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

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

No that's not how it works, you need to read more about the new law.

If you blow over 0.05 they take your license and impound your car. No reblowing at the cop shop, no appeal in court if you want.

Edit: This is in reply to you saying "they are not gone at all".

I think he was talking about rights not being gone under the previous 24 hour suspension system, not the new 0.05 rule.

[GP_Matt]

I was replying to jar_e's claim that the new law just ups the punishment for something that was already banned.

As for the new law, I am strongly against anything that limits our access to the court system and sidesteps the actual legal process by calling it an administrative penalty instead of a law.

The whole point of this new law seems to be about appearing to do something to solve a problem while not actually solving the problem. The majority of deaths from drinking and driving are from drivers who are heavily intoxicated and yet they are doing nothing to stop them. Many of them are going to court and fighting their charges successfully so the province is coming up with a way to work around the courts. The much better move in my opinion would be to look into why the conviction rate for drunk driving is so low and work on fixing that. Maybe the police need to do a better job documenting the arrest or the prosecutors need to do a better job producing experts to counter the claims of the defendants experts. I don't really know the solution but suspect that there is something that can be done to work within the existing rules.

And if they study the issue and determine that people between 0.05 and 0.08 are impaired enough that it effects their driving then I will be fully in support of changing the actual law to make doing so a crime. (on that note, there must be studies out there that have looked at the effects of alcohol in that range on driving ability, has anyone seen any?)

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

They are not gone at all. The 24 hour suspension can be appealed simply by following the officer to the police station and submitting to a proper test. If you do and blow under 0.08 then you get your license back and are on your merry way. I think the 24 hour suspension predates accurate mobile breathalyzers in every vehicle so if you were pulled over and the officer felt you were slightly impaired but couldn't tell he could issue a 24 hour suspension meaning you could either wait or prove your innocence.

Yeah that's not how a 24 hour suspension works at all.

You can't appeal it. There's no following the officer back and going on a breathalyzer. The simple admission of alcohol when you are pulled over is grounds to be put on a roadside. If you blow > than 0.05, you can receive a 24 hour suspension. The 0.05 thing has always been there with 24 hour suspensions. The only thing that's changing is the penalties.

Edit: and furthermore, if you blew >0.08, you wouldn't be getting just a 24 hour suspension, you'd be charged with impaired driving.

[Green Machine]

I am definitely wary of giving cops this kind of power with no possible recourse afterwards. I've been through plenty of checkstops and haven't actually ever taken a breathalyzer. Typically I hadn't had anything and told them so, but a couple times I had consumed either 1 or 2 beers over the course of a Flames game at the dome and told the cop so when asked if I had anything to drink. Both times the cop leaned in and examined me closely with the whole flashlight in the eyes and thanked me for not drinking more and sent me on my way.

No problem with either officer above when being honest about my modest alcohol consumption made me think that honesty could be the best policy. Then I got pulled over with expired registration one evening by a power hungry cop with an attitude.

Having not renewed my registration on time, I definitely deserved a ticket but this cop was on a mission to hit me with everything he could. When he asked me had if I'd had anything to drink that evening I told him that I'd had one beer shortly before. This was the absolute truth and there is no way that I appeared intoxicated after one drink. The cop said that he would be giving me a 24 hour suspension and impounding my vehicle based on my admission of drinking. I asked why he didn't just give me a breathalyzer and he said he didn't have one but if I preferred he could officially arrest me and take me to the station to be tested.

I didn't really want to spend more time than necessary with this cop as he was being a real prick and actually asked his partner in front of me, "what else can we try and nail this guy with?" This was right before giving me a redundant ticket for improper use of plate (on top of the expired registration), and a complete BS $500 unsecure load ticket for a fibreglass stepladder resting in the bed of my truck.

So being someone who's been given a 24hr suspension and impound without so much as being able to take a breathalyzer, I certainly can't support a system in which these penalties are escalated without avenues for fighting the charges made available. I'm sure that the extreme majority of cops would enforce the rule fairly and as it was intended but there will always be a few that abuse their authority and act unfairly.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by Locke

What? Thats not going to work because it isnt worth it.

Having something to eat and a couple drinks after work or with dinner is nothing. Having to plan an entire exit strategy makes the whole thing more effort than its worth. Screw it then and just eat at home. Guess who loses?

I agree it is nothing, I am just saying if they did bring in a zero tolerance policy people would change their habits. And yes you could just eat at home and have drink with dinner,But anybody you invite over still can't drink so again they would have to plan ahead. So you still would have to plan an exit strategy. Luckily there isn't a zero policy in place, so really it is a moot point anyways.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Yeah that's not how a 24 hour suspension works at all.

You can't appeal it. There's no following the officer back and going on a breathalyzer. The simple admission of alcohol when you are pulled over is grounds to be put on a roadside. If you blow > than 0.05, you can receive a 24 hour suspension. The 0.05 thing has always been there with 24 hour suspensions. The only thing that's changing is the penalties.

Edit: and furthermore, if you blew >0.08, you wouldn't be getting just a 24 hour suspension, you'd be charged with impaired driving.

You can find the entire traffic safety act here but I have cut out the important part for your benefit.
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/t06.pdf

24-hour disqualification re alcohol or drug
89(1) If a peace officer reasonably suspects that the driver of a
motor vehicle has consumed alcohol or otherwise introduced into
the driver’s body any alcohol, drug or other substance in such a
quantity so as to affect the driver’s physical or mental ability, the
peace officer may require the driver to surrender the driver’s
operator’s licence to the peace officer.
(2) On being required by a peace officer to surrender the driver’s
operator’s licence under subsection (1), the driver
(a) is disqualified from driving a motor vehicle in Alberta,
and
(b) shall forthwith surrender the driver’s operator’s licence, if
the driver is the holder of an operator’s licence, to the
peace officer.
(3) The refusal or other failure of a driver to surrender an
operator’s licence under subsection (2) does not prevent the
disqualification from driving from taking effect.
(4) A disqualification from driving arising pursuant to this section
terminates at the end of 24 hours from the time that the
disqualification came into effect.
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (4), if the disqualification from
driving arises in respect of the use of alcohol and the driver
voluntarily,
(a) at a place designated by the peace officer, undergoes a test
the purpose of which is to show the proportion of alcohol
in the driver’s blood, and the result of that test indicates
that the proportion of alcohol in the driver’s blood does
not exceed 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of
blood, or
(b) produces to the peace officer a certificate signed by a
physician stating that the driver’s blood, as tested by the
physician after the commencement of the disqualification
from driving, did not contain more than 80 milligrams of
alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood,
the peace officer shall forthwith return the operator’s licence, if
any, to the driver and the disqualification from driving is
terminated.

I have highlighted the important parts. If your BAC is less than 80 they have to give you your drivers license back and let you go on your merry way. Under the new law, something that is legal is being punished. The reason they don't let you fight it in court is because no law has been broken.

I firmly believe that if driving between 0.05 and 0.08 is dangerous they should make it a crime and punish people accordingly. Personally, I have no idea if it is dangerous or not as I don't have a breathalyzer to play with when I am drinking.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

You can find the entire traffic safety act here but I have cut out the important part for your benefit.
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/t06.pdf


I have highlighted the important parts. If your BAC is less than 80 they have to give you your drivers license back and let you go on your merry way. Under the new law, something that is legal is being punished. The reason they don't let you fight it in court is because no law has been broken.

I firmly believe that if driving between 0.05 and 0.08 is dangerous they should make it a crime and punish people accordingly. Personally, I have no idea if it is dangerous or not as I don't have a breathalyzer to play with when I am drinking.

I think you highlighted the wrong section, I think you meant to highlight section 5(a), but that is negated by the section 1. Its the same reason someone can be charged with impaired driving (criminally) even if they don't blow over 0.08 mg. Its two separate charges under the criminal code (impaired driving/providing a sample over 0.08). The former is merely based on a police officer's opinion that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was affected by the consumption of alcohol.

Furthermore, there is more than adequate case law that anyone who provides a "warn" in a roadside screening device (0.05 and 0.08) will receive a 24 hour suspension. This is common practice in Alberta.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by jar_e

I think you highlighted the wrong section, I think you meant to highlight section 5(a), but that is negated by the section 1. Its the same reason someone can be charged with impaired driving (criminally) even if they don't blow over 0.08 mg. Its two separate charges under the criminal code (impaired driving/providing a sample over 0.08). The former is merely based on a police officer's opinion that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was affected by the consumption of alcohol.

Furthermore, there is more than adequate case law that anyone who provides a "warn" in a roadside screening device (0.05 and 0.08) will receive a 24 hour suspension. This is common practice in Alberta.

Unless you have another statute that's not listed here you're reading that completely wrong. (1) discusses potential grounds for disqualification, with sections (4) providing the term of the disqualification. (5) is in no way negated by (1), it's the complete opposite. (5) dicates that where the grounds under (1) are impairment due to alcohol the term of the suspension can be less than 24 hours upon proof of BAC <0.08.

Do you have links to any of these cases that would appear to say that it's okay to blatantly go against the text of the highway traffic act?

[GP_Matt]

I highlighted 5b, but both 5a and 5b apply as they both state the conditions to prove that you are under 0.08. Neither one says anything about being between 50 and 80 mg.

And how does section one negate everything below it? Why would they bother writing section 5 if it was negated by the section above it? Section one states that the officer can require a driver to surrender his licence and the sections that follow outline the conditions.

I understand the impaired driving charge being separate, but someone who got a 24 hour suspension isn't being charged with impaired driving. (That can't come without a trial and a guilty verdict)

The law to me though is pretty clear that a person given a 24 hour suspension can dispute it by proving that their BAC is below 80.

[Skootenbeeten]

I don't mind this one bit. IMO if you are caught drunk driving you should be charged with heavier fines. No different than firing a gun into a crowd.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Skootenbeeten

I don't mind this one bit. IMO if you are caught drunk driving you should be charged with heavier fines. No different than firing a gun into a crowd.

Maybe you should start back at page 1 of this thread.

[Skootenbeeten]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Maybe you should start back at page 1 of this thread.

Read through 30 pages of people who just love to hear themselves type? Nah.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Skootenbeeten

I don't mind this one bit. IMO if you are caught drunk driving you should be charged with heavier fines. No different than firing a gun into a crowd.

Have you even bothered to read the thread?

What this law is doing is punishing people without affording them essential civil liberties such as the right to a fair trial and the right to appeal. Maybe you don't think these rights are important and will only affect guilty people who are getting what's coming to them, but I certainly don't feel that way.

Most everyone in this thread agrees that there should be harsher penalities for drunk drivers, especially those who are significantly above the legal limit. Unfortunately, that's not at all what this new law aims to do.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by valo403

Unless you have another statute that's not listed here you're reading that completely wrong. (1) discusses potential grounds for disqualification, with sections (4) providing the term of the disqualification. (5) is in no way negated by (1), it's the complete opposite. (5) dicates that where the grounds under (1) are impairment due to alcohol the term of the suspension can be less than 24 hours upon proof of BAC <0.08.

Do you have links to any of these cases that would appear to say that it's okay to blatantly go against the text of the highway traffic act?

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I highlighted 5b, but both 5a and 5b apply as they both state the conditions to prove that you are under 0.08. Neither one says anything about being between 50 and 80 mg.

And how does section one negate everything below it? Why would they bother writing section 5 if it was negated by the section above it? Section one states that the officer can require a driver to surrender his licence and the sections that follow outline the conditions.

I understand the impaired driving charge being separate, but someone who got a 24 hour suspension isn't being charged with impaired driving. (That can't come without a trial and a guilty verdict)

The law to me though is pretty clear that a person given a 24 hour suspension can dispute it by proving that their BAC is below 80.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...POOYgmcBOpgfHw

Forgive the the horrible linking, but from this fact sheet regarding the new amendment...

What it doesn’t do:
Does not target responsible Albertans who consume small amounts of alcohol on an evening out
Does not add fines or demerit penalties
Does not change the existing BAC limits of .05 and .08

Penalties for BAC levels between .05 and .08
This is not new. Law enforcement officers in Alberta have been issuing 24-hour suspensions to drivers in this blood alcohol range for many years. Every Canadian jurisdiction, with the exception of Quebec, issues a minimum 24-hour suspension for drivers at .05. Nine of those jurisdictions have now introduced tougher sanctions at this level.

I'm not sure why there seems to be a discrepancy with the TSA or if there is some sort of amendment/addition to it regarding 24 hour suspensions. But this is common practice, it happens in all of Alberta, and if you currently blow 0.05 on a roadside screening device, you will be given a 24 hour suspension and you will not have the option to goto a breathalyzer and see if you're over/under 0.08.

Edit: and furthermore, I'm not trying to say that just because it happens, its right, but all of the municipal police departments and RCMP do it, and I'm positive they would do their due diligence with the Alberta Solicitor General and such to continue the practice. Obviously if this was not the case, there would be some sort of appeal/lawsuit against the officer/service for doing as such.

[GP_Matt]

So, what you are saying is that you find the fact sheet to be more reliable than the current act from the Queen's Printer?

You keep mentioning that a person with a 24 hour suspension does not have the option to provide a proper sample and get their licence back early. Do you have any proof of this or is it just something that a friend told you? I provided the law in Alberta which clearly states one thing in order to dispute it you would have to produce the law which states otherwise, or the case law where a judge has overruled that portion of the Traffic Safety Act.

That, or if you say that your friend asked a cop once. I am pretty sure hearsay is right on top of the hierarchy of evidence.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

So, what you are saying is that you find the fact sheet to be more reliable than the current act from the Queen's Printer?

You keep mentioning that a person with a 24 hour suspension does not have the option to provide a proper sample and get their licence back early. Do you have any proof of this or is it just something that a friend told you? I provided the law in Alberta which clearly states one thing in order to dispute it you would have to produce the law which states otherwise, or the case law where a judge has overruled that portion of the Transport Safety Act.

That, or if you say that your friend asked a cop once. I am pretty sure hearsay is right on top of the hierarchy of evidence.

Check your PM's.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Skootenbeeten

I don't mind this one bit. IMO if you are caught drunk driving you should be charged with heavier fines. No different than firing a gun into a crowd.

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

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by flameswin

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

I'm sure someone who just joined the site and says they have no interest in reading other peoples posts will be a quality/long term poster.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I'm sure someone who just joined the site and says they have no interest in reading other peoples posts will be a quality/long term poster.

Yeah, you can usually spot the donkeys right away.

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by Green Machine

....I asked why he didn't just give me a breathalyzer and he said he didn't have one but if I preferred he could officially arrest me and take me to the station to be tested.

I didn't really want to spend more time than necessary with this cop as he was being a real prick and actually asked his partner in front of me......

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

Originally Posted by Green Machine

So being someone who's been given a 24hr suspension and impound without so much as being able to take a breathalyzer......

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