Castanet

he got away with it . he was so drunk .. got out of a 3 million dollar fine too

theyeti wrote:he got away with it . he was so drunk .. got out of a 3 million dollar fine too

Which begs the question, why did the officer not calibrate the machine as required by regulation? I feel great empathy for the injured. Perhaps those proceedings should have changed focus to the officer that alowed this technicality escape and consideration given for litigation for failure to perform and gross negligence.

i dont know . im sure the cop tried .. someone did drop the ball tho . but hard for me who only knows one side of the story to say who that was or wasnt

Calibration raises concerns about breathalyzers

A Vancouver defence lawyer says the problems police are experiencing with improperly calibrated breathalyzers are only the tip of the iceberg.

Yesterday, Port Moody police revealed improperly calibrated devices led to 14 invalid roadside suspensions for drunk driving in 2011. The government has promised to erase the suspensions from the drivers' records and reimburse any fines or fees.

But lawyer Paul Doroshenko says compensating the drivers is not going to be that simple.

"I don't know what you do. We are talking about people who have lost their jobs, huge embarrassment for people. People had to try and explain it to their families. It's humiliating," he says.

Apart from the issues with calibration and now compensation, Doroshenko says there is a bigger problem with the system.

His concern is the tough impaired driving laws that allow police to issue roadside suspensions that can cost drivers thousands of dollars in fines and fees — without setting foot inside a courtroom.
A review of the breathalyzer tests that led the Port Moody Police Department to issue immediate roadside prohibitions in 2011 found that about 8 per cent of the tests were invalid due to improper device calibration. A review of the breathalyzer tests that led the Port Moody Police Department to issue immediate roadside prohibitions in 2011 found that about 8 per cent of the tests were invalid due to improper device calibration. (CBC)

"No roadside breath testing is ever reliable enough to be to justify punishment. It's a frightening scheme we have in B.C.," he said.

Doroshenko says he devices are just not accurate enough to replace more accurate testing methods like blood tests.

"It was intended to be used as a screener to assist police officers in forming an opinion as to whether they should take you back to the detachment." http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... lyzer.html

In the madd fervor, to jump on the politically correct bandwagon against impaired driving the government , The police and the special-interest groups have lost sight of reality.

if one person is saved, by taking away the civil rights and freedoms of everyone who has a single beer .

the trouble is the police , and these roadside screening device toys cannot be trusted to be responsible enough to have the power to totally destroy someone's life.

The problem is that people cannot be trusted to be responsible enough to not kill someone by driving drunk. If people weren't such bloody idiots there wouldn't need to be breathalysers or roadside screenings period. But if you have a better solution, feel free to present it.

diggerdick wrote:"I don't know what you do. We are talking about people who have lost their jobs, huge embarrassment for people. People had to try and explain it to their families. It's humiliating," he says.

What about the police officer that has to explain to someone that their loved one is dead because some idiot that was drunk thought he was ok to drive? I'm pretty sure that's a lot harder than explaining your DUI

diggerdick wrote:"No roadside breath testing is ever reliable enough to be to justify punishment. It's a frightening scheme we have in B.C.," he said.

Doroshenko says he devices are just not accurate enough to replace more accurate testing methods like blood tests.

"It was intended to be used as a screener to assist police officers in forming an opinion as to whether they should take you back to the detachment." http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... lyzer.html

Based on what information? I'm not surprised to hear a lawyer bashing the drunk driving laws, I'd imagine trying to fight these is big money for them.

The madd fanatics seem to believe it's all so simple.

Don't drive drunk. Okay I buy that and believe in it. Get the drunks off the road and criminally charge them.

But what seems to be going right over their heads is that people are being charged and convicted without seeing a judge or lawyer when they're not even close to being drunk because of faulty roadside screening devices , a Mickey Mouse civil law and sometimes incompetent cops.

And all they seem to be able to do is babble like a 1920s women's temperance fanatic about the demon alcohol

diggerdick wrote:The madd fanatics seem to believe it's all so simple.

Don't drive drunk. Okay I buy that and believe in it. Get the drunks off the road and criminally charge them.

But what seems to be going right over their heads is that people are being charged and convicted without seeing a judge or lawyer when they're not even close to being drunk because of faulty roadside screening devices , a Mickey Mouse civil law and sometimes incompetent cops.

And all they seem to be able to do is babble like a 1920s women's temperance fanatic about the demon alcohol

Two beers doesn't make you drunk?

If you read the article from the CBC The roadside screening devices were defective And having one single beer Or perhaps no Alcohol Would've had you automatically convicted.

The British Columbia taxpayers are going to be on the hook for millions of dollars In lawsuits. All because the cops Have become too lazy To take true drunk drivers to the police station and give them a true breathalyzer test.And do the paperwork associated with it.

Because they want to bypass judges and lawyers And the Canadian charter of rights.

underscore wrote:The problem is that people cannot be trusted to be responsible enough to not kill someone by driving drunk. If people weren't such bloody idiots there wouldn't need to be breathalysers or roadside screenings period. But if you have a better solution, feel free to present it.

Take them back to the detachment and use the APPROVED device for such a criminal act...which is what impaired driving is....

What about the police officer that has to explain to someone that their loved one is dead because some idiot that was drunk thought he was ok to drive? I'm pretty sure that's a lot harder than explaining your DUI

And that makes it right for drivers to be charged for something they didn't do, because of improper or faulty equipment? NOT!!!!

Based on what information? I'm not surprised to hear a lawyer bashing the drunk driving laws, I'd imagine trying to fight these is big money for them.

Do some research.....the ASD is NOT an approved device for the criminal act of impaired driving. The ASD is a screening device....ONLY! The government of BC made the ASD an approved device for their adminstrative version of impaired driving.....bypassing procedures required to protect innocent citizens..... OH...hang on....like in Port Moody!!!!!!!!!

diggerdick wrote:IAll because the cops Have become too lazy To take true drunk drivers to the police station and give them a true breathalyzer test.And do the paperwork associated with it.

Because they want to bypass judges and lawyers And the Canadian charter of rights.

Just to get it straight, it's not the cops that have determined that they can do it this way...it's the province of BC.....officers are doing as instructed. If you keep that in mind, you might not have such a hate on for cops.....

diggerdick wrote:If you read the article from the CBC The roadside screening devices were defective And having one single beer Or perhaps no Alcohol Would've had you automatically convicted.

.

Where does it say that, I couldn't find it anywhere in the article?

diggerdick wrote:This shows why police officers lose so many cases when they are put in front of a judge In a court of law.

Taking shortcuts, failure to follow procedures Manipulating evidence.

With the new civil law, Your guilty

And you know why,

Because some cop says so no lawyer, no judge just because a handheld toy that says pass or fail .

And the cops have the mADD fanatics drooling at the mouth with self-righteous power

There's a reason why cops hate lawyers and judges. because they hold them accountable for their actions

Wait just a minute here. 1st of all the ASD is not a hand held toy. It's an "approved screening device". 2nd there was no malicious intent here when " common data" was photo copied albeit this has been corrected to a more acceptable practice via procedural change etc. The IRP system has proven its worth both to the judicial system as well as to the general public. 3rd it's not just because an approved device says pass or fail. There is a lot more to it than just that and you know it. 4th unless you are a cop please don't speak in such general terms as to who they "hate" or not. You couldn't possibly know that and to say such things only goes to your credability

diggerdick wrote:The madd fanatics seem to believe it's all so simple.

Don't drive drunk. Okay I buy that and believe in it. Get the drunks off the road and criminally charge them.

But what seems to be going right over their heads is that people are being charged and convicted without seeing a judge or lawyer when they're not even close to being drunk because of faulty ....

Completely FALSE!!!

Trunk-Monkey wrote:Wait just a minute here. 1st of all the ASD is not a hand held toy. It's an "approved screening device". 2nd there was no malicious intent here when " common data" was photo copied albeit this has been corrected to a more acceptable practice via procedural change etc. The IRP system has proven its worth both to the judicial system as well as to the general public. 3rd it's not just because an approved device says pass or fail. There is a lot more to it than just that and you know it. 4th unless you are a cop please don't speak in such general terms as to who they "hate" or not. You couldn't possibly know that and to say such things only goes to your credability

SCREENING device, yes but it was never designed to be used as a basis to punish people! It is a tool to assist police in SCREENING individuals.

Malicious intent? No but definatley lazy!

The IRP's worth? Alot to the goverment who used this as their cash cow.

General terms? So cops can speak in "general terms" about the "general public" and how this BS law has proven its worth but not us members of the "general public"?