Castanet

KL3-Something wrote: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.

Ha, you really are hell bent (like our corrupt government) to continue supporting a law that is unfair and will be turned over by our courts!

Yes like simnut said it was approved as a SCREENING device under the criminal code to aid in a criminal investigation. Our moronic government decided to use this device to punish people administratively while undermining the constitution of our country.

You are straight up, the "foolish" one!! Spouting off and blindly supporting a law that takes away the people of BC's rights!!

Educate yourself!

jerome2877 wrote:

Educate yourself!

And yet another personal attack...

Yep no reason for the laws to change and or adapt....none at all...\
http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... .htm#87034

jerome2877 wrote:Ha, you really are hell bent (like our corrupt government) to continue supporting a law that is unfair and will be turned over by our courts!

Yes like simnut said it was approved as a SCREENING device under the criminal code to aid in a criminal investigation. Our moronic government decided to use this device to punish people administratively while undermining the constitution of our country.

You are straight up, the "foolish" one!! Spouting off and blindly supporting a law that takes away the people of BC's rights!!

Educate yourself!

K, I gotta say something here...although it may not be in my place to do so.

First of all, I do not appreciate my username being used in a post that comes with a feeling of disrespect to the person being "talked" too. I know, this is a public forum and "may" be allowed and there is nothing I can do about it, but say something.

I am the first to admit I like to "discuss", but part of the enjoyment of discussing is learning aspects about things you never knew before, either by researching or by what the "other side" is saying. Even though...at this point anyways....no one can show me that the IRP's are a good "legal" way....(as opposed to effective way) to accomplish removing impaired drivers on the road....I can still respect the persons doing the job....AS being directed to by our government.

Jeeeezzz...now I'm starting to sound like my dad did........

Trunk-Monkey wrote:Yep no reason for the laws to change and or adapt....none at all...\
http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... .htm#87034

Since we're relying on anecdotal evidence http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Sober+ ... story.html

uh jerome,,,, you know that the person you are debating is a police officer right? naturally he is going to support a law that makes his job easier.

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

If the consequences are of a civil nature, and not a criminal one, then what's the problem?

goatboy wrote:If the consequences are of a civil nature, and not a criminal one, then what's the problem?

A criminal act is NOT of a civil nature. If you kill someone while driving drunk, do they not call this vehicular homicide (or similar terms)? In that respect, driving drunk ...the driver is potentially a criminal, well actually is a criminal already according to the Criminal Code.

We now are making all MVA violations go the same route...through the OSMV, with no recourse for court. What is next?

simnut wrote: K, I gotta say something here...although it may not be in my place to do so.

First of all, I do not appreciate my username being used in a post that comes with a feeling of disrespect to the person being "talked" too. I know, this is a public forum and "may" be allowed and there is nothing I can do about it, but say something.

I am the first to admit I like to "discuss", but part of the enjoyment of discussing is learning aspects about things you never knew before, either by researching or by what the "other side" is saying. Even though...at this point anyways....no one can show me that the IRP's are a good "legal" way....(as opposed to effective way) to accomplish removing impaired drivers on the road....I can still respect the persons doing the job....AS being directed to by our government.

Jeeeezzz...now I'm starting to sound like my dad did........

Well when I'm being told to educate myself and that I should know what I'm talking about before spouting off I will respond in that manner!

KL3-Something wrote: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.

jerome2877 wrote:Ha, you really are hell bent (like our corrupt government) to continue supporting a law that is unfair and will be turned over by our courts!

Yes. I am. And if the Court of Appeal decides that it needs to strike down the Sigurdson decision because it didn't go far enough then so be it. I'll just go back to doing things the way I used to (and in some cases still do). I think that if it is struck down,however, it will be to the detriment of society as a whole. But I really don't think that there is much of a risk of that happening.

Yes like simnut said it was approved as a SCREENING device under the criminal code to aid in a criminal investigation. Our moronic government decided to use this device to punish people administratively while undermining the constitution of our country.

And they have been administering "punishment" under the Motor Vehicle Act based on the results of these Approved Screening Devices for many years. Refer to Section 215 MVA.

You are straight up, the "foolish" one!! Spouting off and blindly supporting a law that takes away the people of BC's rights!!

Educate yourself!

You call me foolish and in need of educating myself. But when I make a point I usually back it up with the applicable legislation and/or case law. You just keep recycling the same rhetoric time and time again (judge jury and executioner blah blah blah appeal in september blah blah blah constitutional rights blah blah blah) without anything to back you up. Then you throw in a personal attack or two and sign off with your little piggy as a final insult. That completely undermines your credibilty.

Yes, there was a minor constitutional issue with the first IRP fail (the words of Sigurdson were "in the limited circumstance", para 16). But the judge thought it so limited so as to permit the government to continue to use the law for six months while it was remedied. The government, proceeding on the side of caution, chose not to use the IRP for that six month period until the remedies were brought before Sigurdson, received his approval then brought through the legislature into law.

So you see, I am not "spouting off" while "blindly" supporting the law. I have actually taken the time to understand the law. I understand not only the law behind it, but also the practical application of it. No rhetoric, personal attacks or cheeky/insulting emoticons required.

goatboy wrote:If the consequences are of a civil nature, and not a criminal one, then what's the problem?

simnut wrote: A criminal act is NOT of a civil nature. If you kill someone while driving drunk, do they not call this vehicular homicide (or similar terms)? In that respect, driving drunk ...the driver is potentially a criminal, well actually is a criminal already according to the Criminal Code.

We now are making all MVA violations go the same route...through the OSMV, with no recourse for court. What is next?

The IRP does not apply to the Criminal act of Impaired Driving Causing Death. The term "criminal" is one used by laymen. The Criminal Code does not call people anything.

KL3-Something wrote:
And they have been administering "punishment" under the Motor Vehicle Act based on the results of these Approved Screening Devices for many years. Refer to Section 215 MVA.

Actually, section 215 doesn't require a breath sample to be asked for by the officer to issue, right? The 24 hour prohibition can be issued on observation alone by the officer. The ASD CAN be utilized by the driver who can request a breath test to prove that he below .05 BAC , so in essence.....section 215 requires the ASD for prove of innocence as opposed to proof of guilt.

KL3-Something wrote:
And they have been administering "punishment" under the Motor Vehicle Act based on the results of these Approved Screening Devices for many years. Refer to Section 215 MVA.

simnut wrote: Actually, section 215 doesn't require a breath sample to be asked for by the officer to issue, right? The 24 hour prohibition can be issued on observation alone by the officer. The ASD CAN be utilized by the driver who can request a breath test to prove that he below .05 BAC , so in essence.....section 215 requires the ASD for prove of innocence as opposed to proof of guilt.

Not entirely true. If the officer issues a 24hr based on observations alone then the driver can challenge the 24hr right there. If an ASD is available then it can be used to either confirm or terminate the 24hr prohib roadside. The flip side to that, and that to which I was referring, was when an ASD demand was made to the driver under the provisions of the Criminal Code and the driver blew either a "warn" or a "fail", a 24hr prohibition could be issued and the vehicle impounded (see S. 215(6.2)). The "warn" or "fail" result indicates that the driver's BAC is in excess of 50mg% and as such led to the issuing of sanctions against the driver. The 24hr, however, was a virtually toothless dog. Many, many, many, drivers who blew "fails" over the years,and should have been facing impaired and/or over 80mg charges, were issued 24hr prohibs. Now the IRP requires, by law, that the officer act when a person blows a "fail" (or a "warn"). No more letting the drunk off easy. Which was one of the issues that the union representing the VPD members took with the IRP when it first came out. The law now MAKES members take action. I never heard of any people out there (except maybe people like me who hate to see laziness) complaining that the people who blew those "fails" and where handed 24hr prohibs, an administrative sanction with the same basic appeal process as the IRP, instead of being investigated fully under the Criminal Code.

But I digress. My point was that the ASD has been and Approved Screening Device under the Motor Vehicle Act (as prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council) for handing out administrative sanctions for years. It's just now the administrative sanctions actually have a little sting.

KL3-Something wrote:
Not entirely true. If the officer issues a 24hr based on observations alone then the driver can challenge the 24hr right there. If an ASD is available then it can be used to either confirm or terminate the 24hr prohib roadside. The flip side to that, and that to which I was referring, was when an ASD demand was made to the driver under the provisions of the Criminal Code and the driver blew either a "warn" or a "fail", a 24hr prohibition could be issued and the vehicle impounded (see S. 215(6.2)). The "warn" or "fail" result indicates that the driver's BAC is in excess of 50mg% and as such led to the issuing of sanctions against the driver. The 24hr, however, was a virtually toothless dog. Many, many, many, drivers who blew "fails" over the years,and should have been facing impaired and/or over 80mg charges, were issued 24hr prohibs. Now the IRP requires, by law, that the officer act when a person blows a "fail" (or a "warn"). No more letting the drunk off easy. Which was one of the issues that the union representing the VPD members took with the IRP when it first came out. The law now MAKES members take action. I never heard of any people out there (except maybe people like me who hate to see laziness) complaining that the people who blew those "fails" and where handed 24hr prohibs, an administrative sanction with the same basic appeal process as the IRP, instead of being investigated fully under the Criminal Code.

EXCELLENT explanation...and I can see and agree with what you just explained! See, the powers of discussion! Impaired drivers should be nailed at every chance!

KL3-Something wrote:But I digress. My point was that the ASD has been and Approved Screening Device under the Motor Vehicle Act (as prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council) for handing out administrative sanctions for years. It's just now the administrative sanctions actually have a little sting.

And have bypassed the court system. That is really my only issue with the IRPS.

Why have the true breathalyzer at all , if these toys are all you really need to prosecute any impaired driver civil or criminal.because we all know how they are so approved by the highest authorities in the land

Why have courts at all,when the all-knowing cop who is an authority on everything can simply do the prosecutions themselves.

We're going down a sad road where small minded authorities are overstepping their boundaries of power because they think they know what's best for the citizens. but this is all been approved been approved been approved