .08 penalties that have changed, it is the penalties for being UNDER .08 that have changed. In fact there didn't even used to be a penalty for being under .08 (for the most part).

So yeah, the limits haven't changed but they've increased the penalties to punish all those scumbags driving under the legal limit.

.05 - .08 has always been a 24 hour suspension...if it was a roadside test it would have shown orange and if you are in the station they hold your licence until the next day anyhow.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by return to the red

.05 - .08 has always been a 24 hour suspension...if it was a roadside test it would have shown orange and if you are in the station they hold your licence until the next day anyhow.

Ok. The radio ads are still BS and so is the new law.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by return to the red

I'm actually interested in how many people have actually seen a breathalyzer and one in use....not being intoxicated.

Having been on a few ride-alongs and witnessing the administration of them I think, judging from some of the responses, there are many posters that are not familiar of all the regulations and procedures that officers have to follow regarding them.

I have never actually seen/used one but am aware of all the procedures that they have to go through. My concern is that those procedures are likely important to ensure that the sample/result is accurate. A lot of them likely developed after court cases were thrown out for one reason or another so they came up with a procedure to make sure that going forward the charges stuck.

Under the new system there are no more court cases so there is no method of questioning the accuracy and validity of their procedures. The fear is the procedures will become more lax and won't be followed as closely. We see that all the time in our industry where when you stop enforcing a procedure people become sloppy.

I also have a prediction that under the new system fewer charges of driving over 0.08 will be handed out because the burden of proof will be so much higher. It will be much easier to hand out the lesser penalty and avoid all the paperwork and possible court appearance.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by return to the red

.05 - .08 has always been a 24 hour suspension...if it was a roadside test it would have shown orange and if you are in the station they hold your licence until the next day anyhow.

The old law clearly stated that there was a 24 hour suspension that could be lifted with a second test that showed you were below 0.08. They have now replaced the second test with mandatory penalties and no trial.

[return to the red]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I have never actually seen/used one but am aware of all the procedures that they have to go through. My concern is that those procedures are likely important to ensure that the sample/result is accurate. A lot of them likely developed after court cases were thrown out for one reason or another so they came up with a procedure to make sure that going forward the charges stuck.

Under the new system there are no more court cases so there is no method of questioning the accuracy and validity of their procedures. The fear is the procedures will become more lax and won't be followed as closely. We see that all the time in our industry where when you stop enforcing a procedure people become sloppy.

I also have a prediction that under the new system fewer charges of driving over 0.08 will be handed out because the burden of proof will be so much higher. It will be much easier to hand out the lesser penalty and avoid all the paperwork and possible court appearance.

you do realize that blowing over .08 still carries an impaired charge right? it's that range of .05 -.08 that the penalties have changed in.

I was speaking with my brother-in-law (traffic cop who is a breath tech, about it this weekend) and he said the only reforms that are now enforcable are in the .05-.08 range and the impaired ones will come into practice starting in september. Those impaired charges are still going through some reforms and many cops are unsure of what they will all entail as they are still trying to grasp the changes associated with the .05 - .08

I could have misinterpreted what he was trying to tell me but that was what i got out of it.