B.C. drunk driving law could be overturned

[keith1612]

The Supreme Court of BC CAN rule that the original "violation" is wrong (which can remove a violation from a drivers record)...and then can ONLY advise the OSMV to "relook" at the case. And this is why the OSMV can make the driver serve the "penalty" while you await your court date....making the appeal for a judicial revue in the Supreme Court a bit of a waste of time.....IMHO.

I guess with the right circumstances and enough money the Supreme Court of Canada could get involved as well. My point was that in the normal application of this new revolutionary system of handling drinking and driving offenses and soon other Motor Vehicle Act offenses, courts don't play a role.

Yes, I know that the Supreme Court can be brought into the mix, just like if city hall turns down your building permit for a fence, you can escalate the process, but the Supreme Court isn't normally on the list of tasks when building a fence, nor is it in requesting a review of a roadside drinking and driving conviction.

I'm all for hammering impaired drivers, but I don't think that any means justifies the end result.

I guess I’m one of the few that thinks we have to have a full, fair, open and reliable system of checks and balances even if it involves checking the decisions of our police.

On one hand we, the public, demanded that we have an independent body investigating police when involved in a serious injuries and during the same period we are letting the police deal out justice at the curb with a very limited and questionable review process. Did we demand the independent body because we fully trusted the police ?

100% correct.
thats the problem letting the police decide if the police were right and fair.
these should be decided by a outside source and for some strange reason they felt judges were not the ones.

[Trunk-Monkey]

100% correct.
thats the problem letting the police decide if the police were right and fair.
these should be decided by a outside source and for some strange reason they felt judges were not the ones.

Who is they....

[Smurf]

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.

[theyeti]

no

[simnut]

.......us ourselves that is the problem not the police or for that matter the laws.

I beg to differ....I KNOW that is not the case in some cases....trust me.

We all know the laws, if we don;t want to get in trouble we should obey them not test them.

See the above statement....

[keith1612]

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.

[keith1612]

100% correct.
thats the problem letting the police decide if the police were right and fair.
these should be decided by a outside source and for some strange reason they felt judges were not the ones.

Who is they....

im not sure who was all involved in the choices, chances are the BC assoc of police chiefs was adding input.
someone decided it and dont take it wrong i know as a officer you did not.

[zzontar]

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.

Yes, but when the thought and hope that the appeal would actually be an appeal and is the only option the government gives you to prove your innocence, what can you do? This fact should also have been highlighted on the front page of the appeal forms, and in reality it shouldn't even be stated ANYWHERE on the appeal forms for the same reason when you sign up for an extended warranty, there shouldn't be something in the fine print stating the warranty is void if you try to use it. This would be illegal for a business to do, yet the government says it's in good faith when they do it. It doesn't get too much more hypocritical than that and as I stated, it theoretically opens the door for other scams through jurisprudence.

[keith1612]

Yes, but when the thought and hope that the appeal would actually be an appeal and is the only option the government gives you to prove your innocence, what can you do? This fact should also have been highlighted on the front page of the appeal forms, and in reality it shouldn't even be stated ANYWHERE on the appeal forms for the same reason when you sign up for an extended warranty, there shouldn't be something in the fine print stating the warranty is void if you try to use it. This would be illegal for a business to do, yet the government says it's in good faith when they do it. It doesn't get too much more hypocritical than that and as I stated, it theoretically opens the door for other scams through jurisprudence.

It's not a warrenty it's a appeal of a possibly corrupt police desicion and to let a cop decide if it's correct or not based on whatever information they deem interesting shows how corrupt it is.
Someone deemed judges unimportant and I would guess it was over the amount of cases thrown out for improper or shady work.
Why else would they want to in effect give drunk drivers a lessor sentence!
So they created a system that is easy for police and next to impossible for wrongly convicted people

[Trunk-Monkey]

It's not a warrenty it's a appeal of a possibly corrupt police desicion and to let a cop decide if it's correct or not based on whatever information they deem interesting shows how corrupt it is.
Someone deemed judges unimportant and I would guess it was over the amount of cases thrown out for improper or shady work.
Why else would they want to in effect give drunk drivers a lessor sentence!
So they created a system that is easy for police and next to impossible for wrongly convicted people

Conspiracy theory 101 I guess.
I would hate to have such a negative attitude about EVERYTHING....such as you.
If you are refering to the IRP system as a "lesser sentence" I would beg to differ...it is not a sentence. It is an admistrative process that makes the driver accountable via the finacial aspect as well as the loss of his/her BCDL. It works and the stats prove it.

[jerome2877]

Conspiracy theory 101 I guess.
I would hate to have such a negative attitude about EVERYTHING....such as you.
If you are refering to the IRP system as a "lesser sentence" I would beg to differ...it is not a sentence. It is an admistrative process that makes the driver accountable via the finacial aspect as well as the loss of his/her BCDL. It works and the stats prove it.

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! Many innocent people are caught up in this joke money grab that is still going to be overturned. Its just a matter of time!!

[Trunk-Monkey]

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! Many innocent people are caught up in this joke money grab that is still going to be overturned. Its just a matter of time!!

Screening Device...you mean APPROVED SCREENING DEVICE. I am not using the ASD for the basis of this `administrative process`. If you have followed some other posts of mine you would know that every impaired investigation begins the same way...with the officer intending on going Criminal Code. If there is room for the IRP to be used as an administrative process (ie. if the driver meets the IRP criteria) then that is to the discretion of the officer. As far as symptomology of intoxication that is all part of the investigation. The ASD is only a part of the `tools`we use to gather evidence, and it is an accurate instrument. There are fail safes in both the device as well as the police procedures that make this process very sound and beyond approach.
Corrupt government....well I will consider the source on that comment.
Its a pretty big statement to suggest that many innocent people are caught up in this ---money grab----. I would just like to ask you this. Where you there when all of these people where pulled over....have you read all of reports and examined the evidence for each case. Wait thats a silly question...you must have in order to make such a comment such as these people are innocent. If you havent done any or all of the above then the fact is you have no idea what you are talking about with regard to them being innocent or not and I would suggest to you that you are just listening to peoples accounts of what happened at road side when they were busted. Very one sided view point I must say.
Still going to be over turned.....again do you have an inside track on this...do you sit on a panel or board that decides such things. If not then you can see my point about how easy rumours start....how something one person says becomes fact to others when in reality it is nothing more than that persons opinion etc...as in this case you just started something of the like in a round about way.l

[diggerdick]

Basically what the British Columbia government did ,was take a roadside screening device That no judge or court Would allow As the basis of a criminal or a civil conviction Because it was too inaccurate and there was no records.

And made it a tool, to avoid judges, court And lawyers .

Before they made this change , The police lost massive amounts Of drunk driving charges in court.

Why was that.

Because the lawyers and judges scrutinized and held the police accountable for what they did at the roadside.

Just as a side note

I believe all police officers should be drugged tested On a regular basis and if found with any steroids or other illegal drugs be immediately fired and had their pensions revoked.

they would cry immediately that it was against their civil rights and would not allow it.

[keith1612]

Basically what the British Columbia government did ,was take a roadside screening device That no judge or court Would allow As the basis of a criminal or a civil conviction Because it was too inaccurate and there was no records.

And made it a tool, to avoid judges, court And lawyers .

Before they made this change , The police lost massive amounts Of drunk driving charges in court.

Why was that.

Because the lawyers and judges scrutinized and held the police accountable for what they did at the roadside.

Just as a side note

I believe all police officers should be drugged tested On a regular basis and if found with any steroids or other illegal drugs be immediately fired and had their pensions revoked.

they would cry immediately that it was against their civil rights and would not allow it.

i think that should apply to anyone recieving govt pay.
teacher,doctors,welfare etc.

[Trunk-Monkey]

i think that should apply to anyone recieving govt pay.
teacher,doctors,welfare etc.

I am interested in knowing why you say anyone getting gov pay? Not that I am against it but I just want to know why you are taking that line.