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

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I don't really think it is about pulling in more money. I think the goal is to be seen as doing something to solve a problem without spending money on it. The election is coming up and they want to be able to say that they are working to curb drunk driving because any party that argues against that can be painted as a monster. It is a cheap way to score political points. This goes hand in hand with banning things which governments love to do. It doesn't cost much to implement a ban and it shows you care.

If that's the case, then I actually view the government in a worse light because of this. Even if you ignore the violation of civil liberties angle, they're trying to solve a problem (fatalities due to drunk drivers) by targeting the group least likely to be the cause! They're ignoring data and statistics in favour of making flawed legislation that will score cheap political points.

Aiming to reduce drunk driving deaths is a noble goal, of this I'm sure we all agree, but the data has shown that the right way to do this is to focus our efforts against repeat offenders and heavy drinkers (0.15 or above, the group which causes, by far, the most alcohol-related accidents). And as a byproduct of this ineffective and ill-planned legislation, they'll be causing immense harm to Alberta's restaurant and hospitality industry (the #4 employer in the province).

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If that's the case, then I actually view the government in a worse light because of this.

That's the way I have seen it too. I don't see it as a money grab; I see it as them being able to say "we have been getting tougher on drunk driving." Which to the average person sounds good; because the average person won't see that they went after the wrong group.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

You mean by driving on a street where there is a check-stop?

No, I mean by driving erratically or in an unsafe manner.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by NuclearPizzaMan

No, I mean by driving erratically or in an unsafe manner.

Green text /\.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by NuclearPizzaMan

No, I mean by driving erratically or in an unsafe manner.

Right, except that's not the only way this would apply to you and there already laws targeting those driving erratically regardless of what their BAC is.

[automaton 3]

This much discretion in the hands of police, fairly severe penalties and roadside screening devices that are not always 100% reliable is just asking for trouble.

Political posturing at its worst. Don't be calling me for donations Ms. Redford.

[TheIncredibleHulse]

Regardless of whether it's effective or correct from a policy standpoint, I don't see how this possibly passes any sort of Constitutional challenge. You can sell a one-day impound as being a non-punitive measure with the aim of road safety. But when you bump it up to three - no one is still going to be drunk and a dangerous driver more than 1 day removed from the initial stop (and if they are, they're going to be blowing a ridiculous number on the breathalyzer anyways.) It's pretty obvious that rather than a public safety measure, it's designed to punish people who drive at between 0.05 and 0.08, because there's no other explanation for bumping the impound time from 24 hours to 72 hours. If that's the case, it's going to be really hard for the province to justify that the law is within their Constitutional jurisdiction, and not criminal in nature.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleHulse

Regardless of whether it's effective or correct from a policy standpoint, I don't see how this possibly passes any sort of Constitutional challenge. You can sell a one-day impound as being a non-punitive measure with the aim of road safety. But when you bump it up to three - no one is still going to be drunk and a dangerous driver more than 1 day removed from the initial stop (and if they are, they're going to be blowing a ridiculous number on the breathalyzer anyways.) It's pretty obvious that rather than a public safety measure, it's designed to punish people who drive at between 0.05 and 0.08, because there's no other explanation for bumping the impound time from 24 hours to 72 hours. If that's the case, it's going to be really hard for the province to justify that the law is within their Constitutional jurisdiction, and not criminal in nature.

BC Supreme Court ruled that the punishments for 0.05-0.08 were constitutional.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by jar_e

BC Supreme Court ruled that the punishments for 0.05-0.08 were constitutional.

And I'd think that we'd all be shocked if it wasn't overturned by the BCCA

Remember that every single case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada had one of the parties lose at one point in time (possibly Trial, Court of Appeal or Leave to Appeal).

[TheIncredibleHulse]

Originally Posted by jar_e

BC Supreme Court ruled that the punishments for 0.05-0.08 were constitutional.

Interesting. From a logic perspective though, the court says that the problem it has with the law is that it allows police to imposes criminal-like penalties without a chance for drivers to challenge the decision.

So if that's the case, hasn't the court said that the penalties/sanctions are criminal, which should be illegal for a province to enact? It'll be interesting to see what the BCCA says about it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by jar_e

BC Supreme Court ruled that the punishments for 0.05-0.08 were constitutional.

You honestly think thats going to last?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

And I'd think that we'd all be shocked if it wasn't overturned by the BCCA

Remember that every single case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada had one of the parties lose at one point in time (possibly Trial, Court of Appeal or Leave to Appeal).

I'm not totally familiar with the Canadian appeals process, but I'm not sure that's correct. A party can lose at every level and appeal to next and have the case heard can they not?

[TheIncredibleHulse]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm not totally familiar with the Canadian appeals process, but I'm not sure that's correct. A party can lose at every level and appeal to next and have the case heard can they not?

If I remember correctly, the only cases that are guaranteed to be heard at the Supreme Court level are indictable offense criminal cases that have a dissenting justice at the Provincial Court of Appeals level.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm not totally familiar with the Canadian appeals process, but I'm not sure that's correct. A party can lose at every level and appeal to next and have the case heard can they not?

Well yes/no

Let's use this as an example there are two options that go to the Supreme Court:

At Trail: BC Law upheld, BC wins

At Court of Appeal: BC law upheld, BC wins

Leave for appeal to the Supreme Court: Leave for appeal denied, BC wins

At Supreme Court: Not heard as leave for appeal was denied.

OR

At Trail: BC Law upheld, BC wins

At Court of Appeal: BC law upheld, BC wins

Leave for appeal to the Supreme Court: Leave for appeal accepted, BC loses

Essentially you have to lose at some point, but it may only be at the request to hear the case.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

And I'd think that we'd all be shocked if it wasn't overturned by the BCCA

Remember that every single case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada had one of the parties lose at one point in time (possibly Trial, Court of Appeal or Leave to Appeal).

People on this board seem to be so quick to say its unconstitutional for whatever reasons...all I'm saying, is people who actually make these decisions throughout the government and the court systems have so far deemed it is constitutional thus far...its not as black and white as some posters on this board are painting it out to be.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Well yes/no

Let's use this as an example there are two options that go to the Supreme Court:

At Trail: BC Law upheld, BC wins

At Court of Appeal: BC law upheld, BC wins

Leave for appeal to the Supreme Court: Leave for appeal denied, BC wins

At Supreme Court: Not heard as leave for appeal was denied.

OR

At Trail: BC Law upheld, BC wins

At Court of Appeal: BC law upheld, BC wins

Leave for appeal to the Supreme Court: Leave for appeal accepted, BC loses

Essentially you have to lose at some point, but it may only be at the request to hear the case.

Yeah, that's what I thought. I don't really consider an acceptance of a leave for appeal to be a loss though as no decision is entered on the merits.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Locke

You honestly think thats going to last?

As i said in my post above, no matter what happens now, its around for a little bit in Alberta (and I'd say by a little bit, probably a couple of years if it ever gets turned over).

We can bitch about the legalities and such forever, but its now an active law in Alberta.

[Mike Vernon]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I don't really think it is about pulling in more money.

Bhahahahaha, Can I please live in your fantasy world?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by jar_e

People on this board seem to be so quick to say its unconstitutional for whatever reasons...all I'm saying, is people who actually make these decisions throughout the government and the court systems have so far deemed it is constitutional thus far...its not as black and white as some posters on this board are painting it out to be.

There are lots of things that governments do that are unconstitutional. Checkstops are unconstitional, as are the french language laws in Quebec. A lot of things that child protective services do are unconstitutional. In some cases courts have decided that the benefit to society is greater than the cost imposed. In the Quebec case I think the government has invoked the notwithstanding clause.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

There are lots of things that governments do that are unconstitutional. Checkstops are unconstitional, as are the french language laws in Quebec. A lot of things that child protective services do are unconstitutional. In some cases courts have decided that the benefit to society is greater than the cost imposed. In the Quebec case I think the government has invoked the notwithstanding clause.

Sorry..maybe "legally accepted" is a better term.