B.C. drunk driving law could be overturned

[KL3-Something]

Just a thought... I wonder if now you can do something like charge people for an extended warranty on a product when it's virtually impossible to collect on it, and then say it was offered in good faith and keep the money regardless. The decision not to refund money paid to the obviously faulty and virtually impossible to win appeal system they had should be jurisprudence to open the door for all sorts of scams. The government thought that charging $100 for an appeal where they don't have to consider any evidence submitted was an appeal offered in good faith, so with completely absurd, borderline insane thinking like that, how could they deny other people from committing the same kind of scam?

Interesting...but doesnt the gov`t clearly stated in the application for an appeal that not all the evidence has to be considered...making it your choice whether to file for an appeal or not. I not disagreeing here...just asking the question.

Or maybe people should get some help in preparing their evidence so that it is, or can be, compelling. zzontar has never, despite repeated requests by others on here, including myself, showed us how he presented his evidence about the alcohol content of the mouth spray he said he used right before being stopped. Nor has he posted the exact wording of the decision that he received. Sure, he has paraphrased to give us the gist of it, but that is not a true representation of what was presented as evidence to the adjudicator. One cannot simply say "hey, I used an alcohol-based breath spray right before I was stopped and when I told the cop he dismissed the implications of that.". You need to present, for an example, evidence that the particular breath spray used did, in fact, contain a particular concentration of alcohol. This could come in the form of a letter or datasheet from the manufacturer of that particular breath spray with the ingredient composition. That would be far more convincing to an adjudicator than a simple say so of the driver. Now not knowing the entirety of the circumstances I'm not saying that alone would be enough to overturn an IRP, but it would go a lot further than the simple "say so" scenario.

[KL3-Something]

Interesting...but doesnt the gov`t clearly stated in the application for an appeal that not all the evidence has to be considered...making it your choice whether to file for an appeal or not. I not disagreeing here...just asking the question.

And that makes it a fair appeal? ....just asking the question

THAT is the difference between going to court.....and the appeal process with the OSMV. I know , I know...you can still take it to court for a "judicial revue".......but while you wait...you still serve your "sentence"...so the court thingy is kind of useless.......

It's not a "sentence". It's a "sanction".

[theyeti]

i have a hard time with the breathalyzer also i think dna is suspect ..


seems like a cpl tools in the cops bag that maybe are not fair to the ppl who get caught with them ,


however if u r a murder and thats how they catch u ... i guess fair is fair u did the crime ..
but on the other hand we have all sorts of ppl locked up for stuff for years they never did .
that guy from saskatoon comes to mind .

the breathalyzer who calibrates them ? where r they trained ? is it police who work on them ? who fixes it when it breaks ?

do the police pay that person ? see how many conflicts of interest there can be in just a simple little tool

[KL3-Something]

I'm reading this thread and the thread on pot possession and getting quite a laugh. On here people are complaining that the police are roadside judge and jury. On the pot possession one they want the police to be roadside judge and jury and let them off for having small amounts of illegal pot. Kind of makes one realize that no matter what they do they will be loosers. I guess all they can do is uphold the laws as they are paid to do. All we can do is obey the laws and we will stay out of trouble. The second we start playing with them and having a drink or two or carry around a small amount of pot we are opening the door for trouble. It is us that opens that door not the police. In a case where breath spray is a problem we must remember that if there was no alcohol involved the breath spray wouldn't be a problem. Think about it people it is us ourselves that is the problem not the police or for that matter the laws. We all know the laws, if we don;t want to get in trouble we should obey them not test them. The laws will seldom be the looser in the long run.

keith1612 wrote:

thats the problem letting the police decide if the police were right and fair.

Istn't that what people are asking for on the pot possession thread. They want the police to make the decission not to charge them for small amounts. Can't have it both ways. Do you want them to be able to make decissions or not.

you better reread my posts.
i said in there the cops have too much discretion like this law.
no i want cops to do things by the book and then let a judge and jury decide.
read it all before you post.

There really isn't any discretion with this law. It is clearly written that if the police encounter this, they must do that. The cops are doing it by the book. You just don't like the book they are working out of.

[KL3-Something]

It may well work for the guilty but the problem is your using a screening device to find a basis for this "admistrative process". The deck is stacked against us from the get go and the OSMV doesn't care along with our corrupt government!

AND our corrupt Supreme Court Judges??? You'd better go find a different country to live in I guess....

[my5cents]

AND our corrupt Supreme Court Judges??? You'd better go find a different country to live in I guess....

For one thing, jerome2877 said "corrupt government", I guess you are extrapolating that to the court since it has gone along with the Liberal idea of justice. So that would be referring to Sigurdson, who is BC Supreme court, perhaps more correctly would be "find a different province".

It wouldn't be the first time the BC Supreme Court validated a bill enacted by the Liberals and that same bill being ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.

This gone show isn't over yet, despite how badly you want to stay off the witness stand.

[Bsuds]

It may well work for the guilty but the problem is your using a screening device to find a basis for this "admistrative process". The deck is stacked against us from the get go and the OSMV doesn't care along with our corrupt government!

AND our corrupt Supreme Court Judges??? You'd better go find a different country to live in I guess....

I can recommend a nice extreme Muslim country if you like.

[zzontar]

Or maybe people should get some help in preparing their evidence so that it is, or can be, compelling.

Perhaps you repeatedly missed the fact that no evidence presented would have made any difference as they basically had to convict you if they were convinced you were the one driving.

[KL3-Something]

I guess police and government employees aren't supposed to have any "rights".

And neither are people who haved been givin IRP's!!

Which "rights" are being taken away, specifically?

[KL3-Something]

Actually they haven't lost any rights. They have lost the priveledge to drive granted to them by the government "if" they follow the governments rules which by the way does include the "IRP'S".

What about the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?

That applies when someone has been charged with an offence. What offence are driver's being charged with when being handed a IRP, specifically?

[KL3-Something]

Or maybe people should get some help in preparing their evidence so that it is, or can be, compelling.

Perhaps you repeatedly missed the fact that no evidence presented would have made any difference as they basically had to convict you if they were convinced you were the one driving.

Well that is odd since I am personally aware of instances where IRP's (prior to Nov 30, 2011) were overturned due to the likely presence of mouth alcohol. Which lawyer did you consult while preparing your appeal?

[KL3-Something]

Here is something else for you detractors to get into a tizzy about while trying to discredit.

Drunk driving deaths down by 46% in B.C.
Impaired driving law said to be toughest in Canada is paying off: government
The Canadian Press
Posted: Nov 21, 2012 3:14 PM PT
Last Updated: Nov 21, 2012 3:56 PM PT

An estimated 104 lives have been saved thanks to the new law, the government says.An estimated 104 lives have been saved thanks to the new law, the government says. (CBC)

The B.C. government says a tough drunk driving law brought in two years ago has reduced the number of impaired driving deaths in the province by 46 per cent.

It says since the law took effect in September 2010, the number of alcohol-related traffic deaths has fallen to an average of 62 a year from about 114 in each of the previous five years.

The government says that means an estimated 104 lives have been saved.

It also says a roadside survey in several areas of the province has found a 44 per cent drop in the number of drivers with a blood alcohol count of 0.05 per cent and over, and a 60-per-cent drop among drivers with higher alcohol counts.

The government says these are the lowest levels of impaired drivers in the history of seven similar surveys.

Attorney General Shirley Bond says more people are getting the message not to drink and drive.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -down.html

[jerome2877]

That applies when someone has been charged with an offence. What offence are driver's being charged with when being handed a IRP, specifically?

I know what the corrupt government did to take a criminal charge and make it an administrative joke! They thought and still think that they will get away with this cash grab that uses the power of criminal law to apply administrative law. The device they use is not good enough to be relied upon in court but in front of the tribunal (appointed by the government) its golden.

So go ahead and hide behind the dirty technical trick the government has played on the people of BC! Typical !!!

[KL3-Something]

Or maybe people should get some help in preparing their evidence so that it is, or can be, compelling.

Perhaps you repeatedly missed the fact that no evidence presented would have made any difference as they basically had to convict you if they were convinced you were the one driving.

Your interpretation...

Again, which lawyer did you obtain advice from prior to preparing your appeal? Or did you wing it yourself?

[KL3-Something]

That applies when someone has been charged with an offence. What offence are driver's being charged with when being handed a IRP, specifically?

I know what the corrupt government did to take a criminal charge and make it an administrative joke! They thought and still think that they will get away with this cash grab that uses the power of criminal law to apply administrative law. The device they use is not good enough to be relied upon in court but in front of the tribunal (appointed by the government) its golden.

So go ahead and hide behind the dirty technical trick the government has played on the people of BC! Typical

This just shows your ignorance of the law regarding Approved Screening Devices, the Criminal Code and it's relationship to the parts of the MVA that pertain to administrative prohibitions both under Section 215.42 and Section 94.1. Call it a "technical trick" if you want but the law is full of "technical tricks" when it comes to impaired driving. The vast majority of them are in the favor of the accused. This one just works in favor of the Crown for a change.

Don't drink and drive.