Roadside breath tests not always accurate

[djkelowna]

Unfortunately, it ends up being the cops word against the person they test. I do know what you mean about the wide brush and it must be frustrating, but cutting corners or improper procedure by a cop usually results in fairly severe implications, thus having a deeper effect.

And a lot of the time it's the one being implicated (sometimes in the right), who pays for the improper procedure/testing.
Yes a lot of criminals (or for the sake of staying on topic) and individuals who have had the breath test administered (during the period when it actually could be contested properly) do get off due to improper procedure. Yes if they can prove it was done. How ever- Some non guilty parties are not so lucky when they go up against the word of an RCMP member and the system.
Systems flawed.
*** them all---let God sort them out is not the way to think.

[twobits]

I saw it. Then got caught up in another direction.

I'm not going to say with any certainty that ALL cases should be automatically pulled IF the device was dropped or otherwise damaged. I really don't know what the issue with that particular instrument was and as such I'm not going to speculate on what needs to happen. But I do know that in any instance where that instrument was used and there was a second test on a separate unit that confirmed the same results then the short answer would be no, it doesn't need to be revoked. Any cases where the instrument was used since the last calibration check and was found to be in working order should be looked at.

Thanks for the answer. If I am interpreting correctly, if a requested second macine test was performed, all is good as far as test result. But even if offered a second test as per correct procedure and declined, that faulty unit would raise doubt and perhaps be an appeal avenue??.........or should be reviewed by the Port Moody Police just because it is the right thing to do?? I know you can't speak for them but what would you do if faced with a similar situation?

[grammafreddy]

Many people don't know this, and if the cop doesn't tell them like he/she should, this strips the person being tested of their right.

It's a requirement that they get told that. That fact actually forms a part of the prohibition that is read to them. If they aren't read the prohibition notice in it's entirety, including their right to a second breath test the IRP will be pulled upon appeal.

Sorry KL, but you're wrong on this one.

Do tell.

Sorry, it may be a requirement, what I meant is that it doesn't mean the officer will actually convey the information.

It also could be that the drunk driver was too inebriated to pay attention or to understand what he/she was being told, too. Or too angry and belligerent.

[djkelowna]

It also could be that the drunk driver was too inebriated to pay attention or to understand what he/she was being told, too. Or too angry and belligerent.

Or not... See... (sorry i usually do not like to talk back to my elders ) But there you go. Like many others. Clumping all individuals who have been pulled over by the RCMP as guilty just because the RCMP singled them out. And they must be bad because the RCMP say so.

[grammafreddy]

It also could be that the drunk driver was too inebriated to pay attention or to understand what he/she was being told, too. Or too angry and belligerent.

Or not... See... (sorry i usually do not like to talk back to my elders ) But there you go. Like many others. Clumping all individuals who have been pulled over by the RCMP as guilty just because the RCMP singled them out. And they must be bad because the RCMP say so.

Not so ... I merely offered it up as one or two possible reasons why a drunk might not recognize or understand what he/she had been told when pulled over for drunk driving.

[d_bengert]

It also could be that the drunk driver was too inebriated to pay attention or to understand what he/she was being told, too. Or too angry and belligerent.

Or not... See... (sorry i usually do not like to talk back to my elders ) But there you go. Like many others. Clumping all individuals who have been pulled over by the RCMP as guilty just because the RCMP singled them out. And they must be bad because the RCMP say so.

Not so ... I merely offered it up as one or two possible reasons why a drunk might not recognize or understand what he/she had been told when pulled over for drunk driving.

and grammafreddy there is a good point... imagine being KL3-something(hey can I use you as an example) and pulling over people who are "too inebriated" or "too angry and belligerent"...thats gotta get to ya...or when everybody says I only had two beers and they blow .10 or over... that has to frustrate you while doing your job...so what happens when he runs into a person who only did have a couple drinks... and makes them blow with a faulty screening device and the red light comes on...that person who does not know the rules just got shafted to a cost of thousands of dollars...see... cause maybe that person is a good citizen and feels bad for what they did...not knowing they could have had another test (I know KL3...its just an example) and they don't appeal out of embarrasment or just trying to follow the system...maybe all the wrong things happen at once..see I don't believe for a second that the people who blew over .08 and were driving down the street should get a break if they are proven guilty...but I agree with the charter of rights... WE ARE CANADIAN...we are innocent until proven guilty...I wore a poppy last month in remembrance of people who died for this...and I'm almost positive that there were some innocent people who got screwed...now don't get all in an uproar when I say this but everyone who didn't get proven guilty should immediately get the licences back and all fines dropped...because I know that the bad guys who do drink and drive will get caught again...hopefully they don't hurt someone before that happens...but the innocent ones will remain innocent and can have their lives back

[TyrianQuill]

 
Impaired driving is a very serious issue for our society to deal with. We as individuals have rights set out in the Canadian Constitution. This constitution (by-the-way (spelling edited) have you actually read it?) is for all, not just for the some who break the laws or only for the one’s who live within the law. It is for all. So, with that being said, how is a mechanism set to protect the rights of the whole while upholding the rights of the few, for the aim of, as best as possible, ensuring the safety for all? This is a very tall order in deed.
Generally speaking, the drunk driving laws are not devised to be against any particular person per se, but, they are devised and set-up more so against a behaviour. If you want to gain a better understanding of law enforcement and the legal system, I think it a good practice is to first, as best you can, take the “human ego” out of the equation to allow for more objectivity examination of a situation.
In regards to the accuracy of the tools used to determine blood-alcohol level may or may not be in need of being revised, that I am unsure of, I am not an expert, but one thing that is rather obvious (to me) is, if you drink alcohol it is prudent not to get behind the wheel of a vehicle for a minimum of, I would hazard to say four hours after you last consumed alcohol, to ensure any possible impairment from alcohol consuption has passed, plain and simple.

[grammafreddy]

and grammafreddy there is a good point... imagine being KL3-something(hey can I use you as an example) and pulling over people who are "too inebriated" or "too angry and belligerent"...thats gotta get to ya...or when everybody says I only had two beers and they blow .10 or over... that has to frustrate you while doing your job...so what happens when he runs into a person who only did have a couple drinks... and makes them blow with a faulty screening device and the red light comes on...that person who does not know the rules just got shafted to a cost of thousands of dollars...see... cause maybe that person is a good citizen and feels bad for what they did...not knowing they could have had another test (I know KL3...its just an example) and they don't appeal out of embarrasment or just trying to follow the system...maybe all the wrong things happen at once..see I don't believe for a second that the people who blew over .08 and were driving down the street should get a break if they are proven guilty...but I agree with the charter of rights... WE ARE CANADIAN...we are innocent until proven guilty...I wore a poppy last month in remembrance of people who died for this...and I'm almost positive that there were some innocent people who got screwed...now don't get all in an uproar when I say this but everyone who didn't get proven guilty should immediately get the licences back and all fines dropped...because I know that the bad guys who do drink and drive will get caught again...hopefully they don't hurt someone before that happens...but the innocent ones will remain innocent and can have their lives back

I understood your point the first time around.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) I do not think all cops are bad nor do I think all cops are untrustworthy as some posters here do. It is my opinion that in many cases (not all) people in general are their own worst enemies. When they cross the line from legal actions to illegal actions, some people refuse to accept responsibility for their actions and feel the need to blame somebody else for their stupidity. It suits them to blame the cop who was doing his/her job of keeping our streets safe for the majority and who removed them from the road because they were a danger to the public. For them, I have no sympathy as there was ample press coverage about what the new drinking and driving laws and penalties would be.

Now, having clarified that point ...

Over the past five days I have seen first hand some of the repercussions of this lock-out device and how it has become a masterly-crafted cash grab for the government. Without going into too much detail, it is staggering what an impact that device has on an offender's life for a year and the amount of money it costs them over and over to be on that lock-out program for the year. (Keep in mind that I said they did deserve to get taken off the road if they were drinking and driving.) One little mistake in inputting any information into the remote device means it costs them $50. The incredible sensitivity of that mobile device they have to blow into to start their vehicles is staggering. A fail reading means another $50. Cash. Up front. Paid to the company that has the contract with the government to shut them down wherever and whenever. Just a few things that the person can have on their breath are ... booze (justified, of course), spicy foods (don't have pizza for lunch and expect to get back to work if you drive), acidic foods (don't eat an orange or drink lemonade or even Coke, tomatoes or tomato soup), breads with a high yeast content (sandwich, muffins, pizza dough, etc), cough candies, some gums, mouthwash (contains alcohol) and a number of other things as well. The driver has done nothing wrong but the machine reads those things as a fail and it cause all kinds of problems.

The machine has to be calibrated every three months - and the places to have that done are not always very conveniently located and for some drivers, it means taking a day off work and driving over bad mountain passes to get to the service places. Not doing it means they will shut your vehicle down tight and lock it (and more money paid to them to unlock it).

So now comes the crux of the matter (and one that should concern more than just drunk drivers) ...

Not only do the cops have to be judge, jury and executioner, but this contracted company (Guardian) also gets to be the same. By registering a fail reading for any of the totally legal substances I listed above, they get to lock your vehicle and in order to rectify that, you have to pay them up front before they will allow you to carry on with your perfectly legal life.

Now ... if the roadside screening devices the cops use are not properly maintained and cared for and if they are not giving accurate readings, there is cause for some alarm as someone who is borderline may end up with a reading that is over the limit. And then to further make things go from bad to worse, this reading is the basis for the lock-out devices from the other private company whose machines are also not giving correct readings. Over the course of the year, this whole business can cost people enormous amounts of money, time, and in the case I am very familiar with after the past five days, even life threatening because he couldn't get to the hospital for his cancer treatments. The mobile reading device he had to blow into went off and required a BAL test while he was driving and he had a cough candy in his mouth at the time and blew a fail which set off bells and whistles and lights flashing. If he had stopped driving and turned off his vehicle in the middle of a mountain pass he would have been in a severe life-threatening position. He was where a cell phone (which he doesn't have) would not have connected him to Guardian to allow him to start his vehicle again in sub-zero temperatures and Guardian is not in a hurry to answer the phone. "Leave a message and we'll call you back" will take as much as four hours and cash up front (credit card only which he also doesn't have) before they will help you get mobile again. BC has too many remote areas where cell phone just do not work and a person could really be stranded in the middle of nowhere.

This has all been quite an educational experience for me. I will never, ever consume any kind of alcohol in any amount away from my own house if I am likely to be driving - even remotely likely to be driving. I don't want a cop doing his job to have the ability to put this kind of restriction on my life and I sure as hell don't want some private company to be able to control me when I am breaking no laws after the cop nails me. What a lesson this has been!

This whole topic really needs to be rethought.

[TyrianQuill]

and grammafreddy there is a good point... imagine being KL3-something(hey can I use you as an example) and pulling over people who are "too inebriated" or "too angry and belligerent"...thats gotta get to ya...or when everybody says I only had two beers and they blow .10 or over... that has to frustrate you while doing your job...so what happens when he runs into a person who only did have a couple drinks... and makes them blow with a faulty screening device and the red light comes on...that person who does not know the rules just got shafted to a cost of thousands of dollars...see... cause maybe that person is a good citizen and feels bad for what they did...not knowing they could have had another test (I know KL3...its just an example) and they don't appeal out of embarrasment or just trying to follow the system...maybe all the wrong things happen at once..see I don't believe for a second that the people who blew over .08 and were driving down the street should get a break if they are proven guilty...but I agree with the charter of rights... WE ARE CANADIAN...we are innocent until proven guilty...I wore a poppy last month in remembrance of people who died for this...and I'm almost positive that there were some innocent people who got screwed...now don't get all in an uproar when I say this but everyone who didn't get proven guilty should immediately get the licences back and all fines dropped...because I know that the bad guys who do drink and drive will get caught again...hopefully they don't hurt someone before that happens...but the innocent ones will remain innocent and can have their lives back

I understood your point the first time around.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) I do not think all cops are bad nor do I think all cops are untrustworthy as some posters here do. It is my opinion that in many cases (not all) people in general are their own worst enemies. When they cross the line from legal actions to illegal actions, some people refuse to accept responsibility for their actions and feel the need to blame somebody else for their stupidity. It suits them to blame the cop who was doing his/her job of keeping our streets safe for the majority and who removed them from the road because they were a danger to the public. For them, I have no sympathy as there was ample press coverage about what the new drinking and driving laws and penalties would be.

Now, having clarified that point ...

Over the past five days I have seen first hand some of the repercussions of this lock-out device and how it has become a masterly-crafted cash grab for the government. Without going into too much detail, it is staggering what an impact that device has on an offender's life for a year and the amount of money it costs them over and over to be on that lock-out program for the year. (Keep in mind that I said they did deserve to get taken off the road if they were drinking and driving.) One little mistake in inputting any information into the remote device means it costs them $50. The incredible sensitivity of that mobile device they have to blow into to start their vehicles is staggering. A fail reading means another $50. Cash. Up front. Paid to the company that has the contract with the government to shut them down wherever and whenever. Just a few things that the person can have on their breath are ... booze (justified, of course), spicy foods (don't have pizza for lunch and expect to get back to work if you drive), acidic foods (don't eat an orange or drink lemonade or even Coke, tomatoes or tomato soup), breads with a high yeast content (sandwich, muffins, pizza dough, etc), cough candies, some gums, mouthwash (contains alcohol) and a number of other things as well. The driver has done nothing wrong but the machine reads those things as a fail and it cause all kinds of problems.

The machine has to be calibrated every three months - and the places to have that done are not always very conveniently located and for some drivers, it means taking a day off work and driving over bad mountain passes to get to the service places. Not doing it means they will shut your vehicle down tight and lock it (and more money paid to them to unlock it).

So now comes the crux of the matter (and one that should concern more than just drunk drivers) ...

Not only do the cops have to be judge, jury and executioner, but this contracted company (Guardian) also gets to be the same. By registering a fail reading for any of the totally legal substances I listed above, they get to lock your vehicle and in order to rectify that, you have to pay them up front before they will allow you to carry on with your perfectly legal life.

Now ... if the roadside screening devices the cops use are not properly maintained and cared for and if they are not giving accurate readings, there is cause for some alarm as someone who is borderline may end up with a reading that is over the limit. And then to further make things go from bad to worse, this reading is the basis for the lock-out devices from the other private company whose machines are also not giving correct readings. Over the course of the year, this whole business can cost people enormous amounts of money, time, and in the case I am very familiar with after the past five days, even life threatening because he couldn't get to the hospital for his cancer treatments. The mobile reading device he had to blow into went off and required a BAL test while he was driving and he had a cough candy in his mouth at the time and blew a fail which set off bells and whistles and lights flashing. If he had stopped driving and turned off his vehicle in the middle of a mountain pass he would have been in a severe life-threatening position. He was where a cell phone (which he doesn't have) would not have connected him to Guardian to allow him to start his vehicle again in sub-zero temperatures and Guardian is not in a hurry to answer the phone. "Leave a message and we'll call you back" will take as much as four hours and cash up front (credit card only which he also doesn't have) before they will help you get mobile again. BC has too many remote areas where cell phone just do not work and a person could really be stranded in the middle of nowhere.

This has all been quite an educational experience for me. I will never, ever consume any kind of alcohol in any amount away from my own house if I am likely to be driving - even remotely likely to be driving. I don't want a cop doing his job to have the ability to put this kind of restriction on my life and I sure as hell don't want some private company to be able to control me when I am breaking no laws after the cop nails me. What a lesson this has been!

This whole topic really needs to be rethought.

Well, then maybe, we as a society need to look more deeply, at the initial consequences imposed of a “first offence”, and possibly make it law that if one is proven and found guilty of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, that the result is an automatic life time suspension of a drivers license. No exceptions.

Action consequence.

If you earn the right to drive, then that right came be forfeited also.

If this were to be done then the weight to prove should be very heavy, possibly drawn blood samples. This would reek havoc at first but eventually the point would be absorbed into peoples thinking and habit.

(I quite frankly have never seen why this is not the case now anyways ... to me it is a plain matter of personal responsibility for one's actions. And if one wants to bring the claimed factor of illness then if the illness one claims renders them "not responsible" well then that brings in a whole other plethora of ramifications also, so ... to my way of thinking, it comes down to if you are a responsible person or not.)

[d_bengert]

well said gramma...I don't know of any reason why they havent just made it 0.00 and be done with the whole thing

[rutland1]

Well if you are going to make it 0.00, then lets ban everybody who is on any type of medication and prescription drugs,also cough and cold medication.

[TyrianQuill]

It is and would not be a point of banning, it is and would be a point of personal responsibility, the onus being on the person to “ensure” there is no impairment before they take on operating a vehicle.

[TyrianQuill]

Ok I, after working through this, have found a flaw/rub in my thinking, so I will go back to the chalkboard and work on it some more.

Later ...

[goatboy]

The key to all this is the accuracy and dependability of the screening device. As with any new law, it needs time to work cases through the courts to be challenged. In the case of the 90 day IRP, a successful challenge was made and the law needs to be re-worked. The accuracy and dependability of the ASD's will also become a legal challenge at some point, and then it will be up to the courts (not the Castanet forums) to decide if the devices are indeed sufficiently dependable to be used as evidence of an infraction.

As far as the consequences after someone has been issued a 90 day IRP (and lets assume that the new law will have an avenue to dispute the IRP), I don't really have any sympathy for whatever the "potential" challenges may be to be able to continue to drive. At that point (again, assuming the new law gives you an opportunity to challenge the IRP), you have been found to have had a BAC of over .10 and the legal limit being .08. You're lucky to be able to drive again period!

[grammafreddy]

well said gramma...I don't know of any reason why they havent just made it 0.00 and be done with the whole thing

Money is a great motivator to have the government do it this way with the lock-out devices. Beyond the initial fines for drunk driving, there is a huge cost involved (rightly or wrongly as my post above demonstrates) to the person who was caught by the cop with iffy equipment for the roadside BAL screening.

The government is making quite a bit more money now, I am thinking.

And before anyone jumps on me ... I do not have anything good to say about people who consume alcohol and then think they are fit to drive after.

But there is some degree of fairness and the constitutional rights also involved in all this lock-out stuff, too. When eating an orange or eating pizza means you can't drive, I have a problem paying some designated private company $50 for the privilege of starting my vehicle. I'd like to know how much of each of those $50 charges goes to the government.