B.C. drunk driving law could be overturned

[KL3-Something]

Here is the summary from the decision. The entire decision is 78 pages long and can be boiled down to the following:

Summary of Decision

[13] After carefully considering the evidence and submissions of the parties, I have concluded that the ARP regime is validly enacted provincial legislation from a division of powers perspective. Although it is closer to criminal law than any of its predecessors, the pith and substance of the legislation relates to the licensing of drivers and the enhancement of highway traffic safety, and is not properly characterized as criminal law.

[14] Likewise, because it does not cross the threshold of creating an “offence”, I find that the ARP regime does not violate s. 11(d) of the Charter. It is neither an offence “by nature” nor does it impose “true penal consequences”.

[15] Further, I find that although the legislation (like its predecessor provincial impaired driving regimes) prima facie violates the s. 10(b) right to counsel at the roadside screening stage, it is saved by s. 1 as it is a limit which is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

[16] However, I find the ARP legislation infringes s. 8 of the Charter in the limited circumstance where, on the basis of a search of breath by an approved roadside screening device, a 90-day license suspension as well as significant penalties and costs are imposed on motorists who allegedly blow over 0.08, without those persons being able to meaningfully challenge the results of the search. I also find that the infringement is not saved under s. 1 of the Charter. The Province has failed to demonstrate that it constitutes a reasonable limit on the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

[17] Insofar as the regime operates with respect to motorists who allegedly blow between 0.05 and 0.08, I find that the ARP regime does not infringe s. 8 of the Charter.

Generally speaking it is a favorable decision for the Province. In the end what I think is going to happen is a temporary suspension of the issuing of IRP Fail and refusals until the MVA can be amended to allow for a more meaningful appeal process to test the validity of the tests. I can forsee it taking the form of a traffic court-type of hearing before a JJP. Once this process is established the IRP will be back up and running because the court has said that the law itself is good.

So the lawyers will get what they want, they get to cash in again on impaired drivers. In the mean time anyone caught over the next few weeks are going to be facing criminal charges in addition to these sanctions. That's OK though. I'm getting a little rusty on the criminal code impaireds so a few weeks of this will give me a good chance to brush up.

[wthwyt]

Zero tolerance should be the law, if you planning on drinking you should also plan ahead with regards of getting home after.

I have no tolerance for stupidity.

[goatboy]

Right now you pay the RCMP overtime to stand out on the street and "try" to catch drunk drivers, and people are dieing regardless.

You already spend money on breathalyzers, cops, courts, jails and programs... but can't chip in for a cab ride home or do something smart to facilitate society to SAVE a life *before* someone drinks and drives in the first place? You just want to punish and get mad and get tough? The buses don't run when the most drinking and driving occurs. What is a life worth to you? You'd rather people die?

Too bad that tough laws and putting people in jail doesn't bring back the dead or heal people in wheelchairs huh?

Who needs to "get a grip"? I am simply suggesting doing pro-active things to PREVENT it happening in the first place. Makes too much sense, I know.

That's a good fall back, when someone doesn't agree with a "social injustice" comment, you must hate poor babies, the unemployed, welfare recipients, drunk drivers etc.

Here's my pro-active measure to help PREVENT it happening in the first place and maybe SAVE a life before someone drinks and drives. DON'T DRINK IF YOU PLAN TO DRIVE. If you do, the police have my authorization to use my money to catch you and nail your *bleep*.

BTW, if you think offering free cab rides and running the buses later will stop people from drinking and driving, think again. There is already a free service available every Friday and Saturday night called Designated Dad's, and that's not stopping people. Ironic story from a member, he stopped a guy at a road check who proceeded to blow over .05. Guys was ticketed and his car was towed. Guess what, the guy called Designated Dad's to come and pick him up as he had no other way of getting home. If only he had done that before he got stopped.

[Smurf]

goatboy wrote:

That's a good fall back, when someone doesn't agree with a "social injustice" comment, you must hate poor babies, the unemployed, welfare recipients, drunk drivers etc.

Here's my pro-active measure to help PREVENT it happening in the first place and maybe SAVE a life before someone drinks and drives. DON'T DRINK IF YOU PLAN TO DRIVE. If you do, the police have my authorization to use my money to catch you and nail your *bleep*.
BTW, if you think offering free cab rides and running the buses later will stop people from drinking and driving, think again. There is already a free service available every Friday and Saturday night called Designated Dad's, and that's not stopping people. Ironic story from a member, he stopped a guy at a road check who proceeded to blow over .05. Guys was ticketed and his car was towed. Guess what, the guy called Designated Dad's to come and pick him up as he had no other way of getting home. If only he had done that before he got stopped.

I agree 100%. There is absolutely no reason to drink and drive.

[grumpydigger]

Carr said since the legislation came into effect, police have virtually stopped charging motorists criminally because the law gave them the ability to avoid the courts.

That should raise warning signs, with any intelligent person.

The handheld devices have no recording ability ....Much the same as the cops ,no accountability for


its actions..........

That brings us back to why,Police officers lost so many Drunk driving court cases...........

Because they made massive mistakes And were not able To abide by the rules of law that were given to Them.

The police officers are actually scared of judges and lawyers.....Because they hold them accountable to the letter of the law. And don't drink the MADD Kool-Aid That allows Our Constitutional rights to be butchered.

[Rwede]

Does anyone have a Constitutional Right to drive a vehicle after getting hammered at a bar?

[Smurf]

Absolutely not. In fact I don't believe they have the right to be even slightly impaired as in .05.

[grumpydigger]

Does anyone have a Constitutional Right to drive a vehicle after getting hammered at a bar?

No ,But it should not allow people to be charged. With virtually no record evidence and no recourse in a court of law........

There is no other area,criminally or civilly where A conviction is allowed without evidence presented and the legal ability to defend yourself..

Cops have made massive mistakes while presenting drunk driving cases.......and should not be allowed to make a conviction on a roadside and then destroying the evidence.

[grumpydigger]

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

[Parabellum]

Carr, who is a criminal defence lawyer that specializes in drunk driving cases is upset because "since the legislation came into effect, police have virtually stopped charging motorists criminally because the law gave them the ability to avoid the courts" effectively putting him outta business. The drunk driving legislation saves lives AND puts drunk driving lawyers outta business?? I think it needs to stay as is!!!

[grumpydigger]

Carr, who is a criminal defence lawyer that specializes in drunk driving cases is upset because "since the legislation came into effect, police have virtually stopped charging motorists criminally because the law gave them the ability to avoid the courts" effectively putting him outta business. The drunk driving legislation saves lives AND puts drunk driving lawyers outta business?? I think it needs to stay as is!!!

It's always easy to say that, as long it is not your constitutional rights and freedoms being violated...

I'm all for, throwing the book at drunk drivers And charging them severely.But I don't agree With ever losing my right to see the evidence against me And the right for me to defend myself.

[KL3-Something]

Carr said since the legislation came into effect, police have virtually stopped charging motorists criminally because the law gave them the ability to avoid the courts.

That should raise warning signs, with any intelligent person.

The handheld devices have no recording ability ....Much the same as the cops ,no accountability for


its actions..........

That brings us back to why,Police officers lost so many Drunk driving court cases...........

Because they made massive mistakes And were not able To abide by the rules of law that were given to Them.

The police officers are actually scared of judges and lawyers.....Because they hold them accountable to the letter of the law. And don't drink the MADD Kool-Aid That allows Our Constitutional rights to be butchered.

Did you actually read the decision? Or are you basing you entire opinion on the opinions of those who are of the same mindset as you? Carr is a lawyer who had a financial interest in the proceedings. Don't think for a minute that he is looking after the best interests of anyone but himself. He has taken a slant on the decision and because that slant is the same as yours you are now throwing his name around like he is some sort of authority. Try informing yourself from a source that is not biased...Like the decision itself:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/ ... SC1639.htm

Of course I doubt that you would take an unbiased opinion of anything that involves the government or the police.

[KL3-Something]

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?

[Rwede]

Does anyone have a Constitutional Right to drive a vehicle after getting hammered at a bar?

No ,But it should not allow people to be charged. With virtually no record evidence and no recourse in a court of law........

There is no other area,criminally or civilly where A conviction is allowed without evidence presented and the legal ability to defend yourself..

Cops have made massive mistakes while presenting drunk driving cases.......and should not be allowed to make a conviction on a roadside and then destroying the evidence.

There's the crux of the matter. Presentation in court - read while holding the paper in the wrong hand or some such silliness, that allows drunks to get off on technicalities. I can't think of a single person who was stone cold sober being convicted of drunk driving.

[zzontar]

Does anyone have a Constitutional Right to drive a vehicle after getting hammered at a bar?

No ,But it should not allow people to be charged. With virtually no record evidence and no recourse in a court of law........

There is no other area,criminally or civilly where A conviction is allowed without evidence presented and the legal ability to defend yourself..

Cops have made massive mistakes while presenting drunk driving cases.......and should not be allowed to make a conviction on a roadside and then destroying the evidence.

There's the crux of the matter. Presentation in court - read while holding the paper in the wrong hand or some such silliness, that allows drunks to get off on technicalities. I can't think of a single person who was stone cold sober being convicted of drunk driving.

What about technicalities like the cop not knowing that mouthwash or breath spray can affect the reading, or not knowing that if someone just used the prementioned, that there's supposed to be an allowed 15 minutes before being tested, or not knowing that if you're close to the limit and you blow several consecutive times it will give a falsely high reading, or if the cop doesn't like the way you look he/she can just say you blew over, or that machines aren't always 100% accurate? How many people charged with crimes were proven innocent when allowed to present their case in court? Do you think anyone charged with any other offense shouldn't be able to have their day in court as well?