Drunk driving to be largely decriminalized in Alberta in 2018

[Ducay]

2A is very difficult to prove via "hard" evidence in court as it is, so hence why taking due process out of the equation is very scary. All I have to do is piss off the wrong cop on the wrong day and they can get me with a "2A" with no burden of proof, even if I were to blow a 0.01?

Sure cops can use 2A to get someone off the road, but I would imagine the conviction rate is damned near 0% unless they did something else (crashed, video of field sobriety, etc).

[Oling_Roachinen]

I'm not arguing one way or another for it, just stating a fact. If PepsiFree is a proponent of the law, he should probably understand the actual law and he appears mistaken with his argument.

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

That said, those people should still have due process. Part of which would be documented certified breath tests or an accused's refusal to provide them.

And in BC they do. It's the Criminal Code of Canada that gives the above noted three methods for a criminal conviction, but even in BC that requires prosecution through the court system.

What BC also has is the immediate roadside prohibition penalties that are based on the reading of a screening device (plus a second if requested). Different penalties depending on if you blow between 0.05-0.079 and 0.08+ and above and the discretion of the officer. There is, as far as I can tell, no discretion for the officer to do an immediate roadside prohibition for "impaired driving" if the person blows below 0.05. If the officer want's to take that route, it's through the Criminal Code of Canada and the courts.

Alberta's Bill 29 appears different in that regard in that an officer could simply revoke a licence without any due process if he simply believes (or says he believes) that the person is impaired.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Ducay

2A is very difficult to prove via "hard" evidence in court as it is, so hence why taking due process out of the equation is very scary. All I have to do is piss off the wrong cop on the wrong day and they can get me with a "2A" with no burden of proof, even if I were to blow a 0.01?

Sure cops can use 2A to get someone off the road, but I would imagine the conviction rate is damned near 0% unless they did something else (crashed, video of field sobriety, etc).

And that is essentially what happened here:
https://globalnews.ca/news/3909249/c...nothing-wrong/
Dilated pupils was all they had. 24 hour suspension.

Now Bill 29 is allowing them to do 3 months and forcing you to install a one-year provincial ignition interlock program.

[manwiches]

My buddy is a criminal defence lawyer. He told me this was in the pipes a year and a half ago, and would have a huge impact on criminal law firms.

Why would most hire a lawyer for $$$ when you can pay a fine for $ and walk away?

Personally I think it's stupid. Make it zero tolerance and don't do it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I'm not arguing one way or another for it, just stating a fact. If PepsiFree is a proponent of the law, he should probably understand the actual law and he appears mistaken with his argument.


Alberta's Bill 29 appears different in that regard in that an officer could simply revoke a licence without any due process if he simply believes (or says he believes) that the person is impaired.

I understand both the current act and Bill 29 quite well, we’ll enough to stand behind my support of it.

From my reading of Bill 29 in conjunction with the current traffic act, it seems like you’re actually the one mistaken (because you’re looking at the traffic act, not the amendments Bill 29 proposes). Any revoking of a license due to an officer simply “believing” that the person is impaired would be immediately struck down on appeal, with any fines or suspensions returned/lifted. Not much different than now, and much faster than dealing with it in criminal court.

Originally Posted by Ducay

2A is very difficult to prove via "hard" evidence in court as it is, so hence why taking due process out of the equation is very scary. All I have to do is piss off the wrong cop on the wrong day and they can get me with a "2A" with no burden of proof, even if I were to blow a 0.01?

Sure cops can use 2A to get someone off the road, but I would imagine the conviction rate is damned near 0% unless they did something else (crashed, video of field sobriety, etc).

It’s actually less scary now. Bill 29 makes the use of an alcohol sensing device mandatory, and should that not be followed, you can appeal it (where the appeal board must cancel the suspension or disqualification and order any fees paid by you to the government returned).

The more I dig into this bill, the better it seems for both the safety of our roads and law abiding citizens passionate about due process.

[Oling_Roachinen]

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADDA...2_bill-029.pdf

13 Section 88.1 is amended
(a) in subsection (1)
(i) by renumbering clause (a) as clause (a.1) and by
adding the following before clause (a.1):
(a) “approved instrument” means a device that is
designed to receive and make an analysis of a sample
of the breath of a person in order to measure the
concentration of alcohol in that person’s blood and
that is
(i) an approved instrument within the meaning of
section 254 of the Criminal Code (Canada), or
(ii) approved under this Act by the Lieutenant
Governor in Council to be used for the purposes
of this section;
(ii) in clauses (a.1) and (b) by striking out “(2)” and
substituting “(2.2)”;
(b) by repealing subsection (2) and substituting the
following:
(2) Subject to subsection (2.1), where a peace officer has
reasonable grounds to believe any of the following, the peace
officer shall, on behalf of the Registrar, take the actions set out
in subsection (2.2):
(a) that a person operated a motor vehicle or had care or
control of a motor vehicle while the person’s ability to
operate the motor vehicle was impaired to any degree by
alcohol or a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a
drug;
(b) by reason of an analysis of the breath or blood of a
person, that a person operated a motor vehicle or had
care or control of a motor vehicle having consumed
alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration of

What am I misreading here?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

EDIT: beaten to it. Seriously though Pepsi, when you say "the more I dig into this bill" , did that digging include actually reading the bill?

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I'm not arguing one way or another for it, just stating a fact. If PepsiFree is a proponent of the law, he should probably understand the actual law and he appears mistaken with his argument.



And in BC they do. It's the Criminal Code of Canada that gives the above noted three methods for a criminal conviction, but even in BC that requires prosecution through the court system.

What BC also has is the immediate roadside prohibition penalties that are based on the reading of a screening device (plus a second if requested). Different penalties depending on if you blow between 0.05-0.079 and 0.08+ and above and the discretion of the officer. There is, as far as I can tell, no discretion for the officer to do an immediate roadside prohibition for "impaired driving" if the person blows below 0.05. If the officer want's to take that route, it's through the Criminal Code of Canada and the courts.

Alberta's Bill 29 appears different in that regard in that an officer could simply revoke a licence without any due process if he simply believes (or says he believes) that the person is impaired.

Want to correct your post. From .05-.06 you can be issued a 24 hour suspension. From .060-.100 you get a 3 day (or 7 if you’ve already had one) suspension. 90 day suspensions are for .100 and above (or refusing to provide a sample).

[Oling_Roachinen]

a peace officer has charged a person with an offence under
section 253, subsection 254(5) or section 255 of the
Criminal Code (Canada),
the peace officer shall, on behalf of the Registrar,
(b) in the case of a person who holds an operator’s licence,
(i) require that person to surrender to the peace officer
that person’s operator’s licence, and
(ii) serve on that person a notice of suspension of that
person’s operator’s licence;

The above is the current traffic act. You'll notice it currently requires the officer to charge the accused under the Criminal Code.

Subject to subsection (2.1), where a peace officer has
reasonable grounds to believe any of the following, the peace
officer shall, on behalf of the Registrar, take the actions set out
in subsection (2.2):
(a) that a person operated a motor vehicle or had care or
control of a motor vehicle while the person’s ability to
operate the motor vehicle was impaired to any degree by
alcohol or a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a
drug;

(2.2) The peace officer shall, on behalf of the Registrar,

This (as posted previously in full) is the amendment. It no longer requires the officer to charge the accused under the Criminal Code of Canada - that's pretty much the point of the bill.

I don't know about the appeals, if you have information I missed I'd like to see it, but seems weird for them to explicitly state in Bill 29 that an officer can revoke a person's licence for 90 days and require an alcohol-sensing device installed based on 2(a), and then have an appeal for doing just that.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Want to correct your post. From .05-.06 you can be issued a 24 hour suspension. From .060-.100 you get a 3 day (or 7 if you’ve already had one) suspension. 90 day suspensions are for .100 and above (or refusing to provide a sample).

Sorry what are you correcting, are we talking BC?
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/t...s/drug-alcohol

Your breath sample contains a BAC of not less than 0.05mg/100ml, the following consequences will occur:

1st time within five-year period

Your driver's licence is seized immediately, prohibiting you from driving for three days.
The vehicle you are driving may be impounded for three days; and if so, you are responsible for all towing and vehicle storage costs.
You are required to pay a $200 administrative penalty.
You have to apply to have your driver's licence reinstated and pay the licence reinstatement fee as well as any other outstanding debts to ICBC or the Government of BC if you wish to drive again.
2nd time within five-year period

Your driver's licence is seized immediately, prohibiting you from driving for seven days.
The vehicle you are driving may be impounded for seven days; and if so, you are responsible for all towing and vehicle storage costs.
You are required to pay a $300 administrative penalty.
You may be referred to the Responsible Driver Program.
You have to apply to have your driver's licence reinstated and pay the licence reinstatement fee as well as any other outstanding debts to ICBC or the Government of BC if you wish to drive again.
3rd time within five-year period

Your driver's licence is seized immediately, prohibiting you from driving for 30 days.
The vehicle you are driving is impounded immediately, for 30 days, and you are responsible for all towing and storage costs.
You are required to pay a $400 administrative penalty.
You may be referred to the Responsible Driver Program.
You may be referred to the Ignition Interlock Program.
You have to apply to have your driver's licence reinstated and pay the licence reinstatement fee as well as any other outstanding debts to ICBC or the Government of BC if you wish to drive again.

If your breath sample produces a FAIL result on the ASD, indicating a BAC of not less than 0.08mg/100ml, or you refuse or fail to provide a breath sample, a peace officer may issue a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) or at the officer’s discretion, proceed by way of a Criminal Code charge.

If you are issued a 90-day IRP the following consequences will occur:

Your driver's licence is seized immediately, prohibiting you from driving for 90 days.
The vehicle you are driving will be impounded for thirty days; you are responsible for all towing and storage costs.
You are required to pay a $500 administrative penalty.
You may be referred to the Responsible Driver Program.
You may be referred to the Ignition Interlock Program.
You have to apply to have your driver's licence reinstated and pay the licence reinstatement fee as well as any other outstanding debts to ICBC or the Government of BC if you wish to drive again.

[PepsiFree]

Oh, yeah, I actually misread the device thing, my bad.

What I said about the ability to appeal though is true. An officer has less power to suspend your license without a breathalyzer with Bill 29 than in the current state.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I don't know about the appeals, if you have information I missed I'd like to see it, but seems weird for them to explicitly state in Bill 29 that an officer can revoke a person's licence for 90 days and require an alcohol-sensing device installed based on 2(a), and then have an appeal for doing just that.

No weirder than having an officer be able to suspend your license until your court date when you might just be found not guilty.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Can you at least post the appeal stuff?

Right now an officer is required to go through the Criminal Code to pursue impaired driving without blowing over.

With Bill 29, he does not. I don't know how it is harder...

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No weirder than having an officer be able to suspend your license until your court date when you might just be found not guilty.

https://www.transportation.alberta.c...duction/QA.pdf

14. Under what circumstances can my licence be suspended for longer than 24
hours?
Your driving privileges may be suspended for a period longer than 24 hours under the
following conditions:
• If you hold a graduated driver’s licence, your blood alcohol content analysis must
be zero. Any reading will result in an immediate 30 day licence suspension.
• If your blood alcohol content reading is .05 or greater, you will receive a roadside
suspension. The first offence results in a licence suspension of 3 days.
Subsequent offences will result in an increased term of suspension to 15 days on
the second offence and 30 days for 3 or more offences.
• If your blood alcohol content reading is over .08, you will receive an immediate
Alberta administrative licence suspension and you will be charged with an
offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. Your Alberta administrative licence
suspension will remain in effect until the criminal charge is resolved.
• If you refuse to provide a breath sample on the demand of a peace officer, you
will receive an immediate Alberta administrative licence suspension and you will
be charged with an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. Your Alberta
administrative licence suspension will remain in effect until the criminal charge is
resolved.

Umm, wrong again?

Only if you blow over 0.05 can you lose your licence for more than 24 hours...at least according to Alberta Transportation.

[Oling_Roachinen]

PepsiFree, you clearly came into this thread with no idea of the current laws or the amendment laws but decided to have the preconceived notion that you were going to support the change. You've posted incorrect fact after incorrect fact to support your argument and keep moving goal posts as your "facts" get proven wrong.

Currently, an officer needs to charge a person under the Criminal Code in order to "get them" for impaired driving (i.e. not blowing over 0.05). They have their licenced revoke for a year after being found guilty. An officer can revoke a licence if they blow over 0.05, however, as Alberta Transportation states.

Disqualification for impaired driving
83(1) When a person is found guilty under section 253 or 254 of
the Criminal Code (Canada) anywhere in Canada, that person on
being found guilty becomes disqualified from driving a motor
vehicle for a period of one year from the day of the finding of guilt.

(2) Where
(a) a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a
person drove a motor vehicle, and
(b) in relation to that person driving that motor vehicle, the
peace officer has reasonable grounds by means of analysis
of a sample of breath using an approved screening device
or approved instrument to believe that the person has
consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the
concentration of alcohol in that person’s blood is equal to
or exceeds 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of
blood,
the peace officer shall, on behalf of the Registrar,
(c) in the case of a person who holds an operator’s licence,
(i) require that person to surrender to the peace officer
that person’s operator’s licence, and
(ii) serve on that person a notice of suspension of that
person’s operator’s licence;

The new Bill 29 allows an officer to bypass that completely and revoke the licence for 3 months and require a device installed simply if they believe the person is impaired. Whereas before, they could only issue a 24 hour suspension under this:

172 Where a person has been charged with an offence under
(a), (b) repealed 2011 c22 s18,
(c) section 115(2)(c) or (d), where a peace officer believes
that the safety of the public may be at risk, then,
notwithstanding sections 169 and 170,
a peace officer or another person authorized by a peace officer
may, for a period of time not exceeding 24 hours from the time that
the person was charged, seize or immobilize the motor vehicle that
was being operated by that person at the time that the person was
charged.

Currently, if I'm swerving in and out of lanes (or if the officer said I did) and get pulled over and blow 0.04, I can be charged under the Criminal Code. I can have my licence revoked for 24 hours and my car impounded. I get them both back the next day. I lose my licence for a year if I'm found guilty.

After Bill 29, if I'm swerving in and out of lanes (or if the officer said I did) and get pulled over and blow 0.04. I don't need to be charged under the Criminal Code. I can have my licence revoked for 3 months, my car impounded, and require me to install a breathalyzer on my car for a year if I want to drive. I do not have to be found guilty, I now need to fight this.

If this isn't correct, I'd like to see the actual law as right now it looks pretty black and white.

Of course people can still support the Bill, but the fact that pretty much everything you've said has been factually wrong since your first post sort of leads me to believe that you're just supporting it for the sake of supporting it and not what it actually entails.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Currently, an officer needs to charge a person under the Criminal Code in order to "get them" for impaired driving (i.e. not blowing over 0.05). They have their licenced revoke for a year after being found guilty. An officer can revoke a licence if they blow over 0.05, however, as Alberta Transportation states.




The new Bill 29 allows an officer to bypass that completely and revoke the licence for 3 months and require a device installed simply if they believe the person is impaired. Whereas before, they could only issue a 24 hour suspension under this:



Currently, if I'm swerving in and out of lanes (or if the officer said I did) and get pulled over and blow 0.04, I can be charged under the Criminal Code. I can have my licence revoked for 24 hours and my car impounded. I get them both back the next day. I lose my licence for a year if I'm found guilty.

The section you’re pointing to (172) to cite the 24 hour rule isn’t related to license disqualification. In fact, if impaired and not charged under the criminal code, your license is gone for 3, 15, or 30 days (not 24 hours).

If charged under section 253 of the criminal code:

Operation while impaired

253 (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,

(a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or

(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.

Marginal note:For greater certainty

(2) For greater certainty, the reference to impairment by alcohol or a drug in paragraph (1)(a) includes impairment by a combination of alcohol and a drug.

The punishments are much more severe while you wait for trial, as under section 88.1 anyone charged under 253 has their licence suspended until the resolution of their criminal charge.

253 states you have to be impaired OR blow over .08 to be charged under the criminal code. Maybe I’m wrong, but that doesn’t seem to be a high bar to hit.

And I reject your assumption that I’m moving the goal posts or have been factually incorrect. You just cited 172 to talk about when you get your license back which doesn’t even mention licenses, so at worst we’ve both made a mistake (mine being the mandatory device testing). Though I still hold firm that any enforcement not based on firm evidence is going to be appealed and overturned easily, based on Bill 29.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

What does the Criminal Code have to do with anything? That provision isn't changing or being replaced by this legislation, obviously.

EDIT: I think you might be looking for section 88.1(3.7) and following, as amended by Bill 29. I only skimmed it, but it appears that in any circumstance where your licence is suspended, you can accompany the officer to a designated place (presumably a police station), take a blood test of some sort, and if you pass, get your licence back immediately.

[Kjesse]

nm

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

What does the Criminal Code have to do with anything? That provision isn't changing or being replaced by this legislation, obviously.

EDIT: I think you might be looking for section 88.1(3.7) and following, as amended by Bill 29. I only skimmed it, but it appears that in any circumstance where your licence is suspended, you can accompany the officer to a designated place (presumably a police station), take a blood test of some sort, and if you pass, get your licence back immediately.

Unless I’m wrong, it also looks like the amendment to 88 makes it mandatory for officers to inform the driver of their right to take a test (thus negating the “I lose my licence because he doesn’t like me” worry):

Section 88 is amended by adding the following after subsection (6):
(6.1) The peace officer shall advise the person of the person’s right to voluntarily undergo a test referred to in subsection (6).

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The section you’re pointing to (172) to cite the 24 hour rule isn’t related to license disqualification. In fact, if impaired and not charged under the criminal code, your license is gone for 3, 15, or 30 days (not 24 hours).

If charged under section 253 of the criminal code:


The punishments are much more severe while you wait for trial, as under section 88.1 anyone charged under 253 has their licence suspended until the resolution of their criminal charge.

253 states you have to be impaired OR blow over .08 to be charged under the criminal code. Maybe I’m wrong, but that doesn’t seem to be a high bar to hit.

And I reject your assumption that I’m moving the goal posts or have been factually incorrect. You just cited 172 to talk about when you get your license back which doesn’t even mention licenses, so at worst we’ve both made a mistake (mine being the mandatory device testing). Though I still hold firm that any enforcement not based on firm evidence is going to be appealed and overturned easily, based on Bill 29.

Yes, PepsiFree, you can be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada under 253. That does not change, at all, with Bill 29.

I'll give you that there's some confusion because section 88.1, has already been stricken down by the Alberta Court of Appeals as unconstituational. As it stands today, you can not have your licence revoked for being impaired without being found guilty.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ence-1.4121760
https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/4285

It, along as a response to the legalization of weed, is why they introduced the changes.

Once again, ask Alberta Transportation which makes it explicitly clear when you can lose your licence under today's rules:
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/4958.htm

Under what circumstances can I be given a 24 hour suspension?
You may be issued a 24 hour licence suspension/disqualification if your ability to operate a motor vehicle is impaired by alcohol, drugs or a combination of both, or your driving ability is affected by a physical and/or medical condition.

Under what circumstances can my licence be suspended for longer than 24 hours?
Your driving privileges may be suspended for a period longer than 24 hours under the following conditions:
If you hold a graduated driver's licence, your blood alcohol content analysis must be zero. Any reading will result in an immediate 30 day licence suspension.
If your blood alcohol content reading is .05 or greater, you will receive a roadside suspension. The first offence results in a licence suspension of 3 days. Subsequent offences will result in an increased term of suspension to 15 days on the second offence and 30 days for 3 or more offences.
If your blood alcohol content reading is over .08, you will receive an immediate Alberta administrative licence suspension and you will be charged with an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. Your Alberta administrative licence suspension will remain in effect until the criminal charge is resolved.
If you refuse to provide a breath sample on the demand of a peace officer, you will receive an immediate Alberta administrative licence suspension and you will be charged with an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. Your Alberta administrative licence suspension will remain in effect until the criminal charge is resolved.
...
Doesn#t this law make the police "judge, jury and executioner"?
Police officers already issue immediate 24 hour license suspensions when they suspect a driver#s ability to operate a motor vehicle is impaired by alcohol, drugs or a combination of both.
Immediate roadside suspensions of 3 days or more will not be issued based on the judgment of a police officer. These suspensions are based on readings from scientifically approved devices that are rigorously maintained, checked and carefully calibrated. A driver can request a second test on a second device.

In addition, any suspension of more than 3 days can be appealed to the Alberta Transportation Safety Board.

Notice that you can lose your licence for 24 hours if you are an "impaired driver".

Notice that you can not lose your licence for more than 24 hours without blowing over 0.05 (outside of GDL).

Bill 29 will allow it, and I think will face the same problems as the current 88.1 when it comes down to it.

So yes, when it comes down to it, today, if a cop believes you are impaired he can revoke your licence for a day. This can be as simple and subjective as dilated pupils. Alberta Transportation explicitly confirms this.

With Bill 29, the same kid who lost his licence for a day because he has dilated pupils, would face 3 months, plus require an expensive breathalyzer device installed on his vehicle if he didn't want to lose his licence for another year at the discretion of the same officer who thought he was impaired. There's very little oversight, given that it's now simply the discretion of the officer without needing to provide evidence in court.