17 drunk driving cases tossed because of police.

[diggerdick]

What the general public don't seem to understand Is that the police don't care whether or not Procedures are followed at all With the new civil law.Because there is no real appeal process

The more notches they can get on their belt Collecting roadside .05 civil charges The better it looks on their resume.

Who wants to spend all night doing paperwork Arresting a true .08 drunk driver And then being forced to provide that evidence in front of a judge With a lawyer present

And then perhaps lose the case

When you can rack up , a few .05's a night And never have to Really prove anything.

[goatboy]

It doesn't matter how well a tool works if the person using it doesn't know how to use it, like if you're under the limit and have residual mouth alcohol, and an officer makes you blow consecutively without knowing (or maybe knowing) that blowing consecutively will give a higher reading as well as will residual mouth alcohol without the required wait, then giving you an IRP.

Which if it were to happen, your lawyer would be able to present to the OSMV, unless of course you don't use a lawyer and did not do a good job of presenting your case, then of course none of that would be your fault and all the police officers.

[zzontar]

Which if it were to happen, your lawyer would be able to present to the OSMV, unless of course you don't use a lawyer and did not do a good job of presenting your case, then of course none of that would be your fault and all the police officers.

It's not my fault the cop didn't know proper procedure, nor that I couldn't afford a lawyer, nor is it my fault that Legal Aid doesn't take driving-related cases, nor is it my fault that no evidence in the written appeal I paid for had to be considered by the superintendent making it nothing but a cash cow... but you should know that already.

[jerome2877]

Useless personal attack....

There I removed it, now maybe you can answer the rest of my post!!

[Trunk-Monkey]

Well the Port Moody police should have admitted long ago that they were not using the proper calibration methods, instead they chose to have an investigation that took over a year. They knew damn well they were wrong but did they suggest revoking IRP's that were handed out with improperly calibrated devices?

The Vancouver police have been lazy and used improper procedure with the calibration reports (that are part of what you call checks and balances) but it took Paul to expose this and fight in supreme court to get this brought to light

So who's barking up the wrong tree?

All of these things were addressed and corrected with the new IRP's. I cannot answer as to what happened with other dept's as I was not there. Im really not sure what you want me to answer.
As far as barking up the wrong tree, I think you are when it comes to the IRP's. Take the time to learn what is being done, not what has happened in the past...as we all know the intial IRP's were imperfect...but...issues to that regard have been corrected...and they are working now.

[goatboy]

It's not my fault the cop didn't know proper procedure, nor that I couldn't afford a lawyer, nor is it my fault that Legal Aid doesn't take driving-related cases, nor is it my fault that no evidence in the written appeal I paid for had to be considered by the superintendent making it nothing but a cash cow... but you should know that already.

Yeah yeah, we get it. None of it was your fault...........

[simnut]

All of these things were addressed and corrected with the new IRP's. I cannot answer as to what happened with other dept's as I was not there. Im really not sure what you want me to answer.
As far as barking up the wrong tree, I think you are when it comes to the IRP's. Take the time to learn what is being done, not what has happened in the past...as we all know the intial IRP's were imperfect...but...issues to that regard have been corrected...and they are working now.

Hey Trunk, what would your opinion be...or what do you think the opinion of officers in general would be if police cars had video cameras installed.....in regards to stopping a suspected drunk driver? Even having a video camera on a tripod at a road block ....... aimed at the "interview" or "procedure " area of said road block.

Here is my reasoning. Many people don't like the IRPS (from OUR point of view) because it becomes a officers word against the drivers word. For many respectable officers, this isn't an issue..but as mentioned before.....there are some "bad apples" out there...and many questions on if procedures were followed. If a video camera caught the entire procedure on tape (or digital as it is now), the "his word" against "his word" would not be an issue, right? If that video was made available to both parties within the 7 days after the event.....certain things would get cleared up quite quickly. For instance:

1) The driver can actually see that he was impaired....it was caught on video....case done! Even his lawyer would tell him he's up the creek!

2) If an officer followed correct procedure....he/she is protected...all caught on tape!

3) IF there was a procedural mistake, again...there would be no question...there it is on tape! We citizens would like this!

4) A video of the incident would be a lot easier to "deal" with in a driver/lawyer and tribunal (or even a independent judge) situation then.....there would be far less question about evidence as it is all right there...as if the parties involved had been there.

I would love to see all impaired drivers off the road.....and this might be something we could add to the IRP procedure that is beneficial to both parties involved. We may see far fewer cases go to the Supreme Court.....and still allow the basic IRP procedure be in place. Officers will still get to spend more time on the road...the only additional thing they have to remember is to turn the video camera on! Ooops....another procedure! hehehe

[Trunk-Monkey]

Hey Trunk, what would your opinion be...or what do you think the opinion of officers in general would be if police cars had video cameras installed.....in regards to stopping a suspected drunk driver? Even having a video camera on a tripod at a road block ....... aimed at the "interview" or "procedure " area of said road block.

Here is my reasoning. Many people don't like the IRPS (from OUR point of view) because it becomes a officers word against the drivers word. For many respectable officers, this isn't an issue..but as mentioned before.....there are some "bad apples" out there...and many questions on if procedures were followed. If a video camera caught the entire procedure on tape (or digital as it is now), the "his word" against "his word" would not be an issue, right? If that video was made available to both parties within the 7 days after the event.....certain things would get cleared up quite quickly. For instance:

1) The driver can actually see that he was impaired....it was caught on video....case done! Even his lawyer would tell him he's up the creek!

2) If an officer followed correct procedure....he/she is protected...all caught on tape!

3) IF there was a procedural mistake, again...there would be no question...there it is on tape! We citizens would like this!

4) A video of the incident would be a lot easier to "deal" with in a driver/lawyer and tribunal (or even a independent judge) situation then.....there would be far less question about evidence as it is all right there...as if the parties involved had been there.

I would love to see all impaired drivers off the road.....and this might be something we could add to the IRP procedure that is beneficial to both parties involved. We may see far fewer cases go to the Supreme Court.....and still allow the basic IRP procedure be in place. Officers will still get to spend more time on the road...the only additional thing they have to remember is to turn the video camera on! Ooops....another procedure! hehehe

I have no issues with cameras in the police vehicle to capture all the evidence. There are cameras in some of the cars now. Regarding your comment about "its the officers word..." I dont believe this to be true...since there are his/her observations as well as the ASD results (two different instruments). As well as the second officers observations....the one who brings the second ASD. So I dont think the he said she said game is an issue.

[simnut]

I have no issues with cameras in the police vehicle to capture all the evidence. There are cameras in some of the cars now. Regarding your comment about "its the officers word..." I dont believe this to be true...since there are his/her observations as well as the ASD results (two different instruments). As well as the second officers observations....the one who brings the second ASD. So I dont think the he said she said game is an issue.

Ok, let me reword that a bit.. I agree on the he said she said thing......let's call it one side against the other.

I don't know if this is a good analogy, but let me try. The Canucks (all us BC'ers FAVORITE hockey team ) are playing Chicago, in Chicago. One of the referee's(police) makes what appears to be a debatable call against the Canucks(citizens of BC). ALL of BC is in an uproar!!! Of course, the Blackhawks(government and appeal process) thinks it's a very worthy call...... The other ref(another police officer) will not overide the other for various reasons....one being he didn't see exactly what the other ref did....maybe wasn't confident enough to contradict the more senior ref etc. How many times have we seen this....for those of you that watch hockey....well...actually any sport really. THEN the replay happens........ Ohhhhh.....it WAS a penalty.....and when shown again.....even "we" canuck fans have to admit it was.

But, we could and have, also seen where it wasnt' really a penalty......and in some sports the call gets reversed based on the video replay. In that case, we Canuck fans sulk for a few days......thats about it. In the case of a driver receiving an IRP in error, he/she has to pay for it with no recourse until getting a date at the Supreme Court of BC, where not even the Supreme Court judge can tell the "refs" to reverse the decision.

[Trunk-Monkey]

Ok, let me reword that a bit.. I agree on the he said she said thing......let's call it one side against the other.

I don't know if this is a good analogy, but let me try. The Canucks (all us BC'ers FAVORITE hockey team ) are playing Chicago, in Chicago. One of the referee's(police) makes what appears to be a debatable call against the Canucks(citizens of BC). ALL of BC is in an uproar!!! Of course, the Blackhawks(government and appeal process) thinks it's a very worthy call...... The other ref(another police officer) will not overide the other for various reasons....one being he didn't see exactly what the other ref did....maybe wasn't confident enough to contradict the more senior ref etc. How many times have we seen this....for those of you that watch hockey....well...actually any sport really. THEN the replay happens........ Ohhhhh.....it WAS a penalty.....and when shown again.....even "we" canuck fans have to admit it was.

But, we could and have, also seen where it wasnt' really a penalty......and in some sports the call gets reversed based on the video replay. In that case, we Canuck fans sulk for a few days......thats about it. In the case of a driver receiving an IRP in error, he/she has to pay for it with no recourse until getting a date at the Supreme Court of BC, where not even the Supreme Court judge can tell the "refs" to reverse the decision.

Impaired driving is not a hockey game...the person is either impaired or not. There are protocals and procedures and instruments used to determine this...not to mention the observations of sworn officers. If the evidence is captured on video all the better. To be frank there is no grey area here. The mere fact that two seperate ASD's are used and the lesser reading prevails (sided towards the driver) is enough to make the determination of actual impairment or not. Couple that with the officer(s) sworn or affirmed statement(s) stating the symptoms etc he/she sees is all the facts that need to be considered. The OSMV reviews all IRP's and that is a final check and balance. So you can see this is NOT a simple police officer playing judge and jury as many people think. There are many checks and balances in the process. This is not rocket science and to be critical of every portion of the process is vital I agree but the system has been tested and proven affective. No one is trying to get one over on the gen pub here.

[abbyrugby]

Impaired driving is not a hockey game...the person is either impaired or not. There are protocals and procedures and instruments used to determine this...not to mention the observations of sworn officers. If the evidence is captured on video all the better. To be frank there is no grey area here. The mere fact that two seperate ASD's are used and the lesser reading prevails (sided towards the driver) is enough to make the determination of actual impairment or not. Couple that with the officer(s) sworn or affirmed statement(s) stating the symptoms etc he/she sees is all the facts that need to be considered. The OSMV reviews all IRP's and that is a final check and balance. So you can see this is NOT a simple police officer playing judge and jury as many people think. There are many checks and balances in the process. This is not rocket science and to be critical of every portion of the process is vital I agree but the system has been tested and proven affective. No one is trying to get one over on the gen pub here.

Using a SCREENING device as the method of judge, jury and executioner is in fact, trying to get one over on the gen pub. Doesn't matter how many you use, it is still a screening device. My brother-in-law (who's a cop) told me once, if all he had was the ASD result heading into court, he go in knowing he's losing; he's one cop that hates this new law.

Like I said, get one, just one Toxicologist to testify that ASDs are reliable............this whole debate dies. Problem is that a toxicologist will not tarnish his/her reputation by making such a false claim.

As long as the ASD is the toy of choice............be prepared for Constitutional challenges.

[diggerdick]

The key words here is going to COURT

[Trunk-Monkey]

Using a SCREENING device as the method of judge, jury and executioner is in fact, trying to get one over on the gen pub. Doesn't matter how many you use, it is still a screening device. My brother-in-law (who's a cop) told me once, if all he had was the ASD result heading into court, he go in knowing he's losing; he's one cop that hates this new law.

Like I said, get one, just one Toxicologist to testify that ASDs are reliable............this whole debate dies. Problem is that a toxicologist will not tarnish his/her reputation by making such a false claim.

As long as the ASD is the toy of choice............be prepared for Constitutional challenges.

I think you meant an APPROVED screening device...use the complete and correct name. Using two of the ASD's isnt anything to their reliability, do some research on the science and you will learn why 2 are used. As far as your brother in law hating the new administration process...that may be true...but he still has to enforce it as police officers are afforded the luxury of picking and chosing what laws they enforce based on if they like them or not.
As far as a toxicologist not testifying to the ASD's accuracy...well I am not one but there are reasons I could suggest why this would be the case as well...but that is another subject ...I will say this though...if the ASA's are calibrated and procedures are followed...and they are now....the ASD is an accurate instrument approved to administer the IRP administrative process. The IRP's are nothing more than that...and there is a process in place to dispute them...
As far as constitutional challenges...thats fine with me, let them be challenged. They are just a tool used by the police, no personal attachment here.

[goatboy]

Using a SCREENING device as the method of judge, jury and executioner is in fact, trying to get one over on the gen pub. Doesn't matter how many you use, it is still a screening device. My brother-in-law (who's a cop) told me once, if all he had was the ASD result heading into court, he go in knowing he's losing; he's one cop that hates this new law.

Like I said, get one, just one Toxicologist to testify that ASDs are reliable............this whole debate dies. Problem is that a toxicologist will not tarnish his/her reputation by making such a false claim.

As long as the ASD is the toy of choice............be prepared for Constitutional challenges.

Is a BAC machine not also a "screening" device? Does it not also "screen" for drunk drivers? Just because a machine is small and hand held does not mean that it is not accurate, reliable and can be used to determine BAC levels. Why are you so hung up on what machine determines the BAC? Technology advances and electronics get smaller. Doesn't mean they're not as good, they just use a different approach to how they work

[abbyrugby]

Is a BAC machine not also a "screening" device? Does it not also "screen" for drunk drivers? Just because a machine is small and hand held does not mean that it is not accurate, reliable and can be used to determine BAC levels. Why are you so hung up on what machine determines the BAC? Technology advances and electronics get smaller. Doesn't mean they're not as good, they just use a different approach to how they work

The device used by the police in BC is the Alco-Sensor IV DWF Screener. It was approved by Parliament as a screening device (ASD) to identify drivers who should be taken to provide samples into an approved instrument. The results of the Alco-Sensor IV sample were never intended to be used as evidence. When it was introduced, the only purpose was as a Screener (as the name implies) and it was understood that the results could not be used as the basis of punishment.

The Alco-Sensor IV ASD only recognizes alcohol. The problem is that it cannot differentiate between alcohol from the breath or alcohol in the mouth. If there is alcohol in the subject’s blood, it will be exhaled along with the person’s breath. If there is also alcohol in the subject’s mouth, the results will always be elevated and thus inaccurate.

The effect is cumulative, i.e. the device will simply add the alcohol exhaled from the lungs with the alcohol in the mouth. The risk is that a subject who is under 0.05 % with a miniscule amount of alcohol in their mouth may blow “Warn” or “Fail” and the officer will not know it was due to mouth alcohol. It may be common occurrence, but it is nearly impossible to prove. Consequently many people have been wrongly punished with IRPs due to inaccurate ASD results.