B.C. drunk driving law could be overturned

[Ken7]

I just listened, to RCMP chief McCrimmon on 11:50 AM radio . And he virtually agreed That no one should be charged And convicted Without evidence being presented

I'm confused. The RCMP doesn't have "Chiefs". And I don't know who "McCrimmon" is. What are you talking about here? Did you have another one of your funny dreams?

___________________________________________________

I laugh every time I hear these people who know it all make referance to the Chief of the RCMP. I think it was all a dream...

[grumpydigger]

Laugh all you want MacKinnon the head of kelowna RCMP called in the open line show.......and stated that very fact................

Imagine a conviction without evidence.......... and no court proceedings..........just the word of a police officer and his hand held toy

Sounds more like the USSR or Communist China doesn't it .......

As of Wednesday if you blow .08 they have to take you back to the police station give you a proper breathalyzer with documented readings and allow you to talk to a lawyer..........imagine that

It's called due process of the law....any Canadian citizen deserves it

[KL3-Something]

So both the Canadian Press and CHBC are reporting that during this time of transition while the police are going back to the old way of doing things that people can have a lawyer present at the detachment while they provide samples into the breathalyzer. I don't know where they got that idea but that is not the case. This type of inaccurate reporting is what confuses people who are going through the process and can lead to unnecessary refusal charges against people who believe what they hear and read in the news.

[djkelowna]

Food for thought.
Breathalyzers fail to differentiate between Ethyl alcohol and Methyl alcohol that's found in common foods and drinks.
For instance. (One of many) A glazed, fluffy doughnut can put a smile on my face instantly. Guess what? Glazed donuts contain an Ethyl alcohol level of.02%. Ya better keep an eye out next time you leave Timmy's with you daily coffee and 3 honey curlers.
Be careful of: Cough syrup and older mouth wash. A smoker? Oh-Oh! Acetaldehyde is a molecule found in the liver and pumped up into the lungs. The amount of Acetaldehyde found in someone's lungs varies, but studies have shown that smokers have a higher build up of this molecule than non-smokers. (Breathalyzers lump Acetaldehyde in with Methyl alcohol).
Vomit and individuals with G.E.R.D. (Gastroesophageal reflux disease) may produce a false positives.
Never mind temperature conditions, moisture or dirt could contribute to the failing of a breathalyzer.

Not every one is a boozer. Nor deserves to have their constitutional rights infringed.

Taken in part from. Article Source: EzineArticles.com Merel Johnson

[Veovis]

My opinion on all this is that I am glad they can show stats for DUI damages are down, this is a good thing, HOWEVER, the way it was done was botched in my mind. You made guilt without recouse of "safe" individuals for the most part. The most dangerous drivers and usually the ones causing most problems are well over .08 and this doesn't address that. IT was a street side cash grab with guilt on the spot and not a true process.

Personally, I think it could be solved with the same results by petitioning federally to have the limit changed to .05 (no more grey zone) OR even make a the federal levels graded, 0-.05 on thing, .05-.08 anouther over .08 *bleep* handed to you. I like what the provicial gov't tried inside the levels they can do when dealing with federal legal limits but they goofed a bit.

[KL3-Something]

Food for thought.
Breathalyzers fail to differentiate between Ethyl alcohol and Methyl alcohol that's found in common foods and drinks.
For instance. (One of many) A glazed, fluffy doughnut can put a smile on my face instantly. Guess what? Glazed donuts contain an Ethyl alcohol level of.02%. Ya better keep an eye out next time you leave Timmy's with you daily coffee and 3 honey curlers.
Be careful of: Cough syrup and older mouth wash. A smoker? Oh-Oh! Acetaldehyde is a molecule found in the liver and pumped up into the lungs. The amount of Acetaldehyde found in someone's lungs varies, but studies have shown that smokers have a higher build up of this molecule than non-smokers. (Breathalyzers lump Acetaldehyde in with Methyl alcohol).
Vomit and individuals with G.E.R.D. (Gastroesophageal reflux disease) may produce a false positives.
Never mind temperature conditions, moisture or dirt could contribute to the failing of a breathalyzer.

Not every one is a boozer. Nor deserves to have their constitutional rights infringed.

Taken in part from. Article Source: EzineArticles.com Merel Johnson

You present a red herring. If one were to consume enough Methyl Alcohol (aka wood alcohol) to register a reading on a roadside screening device the person would already be blind and likely near death. Therefore it's unlikely they were driving. Your glazed doughnut contains .02% ethyl alcohol. Which would translate into an imperceptible amount of alcohol actually consumed by the person and wouldn't be enough to alter their blood alcohol concentration. Cough syrup and mouthwash? yes, absolutely they contain alcohol. But roadside I don't care how you got the alcohol into your body, whether it was with whiskey, beer, wine or if you downed a bottle of Benalyn DM with an Aqua Velva chaser. Ethyl alcohol in your blood is ethyl alcohol in your blood. Yo gotta think about that before you get behind the wheel to head down to the pharmacy to reload. If vomit or regurgitation are going to affect the ASD or breathalyzer test then that means that the alcohol is in the stomach which is the last stop before the small intestine where that alcohol enters the blood steam. There are measures in place during the testing process to address that particular issue.

[zzontar]

KL3, the alcohol doesn't have to be in your bloodstream to give a false reading.

http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/589 ... efits.html

The alcohol in Listerine mouthwash is added to dissolve the other ingredients, and to aid penetration of oral plaque on the teeth. In Listerine spray it probably chiefly serves the first purpose. Alcohol does something else, however, that is not good: it dries out the tissues of your mouth. Drying is not good because saliva is one of our main natural defenses against overgrowth of the bacteria that cause bad breath. A dry mouth is usually a malodorous mouth. Many people would recommend, then, that you stay away from mouthwashes and other oral products that contain alcohol. It may be more of a problem with Listerine spray than with the wash: a blast of alcohol into the mouth numerous times during the day, when you are not otherwise brushing or rinsing, is sure to have more of a drying effect. (And by the way, use of an alcoholic breath freshener can cause you to fail a highway breathalyzer test, should you be unfortunate enough to find yourself in that position.)

[KL3-Something]

KL3, the alcohol doesn't have to be in your bloodstream to give a false reading.

Thanks Tips. I never knew that before now....

[djkelowna]

KL3, the alcohol doesn't have to be in your bloodstream to give a false reading.

Thanks for the response zzon. Yes. That's why it is called a "breath sample". Not a "blood sample".

[logicalview]

KL3, the alcohol doesn't have to be in your bloodstream to give a false reading.

It's just the positive ones that the drunk driving laws are all about.

[d_bengert]

I would like to push the quote button here but it doesn't give me the ability to quote button everybody....everybody is talking about prevention and bad drinking drivers and .05 and .08 blah blah blah....what all of you have failed to come up with is MAKE IT ILLEGAL...see it's not illegal... KL-3 forgive me here.... but the truth is drinking alcohol and driving is not illegal,,,sure certain amounts in your blood will make it illegal,,,but legally you are allowed to drink and drive....now how much alcohol is .05...well that depends how much blood you have in your body so if you are a bigger person you can drink more than a smaller person...can't you see the problem...why is there a .05...WHY NOT 0.0 if you're gonna drive...they let you drink but don't tell you how much is too much then they bust you for too much... now here's where it gets interesting...if the law was 0.0 and you got caught, and they took away your licence...would any money go to the government...nope...but with this IRP how much money went to the govt.....I don't think they will release those figures...money may not be the reason...the law may be this way so you can have a beer after work and drive home...but what if your small and you just gave blood...can you have a beer then or will you be over .05....maybe just a half a beer...HOW MUCH???? How about me...I'm over 200 lbs and over 6 feet tall...can I have 2 beers... I must have a lot of blood...how bout 2 beers and a shooter... HOW MUCH??? Why not NONE...Just Sayin.

[twobits]

I've kinda warmed to the new 05 law but I am having real difficulty in wrapping my head around this court decision. The process for the officer is the same in determining guilt at over 05 as it is 08. Same equipment. Only difference is level of penalty and neither has recourse to challenge in court with preserved evidence. If there is a constitutional issue at 08 then to me that should also apply at 05. It appears that only the lower penalty is making it constitutionally OK for some reason. We should have the right to due process wether it's a 100 dollar fine or a 1000 dollar fine. Does a hundred dollar hooker get a court date and the ten dollar hooker get a undisputable fine on the spot? It seems to me that we are beginning to slide down a slope where we are determining at what level of offence the right to due process can be ignored. That scares me.

[zzontar]

I've kinda warmed to the new 05 law but I am having real difficulty in wrapping my head around this court decision. The process for the officer is the same in determining guilt at over 05 as it is 08. Same equipment. Only difference is level of penalty and neither has recourse to challenge in court with preserved evidence. If there is a constitutional issue at 08 then to me that should also apply at 05. It appears that only the lower penalty is making it constitutionally OK for some reason. We should have the right to due process wether it's a 100 dollar fine or a 1000 dollar fine. Does a hundred dollar hooker get a court date and the ten dollar hooker get a undisputable fine on the spot? It seems to me that we are beginning to slide down a slope where we are determining at what level of offence the right to due process can be ignored. That scares me.

My thoughts exactly, a wrongful suspension and included fines should be as unconstitutional as a wrongful conviction.

[my5cents]

I've kinda warmed to the new 05 law but I am having real difficulty in wrapping my head around this court decision. The process for the officer is the same in determining guilt at over 05 as it is 08. Same equipment. Only difference is level of penalty and neither has recourse to challenge in court with preserved evidence. If there is a constitutional issue at 08 then to me that should also apply at 05. It appears that only the lower penalty is making it constitutionally OK for some reason. We should have the right to due process wether it's a 100 dollar fine or a 1000 dollar fine. Does a hundred dollar hooker get a court date and the ten dollar hooker get a undisputable fine on the spot? It seems to me that we are beginning to slide down a slope where we are determining at what level of offence the right to due process can be ignored. That scares me.

I agree twobits, well said.

The whole "roadside suspension" program started decades and decades ago. It was a way to get the borderline drinking driver off the road without costing too much time for the police.

There actually was an "appeal" initially. If a driver wasn't willing to accept the suspension, which was based solely on the observations and any admissions by the driver, (no Roadside Screening Device, zip) he could insist on being taken to the police station to blow. He was warned, however, if he blew over .08 (however practically speaking nobody is charged unless they blow .10), that he would be charged criminally.
Other than loosing one’s license for 24 hours, there was nothing else that happened.
As years went on, the roadside suspension program changed to the point that the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles monitored 24 hour suspensions and if a driver got too many the driver's DL was suspended.

ICBC's last effort in that area was to levy a surcharge for excesses of various offences, one of them being 24 hour suspensions.
Then the government in it’s” wisdom” implemented what we have now.

So the Roadside Suspension, that initially started with no real appeal, but countering that, had no real fine or penalty, has morphed into a Roadside Suspension with no real appeal and high fines and penalties. It was time for review.

As far as the over .05 as it now stands ? Now for starters, I have to say I don't support drinking and driving and anyone who gets any roadside suspensions is a jerk and got a break. The first over .05 can cost $600, a 2nd over .05 (in a 5 year period) can cost $760 and a 3rd $3960. Any of those are a hell of a lot of fine with no opportunity of appeal.

What really broke the old roadside suspension was the fact that the police were handing them out instead of criminal charges. Many drinking drivers got roadside suspensions when they should have been charged.

The lack of criminal charges and the distinct possibility that if caught a driver would only get a roadside suspension reduced the fear of drinking and driving.

It was caused by several things, the main one, under staffing of the police. That was/is especially true in the case of the RCMP because of the forces willingness to do more with less. The low minimum number of police needed to police an area is not the fault of the cop on the street, he/she is just doing what he/she can with what they have.

That’s the exact reason why it's cheaper to have RCMP police a town than a municipal force. The RCMP's minimum number of members requirements is less than any municipal force would allow.

The government has no money, after paying for their expensive show pieces. There's no money for the additional police, court time etc. What to do. Create a law that eliminates the investigation of an impaired driver, cut's the paper work by about 95% and eliminates the possibility of court and bonus - directs the proceeds to provincial coffers.

Wrong to underfund the police and courts, wrong to create a law that is contrary to the Charter of Rights. We all know that two wrongs make a right. The bonus is, they sold it to weak minded public "it will make families safer".

What concerns me is this. What is wrong with the government ? They pass bills which are illegal and think they can get away with it. The hospital workers, (overturned in the Supreme Court of Canada), the school teachers (overturned in the BC Supreme Court).

[goatboy]

(And by the way, use of an alcoholic breath freshener can cause you to fail a highway breathalyzer test, should you be unfortunate enough to find yourself in that position.)

You know what else can make you fail the test? Too much alcohol in your system and then using a mouth spray to cover up the smell.