Drunk driving to be largely decriminalized in Alberta in 2018

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by woob

Nah, you blow over you should lose your license. On the spot. I would presume that if you want to challenge, then you take it up with the court system.

It's not a question of whether or not there should be consequences for impaired driving. It's the fact that this is a blatant erosion of a key part of out legal system, the presumption of innocence. No one should be ok with a system that assumes guilt as soon as a police officer accuses someone of an offense and allows the same officer to dole out punishment on the spot, then forces an accused to prove their innocence while being punished for the supposed offense.

Even if you are able to prove your innocence, chances are by that time, you life has already been irreparably harmed.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by transplant99

There are immediate punishments.

As I understand this,

At the discretion of the officer they not only tow your car, they immediately issue a 3 month license suspension. If you want to drive in 3 months , you then at your expense must install an interlock machine. If you don't you don't drive for a year.


Sorry to all the good and fine police officers out there, but i certainly do not think they are qualified to make such life altering decisions on the spot. That should be a court decision, period.


With speeding tickets and such, you still get a court date and a judge to make an informed decision.

Your car is impounded because it is unsafe for you to drive home. That seems reasonable.

The license suspension has to have a court mechanism involved even if it starts immediately. There, like a speeding ticket will be an opportunity to have this heard in a court.

Yes the punishment will begin immediately and I think that is where the law could be changed but it isn't like you have removed all safeguards.

[woob]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Actually I think they should just send suspected murderers straight to jail without a trial either.

LOL. Great comparison.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

It's not a question of whether or not there should be consequences for impaired driving. It's the fact that this is a blatant erosion of a key part of out legal system, the presumption of innocence. No one should be ok with a system that assumes guilt as soon as a police officer accuses someone of an offense and allows the same officer to dole out punishment on the spot, then forces an accused to prove their innocence while being punished for the supposed offense.

Even if you are able to prove your innocence, chances are by that time, you life has already been irreparably harmed.

But how is that different than blowing through a red light in front of a police officer and getting fined? In both cases you can still appeal the punishment in court if you choose.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Wormius

But how is that different than blowing through a red light in front of a police officer and getting fined? In both cases you can still appeal the punishment in court if you choose.

The cop who pulls you over for running a red hands you a ticket, you aren't convicted of the offense until you pay it. The cop doesn't immediately suspend your license on the side of the road and take your vehicle.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by woob

LOL. Great comparison.

It is a proper comparison because due process is required regardless of the charge. LOL you.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The cop who pulls you over for running a red hands you a ticket, you aren't convicted of the offense until you pay it. The cop doesn't immediately suspend your license on the side of the road and take your vehicle.

Exactly. Imagine if you had to pay tickets on the spot and then had to fight to get your money back.

This makes complete sense in a perfect world where police don't make mistakes and equipment never fails. Sadly that's not our world

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by woob

Great comparison.

I agree.

Being accused of something is being accused of something and EVERYONE who is accused of something should have a chance to prove their innocence should they choose to.

[btimbit]

Guilty until proven innocent doesnt sound good to me

[Ducay]

I think its a terrible idea, as is the 0.05 rule for getting towed, same lack of due process.

However, one thought I have, is while I agree even with speeding tickets you get due process, but how does this compare to the "30/40" over laws in AB/BC where they can tow vehicle based on their judgment on the spot? Have those fared better against challenges?

[GGG]

So here's a question for the innocent until proven guilty. Should the person who just blew over be allowed to drive home?

If not you are punishing them without due process.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GGG

So here's a question for the innocent until proven guilty. Should the person who just blew over be allowed to drive home?

If not you are punishing them without due process.

For one night. You can be arrested for anything and held for a night while an investigation takes place. if they want to keep you longer than that ? A COURT decides if that is what should happen

What this proposes is an automatic 3 month suspension, then at your own expense you can drive after that....otherwise you are suspended for 12 months.

All while having zero opportunity to defend any part of it. Whether it be a bad instrument, a vengeful cop, a false reading....whatever. So you get this ticket on Jan 1, you get a court date for March 16 and at that point you get a trial date who knows how far down the road. That whole time, you have no drivers license and/or have to pay thousands to have a BAC machine installed in your vehicle.

What if you are required to drive as a condition of employment and you have done nothing wrong but get a bad reading? You arent just punished by not being able to drive, you also lose your job. Sound like something you want left in the hands of a cop at the side of the road?

[cal_guy]

I think some context is needed here. In May the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned parts that required that anyone charged with impaired driving have their license suspended until the conclusion of the case. This meant that many people who fought and won their cases would be punished for a longer period of time than those who plied guilty. The changes mean that most cases of impaired driving are dealt as a regulatory action. This mean that appeals and disputes must go through a non-judicial board, and only after exhausting all options are you allowed to apply for judicial review.

[RyZ]

Originally Posted by flamesforcup

Cps are a bunch of thugs. Doesnt matter if "90%" of them are good they let the others get away with it with silence

You must hate Hollywood.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

I think some context is needed here. In May the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned parts that required that anyone charged with impaired driving have their license suspended until the conclusion of the case. This meant that many people who fought and won their cases would be punished for a longer period of time than those who plied guilty. The changes mean that most cases of impaired driving are dealt as a regulatory action. This mean that appeals and disputes must go through a non-judicial board, and only after exhausting all options are you allowed to apply for judicial review.

That sounds to me like it will take longer...

If police officers can hand out significant punishment without any court oversight, that is a serious problem, and something that our society shouldn't allow.

If you want to decriminalize it fine, have a ticket that an officer gives out, and you get a date to either plead guilty or show up to an administrative type court (like traffic court). Streamlining the process makes sense, taking away the presumption of innocence, not so much.

[Dion]

How the BC model works...

Warning - 1st time

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.

FAIL, REFUSAL or FAIL TO PROVIDE A BREATH SAMPLE

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.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/t...s/drug-alcohol

[transplant99]

1st scenario would be about 700 bucks depending on admin fees.

2nd scenario would be somewhere North of 3000-4000 dollars depending on fees and interlock costs.

All without a single chance to defend oneself of the accusations.

Yeah, that sounds a whole lot like a few countries most would be ashamed to be associated with, not to mention the likely appeal process someone would certainly undertake to the higher courts where this is just as likely to be found in violation of charter rights as not if i am understanding things correctly.

[Dion]

B.C.'s tough drunk-driving laws upheld, but Supreme Court establishes limits

A Supreme Court ruling has upheld the rights of provinces to impose tough drunk-driving laws, but has also establishes limits.

The court ruled today that B.C.'s tough regime that passed in 2010 needed more emphasis on police oversight and drivers' rights in two decisions addressing the issue.

One of the cases decided today was filed by Lee Wilson. The second case involved Richard Goodwin and a group of other drivers. Goodwin's case dealt with the constitutional issues.

Legal experts who challenged B.C.'s five-year-old law said today's Supreme Court rulings guarantee a better balance between drivers' rights.

"The province's objective was a valid objective, but it needed to be balanced by charter rights," said Shea Coulson, a lawyer who argued automatic roadside prohibitions were unconstitutional.

"The court's biggest concern was that the device used by police was unreliable," said Coulson, adding that there were too few ways to challenge unreliable breathalyzer results.

In 2012 changes to the law ensured that every driver stopped in B.C. and breath tested would be offered a second test on an entirely different device by the officer involved. That was not always happening in the past.

In November 2014, Canada's highest court agreed to hear two cases involving B.C. drivers who were stopped by police at roadside checks. The case was heard in Canada's highest court in May 2015.

In one case, Wilson got a warning after blowing into a roadside screening device.

The other case involves James Goodwin and four other B.C. drivers who either refused to give a breath sample or registered a fail on a roadside screening device.

They challenged the province's automatic roadside prohibitions for those who blow over .08 on a screening device

"The ultimate question is whether the review provisions of the roadside suspension scheme offer reasonable protection against abusive exercise of the state power to intrude on the individual's private sphere, having regard to the nature of the scheme and the privacy interests at stake. In my view, the answer to this question is yes," said C.J. McLachlin, the chief justice who dissented from the other six on the constitutional issue.

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

[Maritime Q-Scout]

If there's no court oversight what's stopping an ####### cop from suspending a license of someone they don't like?

Pull over the car, issue suspention.

With no opportunity to defend oneself it even gives the officer the added efficiency of not even having to administer a breath alert.

[PepsiFree]

Pretty simple: don’t blow over.

Life is tough when you drink and drive.