Castanet

dontrump wrote:My numbers were very clear and accurate you misread/misunderstood them is all
and had he been picked up on his way home earlier he would have been over 1 for sure

I'm sorry dt... I went over your figures and you were a lot closer than I gave you credit for. Apologies...

mund is a lier and we all know that heres the big lie he claims only two drinks?? assuming the standard drink
was used and he was picked up about 3-4 hours after his last drink and he still registered .05

Correct so far. Yes, he blew a "Warn" so his reading would be between 50 mgs and 79 mgs. You are fair giving him the ".05" reading.

hes lieing because2 drinks will be .05 in the first place

2 drinks will be 20 mgs X 2 = 40 mg (or .04) for a 150 lb male. Being that the mayor is over 150 lbs is would be even lower.

but a person around 180 lbs will lose .05 --.06 in 3 hours

It doesn't matter the weight of a person, generally that average oxidization is 15 mgs an hour so 45 mgs in 3 hours. You are a bit high, stating 50 mgs (.05) to 60 mgs (.06)

so he should have been below .05 when pulled over at or around 2-3 am but was still ,05 so iam pretty sure he was around .1 or better when he originally drove home

You're darn right. Two drinks would be less than the 50 mgs required to obtain the warn, forgetting about the oxidization rate. If he had really only had two drinks, if he was driving home from the function and was pulled over 10 minutes after he left the function he would have blown less than a "Warn".

In the hundreds and hundreds of impaired drivers I have arrested, probably 80% said they had "two drinks". It was quite refreshing when someone said "Oh I've had tons and tons to drink".

The actual standard for a WARN reading is 50mg% to 79mg% it is currently 60mg% to 99mg%. This is fact.
In 2009 when the program went live it was 50mg% as the base but when it was ammended via court rulings etc the statute was changed to a base of 60mg% as the lower range for the WARN.

Alanjh raised a great point in another thread. Vernon has documented staffing issues with being chronically short staffed at RCMP. How much effort was put into catching this guy. Obv they knew something was up and someone decided to check it out. Good job to the Vernon RCMP. Even tho they are short handed they went after a big fish

Jflem1983 wrote:Obv they knew something was up and someone decided to check it out. Good job to the Vernon RCMP. Even tho they are short handed they went after a big fish

Obviously the police were doing checks on those leaving the downtown area. The mayor was pulled over at 2:30 in the morning.
If the police were really going after him, they could have impounded his car.

Chyren wrote:The actual standard for a WARN reading is 50mg% to 79mg% it is currently 60mg% to 99mg%. This is fact.
In 2009 when the program went live it was 50mg% as the base but when it was ammended via court rulings etc the statute was changed to a base of 60mg% as the lower range for the WARN.

I don't know about it being "fact". It perhaps is a procedural things, but doesn't appear to be changed in law.
The on line BC Motor Vehicle Act "current to November 1, 2017" shows :

Immediate roadside driving prohibition
215.41
(1) In this section, "driver" includes a person having the care or control of a motor vehicle on a highway or industrial road whether or not the motor vehicle is in motion.
(2) In this section and in sections 215.42, 215.43, 215.47, 215.49 and 215.5:
"approved screening device" means a device prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council for the purposes of this section;
"fail" means an indication on an approved screening device that the concentration of alcohol in a person's blood is not less than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood;
"warn" means an indication on an approved screening device that the concentration of alcohol in a person's blood is not less than 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws ... tion215.41

Fancy wrote:

Jflem1983 wrote:Obv they knew something was up and someone decided to check it out. Good job to the Vernon RCMP. Even tho they are short handed they went after a big fish

Obviously the police were doing checks on those leaving the downtown area. The mayor was pulled over at 2:30 in the morning.
If the police were really going after him, they could have impounded his car.

iam pretty sure a .05 warn is a 3 day impound loss of license for 24 hours and about 250$ in two/impound charges

A .05 reading IS NOT a 3 day IRP (which is a driving prohibition of 3 days and usually not a tow)

The range for a 3 day IRP is .06 to .99.

Chyren wrote:A .05 reading IS NOT a 3 day IRP (which is a driving prohibition of 3 days and usually not a tow)

The range for a 3 day IRP is .06 to .99.

If this is the first Warn, it is 3 days. For 3 day and 7 day, it is optional for the police to impound or not. The range is 50 mgs - 80 mgs for a Warn. Read the MVA.

Effect of driving prohibition under section 215.41
215.43 (1) If a person is served with a notice of driving prohibition under section 215.41 in circumstances where an approved screening device registers a warn, the person is prohibited from driving for
(a) 3 days, in the case of a first prohibition,
(b) 7 days, in the case of a second prohibition, or
(c) 30 days, in the case of a subsequent prohibition.

As for impoundment -

Additional consequences — impoundment of vehicle
215.46 (1) If a peace officer serves a person with a notice of a 3-day or 7-day driving prohibition under section 215.41 (3.1) and believes that impoundment of the motor vehicle that the person was driving or operating at the time the notice was served is necessary to prevent the person from driving or operating the motor vehicle before the prohibition expires, the peace officer may cause the motor vehicle to be taken to and impounded at a place directed by the peace officer.

(2) If a peace officer serves a person with a notice of a 30-day or 90-day driving prohibition under section 215.41 (3.1), the peace officer must cause the motor vehicle that the person was driving or operating at the time the notice was served to be taken to and impounded at a place directed by the peace officer.

Chyren wrote:A .05 reading IS NOT a 3 day IRP (which is a driving prohibition of 3 days and usually not a tow)

The range for a 3 day IRP is .06 to .99.

LOL its been .05 -.08 for years I did think the impound was mandatory but apparently its not

as it reads ""the peace officer may cause the motor vehicle to be taken""

The Approved Screening Device commonly used at this time in BC is the Alco-Sensor FST, a device produced by Intoximeters of Saint Louis. The versions sold to Canadian police departments have simplified software to make it easier for Canadian police officers to understand the results. The Alco-Sensor FST used in British Columbia indicates “Warn” between 60mg and 99mg in 100ml and “Fail” if over 100mg in 100ml. Below 59mg it displays the actual BAC.

The Motor Vehicle Act (s215.41) states not less than as readings. Due to case law the law has been motified to allow 60mg% to 99mg% which is the current standard.

215.41 (1) In this section, "driver" includes a person having the care or control of a motor vehicle on a highway or industrial road whether or not the motor vehicle is in motion.

(2) In this section and in sections 215.42, 215.43, 215.47, 215.49 and 215.5:
"approved screening device" means a device prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council for the purposes of this section;

"fail" means an indication on an approved screening device that the concentration of alcohol in a person's blood is not less than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood;

"warn" means an indication on an approved screening device that the concentration of alcohol in a person's blood is not less than 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

Again the MVA says "not less than."