17 drunk driving cases tossed because of police.

[Trunk-Monkey]

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.

I highlighted the important parts.

What you forgot to mention was APPROVED...as the name implies. Secondly when the ASD was APPROVED there was no such thing as an IRP. Now there is and said instrument is APPROVED for them as well. Times change...so do the laws...

[jerome2877]

What you forgot to mention was APPROVED...as the name implies. Secondly when the ASD was APPROVED there was no such thing as an IRP. Now there is and said instrument is APPROVED for them as well. Times change...so do the laws...

Approved by a government who had no respect for the constution and who were looking and found their cash cow!! The revamped IRP is being challenged and the old one is going before the court of appeal. Just because an idiot government makes a law, doesn't mean its fair. You can stand behind this garbage all you like APPROVED, APPROVED, APPROVED. I would feel much better about this law if there was a law that if a police officer was caught lying they were put to death with an APPROVED noose. Then their word would mean a little bit more to me!!

[KL3-Something]

What you forgot to mention was APPROVED...as the name implies. Secondly when the ASD was APPROVED there was no such thing as an IRP. Now there is and said instrument is APPROVED for them as well. Times change...so do the laws...

Approved by a government who had no respect for the constution and who were looking and found their cash cow!! The revamped IRP is being challenged and the old one is going before the court of appeal. Just because an idiot government makes a law, doesn't mean its fair. You can stand behind this garbage all you like APPROVED, APPROVED, APPROVED. I would feel much better about this law if there was a law that if a police officer was caught lying they were put to death with an APPROVED noose. Then their word would mean a little bit more to me!!

You need to educate yourself a little more on the law surrounding this issue. The Provincial government had NOTHING to do with the designation of the Alco-Sensor IV DWF Screener as an Approved Screening Device. That designation came from the Attorney General of Canada and is set out under the Criminal Code.

It is better to know what you are talking about before spouting off and looking foolish.

[KL3-Something]

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.

Well I guess it a good thing that Justice Sigurdson found that the IRP doesn't result in true penal consequences (i.e. "punishment"). The administrative sanctions may be a form of punitive measures but they fall short of the type of "punishment" you refer to. But I guess you are holding on for the appeal on that one.

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.

There is no instrument out there that can tell the difference between mouth alcohol and alcohol from deep lung air so I don't know where you are going with this. If you refer to the procedure that is in place for tests on the Approved Instrument (i.e. the observation period) then you are right. It is important to know when the last time was that the subject consumed liquor. This is why it is very important to be truthful with the nice police officer when he or she asks you when your last drink was. If you were sipping on a road pop, tell them. If you just left the bar where you slammed one last one back before walking out door, tell them. If you are still trying to convince the officer that you haven't had anything to drink and they make the demand and are holding one an ASD in their hand, it's time to realize that the jig is up and fess up. (I know, I know zzontar, we don't need to hear it again.)

[simnut]

I think you meant an APPROVED screening device...use the complete and correct name.

You are right....approved for screening....in the process of a criminal impaired driving charge.

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.

This is what some "debaters" need to keep in mind, and I fully agree with you on this. The police are doing as told by our government. 99% of the cops out there are just doing a job.......that's it, albeit a tough job. I complain if we get a new policy handed down to us at work, can you imagine the "policies" the officers have to deal with???

[simnut]

The Provincial government had NOTHING to do with the designation of the Alco-Sensor IV DWF Screener as an Approved Screening Device.

I disagree...the provincial government has EVERYTHING to do with making the Alco-Sensor IV DWF Screener an approved device for BC's administrative impaired driving laws.!!!!!! The Attorney General of Canada DID NOT, HAS NOT, or WILL NOT approve this device for anything BUT screening in a criminal investigation as you just mentioned below. The AG did not approve this device for what it is being used for now.....our province tagged the "approved" moniker and is using it in a completely different way than what the "approved" designation meant in the first place.

That designation came from the Attorney General of Canada and is set out under the Criminal Code.

Yes, you are correct......the designation APPROVED SCREENING DEVICE in a criminal investigation is by the AG of Canada....as a way to determine if the driver should be taken to an approved instrument (different than the ASD) for testing and follow up charges.

[simnut]

Secondly when the ASD was APPROVED there was no such thing as an IRP. Now there is and said instrument is APPROVED for them as well.

By whom? It was actually approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of BC.

[simnut]

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

One major difference......calibration. Wonder why the criminal code of Canada doesn't allow the ASD as the evidentiary equipment?

[abbyrugby]

Well I guess it a good thing that Justice Sigurdson found that the IRP doesn't result in true penal consequences (i.e. "punishment"). The administrative sanctions may be a form of punitive measures but they fall short of the type of "punishment" you refer to. But I guess you are holding on for the appeal on that one.

Wow, jumping to a conclusion on that one..........good thing you're not judge, jury and executioner. I'm not caught up in this but I know of guys who are, I walk to my local pub or drink beer at home...............but way to jump the gun.

[KL3-Something]

Well I guess it a good thing that Justice Sigurdson found that the IRP doesn't result in true penal consequences (i.e. "punishment"). The administrative sanctions may be a form of punitive measures but they fall short of the type of "punishment" you refer to. But I guess you are holding on for the appeal on that one.

Wow, jumping to a conclusion on that one..........good thing you're not judge, jury and executioner. I'm not caught up in this but I know of guys who are, I walk to my local pub or drink beer at home...............but way to jump the gun.

Well, way to misconstrue my post. I made no presumptions that you were in anyway "caught up" in this yourself. You just seem hell bent, for whatever reason, on seeing this very valuable piece of legislation defeated. As such you have made several references to the appeal coming up in September. When I made reference to a section of the Sigurdson decision that supported the IRP legislation I was expecting that you would rebut that it is still not settled until the appeal is heard and decided upon.

[KL3-Something]

The Provincial government had NOTHING to do with the designation of the Alco-Sensor IV DWF Screener as an Approved Screening Device.

I disagree...the provincial government has EVERYTHING to do with making the Alco-Sensor IV DWF Screener an approved device for BC's administrative impaired driving laws.!!!!!! The Attorney General of Canada DID NOT, HAS NOT, or WILL NOT approve this device for anything BUT screening in a criminal investigation as you just mentioned below. The AG did not approve this device for what it is being used for now.....our province tagged the "approved" moniker and is using it in a completely different way than what the "approved" designation meant in the first place.

That's not how it played out. There was no tagging done by the Provincial Government. The Provincial Government, through it's legislation, has simply said that if a certain set of circumstances has been met during the course of a Criminal Code Investigation into impaired driving where an ASD demand has been made under the Criminal Code, here is another option that the police can pursue. Everything that goes on is dependent upon the designations and authorities under the Criminal Code. If all of a sudden tomorrow the Alco-Sensor IV DWF Screener was no longer an Approved Screening Device under the Criminal Code or the ASD Demand was repealed, the IRP legislation would be stopped dead in it's tracks.

That designation came from the Attorney General of Canada and is set out under the Criminal Code.

Yes, you are correct......the designation APPROVED SCREENING DEVICE in a criminal investigation is by the AG of Canada....as a way to determine if the driver should be taken to an approved instrument (different than the ASD) for testing and follow up charges.

Good thing that the IRP ceases to be a Criminal Investigation once the decision to go that route is taken then, isn't it?

[simnut]

That's not how it played out. There was no tagging done by the Provincial Government. The Provincial Government, through it's legislation, has simply said that if a certain set of circumstances has been met during the course of a Criminal Code Investigation into impaired driving where an ASD demand has been made under the Criminal Code, here is another option that the police can pursue. Everything that goes on is dependent upon the designations and authorities under the Criminal Code.

Yea, this has me quite confused too. Our province (not the police) has also changed the definition of impaired driving from criminal to administrative. It begins as a criminal investigation, and the driver when found to be criminally guilty...is charged administratively. I'm sure you all know what procedures that removes for us.....

If all of a sudden tomorrow the Alco-Sensor IV DWF Screener was no longer an Approved Screening Device under the Criminal Code or the ASD Demand was repealed, the IRP legislation would be stopped dead in it's tracks.

Of course...I disagree.

The criminal code only covers the "search and seizure" aspect of demanding of the breath sample. The criminal code also approves the screening device used for this initial demand, for screening purposes only in a criminal investigation....ONLY. The criminal code does NOT apply to the ASD in BC....the Lieutenant Governor in Council gave it the approved status. Why did they approve it? Not sure...yet! It is approved in the criminal code only for screening...for criminal investigation, in BC it is approved for IRP proceedings. Even if the Alco-Sensor IV DWF Screener was no longer an ASD for criminal proceedings....it can still be used in BC for IRP proceedings. Why? This is out of the MVA of BC:

"approved screening device" means a device prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council for the purposes of this section;

[KL3-Something]

How is this different from the thousands if 24hr prohibitions that have been issued over the years solely based in the results of the ASD tests administered after an ASD demand made under the provisions of the criminal code? Even those thousands of 24hrs issued after the drivers blew fails, and not just warns?

[simnut]

How is this different from the thousands if 24hr prohibitions that have been issued over the years solely based in the results of the ASD tests administered after an ASD demand made under the provisions of the criminal code? Even those thousands of 24hrs issued after the drivers blew fails, and not just warns?

Sorry, I just edited my post just above this one. I added:

The criminal code only covers the "search and seizure" aspect of demanding of the breath sample. The criminal code also approves the screening device used for this initial demand, for screening purposes only in a criminal investigation....ONLY. The criminal code does NOT apply to the ASD in BC....the Lieutenant Governor in Council gave it the approved status. Why did they approve it? Not sure...yet! It is approved in the criminal code only for screening...for criminal investigation, in BC it is approved for IRP proceedings. Even if the Alco-Sensor IV DWF Screener was no longer an ASD for criminal proceedings....it can still be used in BC for IRP proceedings. Why? This is out of the MVA of BC:

approved screening device" means a device prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council for the purposes of this section

;

[diggerdick]

Why? it is simple to bypass the court system using a civil law
''