Drunk driving to be largely decriminalized in Alberta in 2018

[Erick Estrada]

As an offender in my young adult life I feel losing my license for a year was a life changer for me as it provides you 365 days to contemplate your actions. Not sure if I'm here today or maybe an innocent person if they only give me a slap on the wrist that day.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

As an offender in my young adult life I feel losing my license for a year was a life changer for me as it provides you 365 days to contemplate your actions. Not sure if I'm here today or maybe an innocent person if they only give me a slap on the wrist that day.

No one is advocating lightening the penalties for impaired driving, only that those penalties be decided by a judge and/or jury as opposed to a 24 year old second year Calgary Police Service constable.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No one is advocating lightening the penalties for impaired driving, only that those penalties be decided by a judge and/or jury as opposed to a 24 year old second year Calgary Police Service constable.

Yeah but I think I may have got off in that case as I was only pulled over for speeding and despite blowing over I was very aware of the situation, cooperating, passing all his questions with flying colours etc. The exact type of driver they may cut some slack and may have been enough for them to just take my keys and send me and my buddy home in a cab.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’m making no argument on what people should find acceptable, I’m just saying what I find acceptable. And yes, in a trade off for the lower burden on the court system and more drunk drivers recieving immediate punishment, I will gladly accept the minute possibility that I am A) pulled over sober and B) blow over while not having consumed a drink and C) am not given a second breathalyzer or test to verify my sobriety while recieving an unfair punishment.

Call me crazy, but yeah, i’ll happily roll the dice for the benefits.

Are you ok with an officer suspending your licence at a checkpoint because they erroneously believe you were drinking?

Note that receiving an alert or breathalyzer isn't necessary under the new regime as there is no system to ensure procedure is properly followed.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yeah but I think I may have got off in that case as I was only pulled over for speeding and despite blowing over I was very aware of the situation, cooperating, passing all his questions with flying colours etc. The exact type of driver they may cut some slack and may have been enough for them to just take my keys and send me and my buddy home in a cab.

Nothing stops them from doing that now.

This isn't about stopping drinking and driving as I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks it should be OK to do so. This is about due process and protecting the rights of individuals to defend themselves from false prosecution and a massive financial burden imposed by people not trained to do so. There are a plethora of pitfalls in this legislation.

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by Kjesse

The "you can always request another breathalyzer comment" is so misinformed as to be ridiculous. Its a comment made to back up some point he's trying to make, and is completely incorrect, he's just making things up.

For those who are not aware of the procedure, the machine does a self-calibration check and records the reading, then you blow, and that reading is recorded, then 15 minutes or more later, they again check the calibration and you blow a second time. Both readings are recorded, a detailed printout is generated which records more than just the actual breath reading, it shows the temperature of the ampoule, time, all kinds of other things.

You don't get a third, fourth or fifth reading. The first reading to be "back validated" to your blood alcohol content has to be taken within 2 hours of having been pulled over. There is a presumption that if the test is administered within 2 hours, the reading is presumed to apply to the time you were driving. (See s. 258 CCC)

The requirements are quite strict (see sections 253 to 258 of the criminal code) in terms of what is allowed.

I believe he’s referring to your right for a second ASD test on roadside, not the intoxilizer in the stations.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Kjesse

The "you can always request another breathalyzer comment" is so misinformed as to be ridiculous. Its a comment made to back up some point he's trying to make, and is completely incorrect, he's just making things up.

Misinformed as to be ridiculous? Making things up? If you’re quite done being rude about it, the source of my information is pretty easily accessible:

Can I challenge the results of my breath test?
At the roadside, you can challenge the results of your breath test and request a second test from a second device.

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/4958.htm

Transportation Alberta, such a misinformed and made up institution. A terrible place to source transportation related information, really.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Are you ok with an officer suspending your licence at a checkpoint because they erroneously believe you were drinking?

Note that receiving an alert or breathalyzer isn't necessary under the new regime as there is no system to ensure procedure is properly followed.

No, but I’m not of the belief what you described is at all likely to happen. Might it? Sure I guess. Likely? Definitely not.

Just because I get into my car every day doesn’t mean I’m ok with getting in a car accident. I’m just aware of the remote possibility, do my part to avoid it, and enjoy the benefits of driving without really worrying about it beyond doing my part to avoid it.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

In BC they had to take 2000 breathalyzers out of service to recalibrate them. They've not improved much since. They are notoriously faulty and inaccurate.

ASD’s are routinely taken out of service to be recalibrated to ensure they are accurate. The new ASD’s also won’t operate in certain perameters (out of temperature range, expired certification etc). In BC anyway, you are entitled to a second ASD test on a separate instrument with guarantee that the lowest of the two tests shall prevail. For instance, if someone had a breath sample of fail, then on the second test a warn, the offence would be for the warn.

Drivers also have the right to challenge the validity of the IRP in BC with the superintendent of Motor Vehicles.

I don’t think it’s a perfect system but I do think it’s better than it was before with the criminal trials.

[llwhiteoutll]

You're missing the point entirely.

No matter how many times you can blow, no police officer should have the ability to accuse, try and sentence someone on the side of the road where no counsel is available and no due process can take place. Saying that someone can seek remedy through the courts after the fact is pointless, by that point in time they could have been fired from their job, incurred significant impound fees, face significant increases in insurance and thousands in court costs to clear their name. If they don't get a court date within 3 months, they are then forced to either continue that suspension or pay more money to have an interlock installed.

If they are found to have not been impaired, those consequences do not disappear. They won't necessarily get their job back, their insurance will still be high because there is a suspension on their record, the court costs are not refunded and they won't be compensated for lost income.

The answer to this isn't to allow the police to run roadside courts, but to fix the underlying problems in the legal system that are causing lengthy delays. Hire more prosecutors and judges.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

You're missing the point entirely.

No matter how many times you can blow, no police officer should have the ability to accuse, try and sentence someone on the side of the road where no counsel is available and no due process can take place. Saying that someone can seek remedy through the courts after the fact is pointless, by that point in time they could have been fired from their job, incurred significant impound fees, face significant increases in insurance and thousands in court costs to clear their name. If they don't get a court date within 3 months, they are then forced to either continue that suspension or pay more money to have an interlock installed.

If they are found to have not been impaired, those consequences do not disappear. They won't necessarily get their job back, their insurance will still be high because there is a suspension on their record, the court costs are not refunded and they won't be compensated for lost income.

The answer to this isn't to allow the police to run roadside courts, but to fix the underlying problems in the legal system that are causing lengthy delays. Hire more prosecutors and judges.

Well the Supreme Court of Canada disagrees with you.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

You're missing the point entirely.

No matter how many times you can blow, no police officer should have the ability to accuse, try and sentence someone on the side of the road where no counsel is available and no due process can take place. Saying that someone can seek remedy through the courts after the fact is pointless, by that point in time they could have been fired from their job, incurred significant impound fees, face significantly icant increases in insurance and thousands in court costs to clear their name. If they don't get a court date within 3 months, they are then forced to either continue that suspension or pay more money to have an interlock installed.

It’s not a point I place a lot of importance on, because I think the instance you and others are describing would be rare enough that it’s not worth worrying about.

The proposed system seems better than the current system to me, and while neither is perfect, I just don’t think the risk of a sober person getting pulled over by a bad cop, getting falsely accused of impaired driving without any evidence (I.e. no breathalyzer, or two faulty breathalyzer), and punished on the spot is anything more than minute.

You can look at pretty much any law and think of a scenario where it would be ineffective or poorly applied, but unless the chances of that are more than minute, then I don’t think you worry about it.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s not a point I place a lot of importance on, because I think the instance you and others are describing would be rare enough that it’s not worth worrying about.

The proposed system seems better than the current system to me, and while neither is perfect, I just don’t think the risk of a sober person getting pulled over by a bad cop, getting falsely accused of impaired driving without any evidence (I.e. no breathalyzer, or two faulty breathalyzer), and punished on the spot is anything more than minute.

You can look at pretty much any law and think of a scenario where it would be ineffective or poorly applied, but unless the chances of that are more than minute, then I don’t think you worry about it.

Sure but I also get a court date to dispute it without losing thousands of dollars , possibly my job and having insurance rates jacked up for future years because my license was suspended.....by a roadside cop.

This is terrible legislation, which should surprise no one considering who is implementing it.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s not a point I place a lot of importance on, because I think the instance you and others are describing would be rare enough that it’s not worth worrying about.

The proposed system seems better than the current system to me, and while neither is perfect, I just don’t think the risk of a sober person getting pulled over by a bad cop, getting falsely accused of impaired driving without any evidence (I.e. no breathalyzer, or two faulty breathalyzer), and punished on the spot is anything more than minute.

You can look at pretty much any law and think of a scenario where it would be ineffective or poorly applied, but unless the chances of that are more than minute, then I don’t think you worry about it.

How many cases of someone being punished when not warranted is acceptable? Because I suspect that for a lot of people, that number is zero.

The legal system should operate under the method of "in a court of law it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt you have committed the offense, here is your punishment", not "here on the side of the road, I suspect you have committed an offense, here is a punishment that is potentially life altering, feel free to challenge it while you are being punished".

If the police want this power, they should bear the responsibility of making 100% whole any person they sentence under their new powers and is later found to be innocent.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Well the Supreme Court of Canada disagrees with you.

Disagrees with what?

Has their mandate been changed to the Supreme Court of fairness? Or are they limited to determining the legality of these laws that have been implemented the way they’ve always been?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Disagrees with what?

Has their mandate been changed to the Supreme Court of fairness? Or are they limited to determining the legality of these laws that have been implemented the way they’ve always been?

He's referring to this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...-b-c-1.3274137

Provided that the legislation fits within the Supreme Court's guidance that was aimed at BC's regime, it's unlikely that it will be struck down.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

How many cases of someone being punished when not warranted is acceptable? Because I suspect that for a lot of people, that number is zero.

The legal system should operate under the method of "in a court of law it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt you have committed the offense, here is your punishment", not "here on the side of the road, I suspect you have committed an offense, here is a punishment that is potentially life altering, feel free to challenge it while you are being punished".

If the police want this power, they should bear the responsibility of making 100% whole any person they sentence under their new powers and is later found to be innocent.

Yeah, I think this would be the biggest thing for me being okay with it, is if there was absolutely no incentives for police to fill some kind of quota or anything. On the other hand, how tied up is the court system by DUI charges? Is it really that significant that this needs to be implemented?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

How many cases of someone being punished when not warranted is acceptable? Because I suspect that for a lot of people, that number is zero.

Ideal? Zero. Acceptable? I’m not sure, but as a society we readily accept that it’s higher than zero. If we’re going to be a realist about it, we live in imperfect conditions, and while perfection should always be the goal, should we condemn “good” in the process?

The questions that are more important to me aren’t about the minute possibilities of the intersection of imperfect conditions that causes a completely innocent sober person to suffer extreme drunk driving charges, but whether this has actually helped in BC. I know they recently said alcohol related road deaths has decreased by half since the legislation came in. That seems extremely good to me.

The thing is, we don’t even have to look at this in a slippery slope sort of way. Can anyone point to a statistical increase in wrongful penalties being assessed in BC since this came in nearly a decade ago? Because the reduction in accidents and deaths seems to be there, police actually seem to be catching more drunk drivers, so there’s evidence that this is positive. Where’s the evidence that the sober innocent driver who was falsely accused and had their life altered is anything more than an anomaly?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The fact that anyone would support legislation that attempts to undermine charter rights in on the grounds that it's effective at carrying out its purpose demonstrates why we have a constitution in the first place. People are dangerously naive and all too willing to sign off on the abdication of the basic rules that make a democratic society work in the first place.

As to the effectiveness of the law in accomplishing the goal of reducing drunk driving, I'll just let the Alberta Court of Appeal speak to that, as they did in May of this year while striking down the earlier version of this legislation.

There are two things that can be said about the administrative licence suspension regime. The first is that it is clearly effective. Nothing could better achieve the three elements of effective deterrence (certainty, celerity, and severity) than the universal, immediate licence suspension of every driver who is charged, regardless of hardship, due process, or actual guilt.

The second thing that can be said about the regime is that it was designed without any consideration for constitutional values underlying the Canadian legal system. Nowhere in the Provincial Strategy is there any discussion or recognition of the effect that the administrative licence suspension regime might have on the rights of drivers. Examples of the insensitivity of the Provincial Strategy to core Charter values can be seen in the extracts reproduced supra, paras. 18-20, where it refers to these constitutional values as mischievous, technical and illegitimate strategies.

The Provincial Strategy reasons: “. . . every year spent waiting for your day in court is a step toward fulfilling the old adage ‘justice delayed is justice denied’. These systemic costs represent a very real denial in access to justice and a pressing societal problem” (supra, para. 17). It seems that the solution to “justice delayed” is to punish everybody immediately on charge. “Instant injustice” is put forward as the appropriate alternative to “delayed justice”. The insult of “delayed justice” is thereby doubled up by adding the insult of immediate “punishment without proof of guilt” in violation of the driver’s constitutional rights.

That's as big a middle finger as you're likely to ever see directed by a Court judgment at the government.

Will this new version get the same response? We'll no doubt see, as someone will surely challenge it. For me, the thing that jumps out at me is the "plead guilty, install a breathalyzer in your car and your sentence is reduced automatically" part. That usurps the power of the Court to determine an appropriate sentence in each case and appears to be a deliberate attempt to avoid having these cases tested before a judge by incentivizing people to plead guilty even if they have a good case. I don't believe there's anything similar to that in the BC law, and I think that part might lead to it getting rejected again.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Ideal? Zero. Acceptable? I’m not sure, but as a society we readily accept that it’s higher than zero. If we’re going to be a realist about it, we live in imperfect conditions, and while perfection should always be the goal, should we condemn “good” in the process?

This is pathetic.