1,137 B.C. drunk driving penalties to be refunded

[Donald G]

Jerome2877 ...

Your allegation that the IRP enables you to be punished before being found guilty is interesting ... even though the readings make it evident that you were drinking and driving. The police routinely and systematically eliminate the very few other substances that could affect the readings. Not mentioning your right to be taken to the police office for a regular BTA test is also interestig. Did you do that because you are struggling to show that there is something unfair about the process? Drinking and driving is drinking and driving ... an unacceptable human weakness that contributes to the death of about 1,250 innocent mothers, fathers and children across Canada every year. There is no reason, nor justification for people to drink and drive.

[jerome2877]

Jerome2877 ...

Your allegation that the IRP enables you to be punished before being found guilty is interesting ... even though the readings make it evident that you were drinking and driving. The police routinely and systematically eliminate the very few other substances that could affect the readings. Not mentioning your right to be taken to the police office for a regular BTA test is also interestig. Did you do that because you are struggling to show that there is something unfair about the process? Drinking and driving is drinking and driving ... an unacceptable human weakness that contributes to the death of about 1,250 innocent mothers, fathers and children across Canada every year. There is no reason, nor justification for people to drink and drive.

How exactly do the police "routinely and systematically eliminate the very few other substances that could affect the readings"?

It is not your right under the IRP to be taken in for further testing at the police station!

If you think I need to struggle to show the unfairness of the IRP, then you really don't know what your talking about! I think your a bit mixed up with the IRP and the criminal Impaired charges.

I'm not advocating drinking and driving! I'm saying that our government, in an attempt to circumvent our judicial system to save time and money (more like make bucket loads of money) have trappled peoples right to be innocent until proven guilty.

What about people who don't have children, are their deaths less signifficant than mothers, fathers and children?

[simnut]

Jerome2877 ...

Your allegation that the IRP enables you to be punished before being found guilty is interesting ...

When the OSMV can force you to serve your suspension, EVEN THOUGH a case has been filed with the Supreme Court and you are still waiting for a court date...YES, you are being punished before you appeal process is finished. Suspended time CANNOT be given back by the OSMV...and whether you want to believe it or not, there ARE and WILL be valid issues or appeals from drivers.

even though the readings make it evident that you were drinking and driving.

Readings that could be inaccurate......

The police routinely and systematically eliminate the very few other substances that could affect the readings.

They are SUPPOSED to .......but as we have heard in the news....procedure is not always followed by officers! Do you realize that with the IRPs, the officer does not have to answer to his/her procedure or actions involving said IRP through the appeal process with the OSMV? Do you realize that even the Supreme Court of BC cannot tell the OSMV what to do...only advise them to reevaluate an IRP given to a driver?

Not mentioning your right to be taken to the police office for a regular BTA test is also interestig.

You better research the adminstrative sanctions before you assume that.....

Did you do that because you are struggling to show that there is something unfair about the process?

Just wait until YOU have to deal with the process......you will have your eyes opened. Especially when having a valid dispute!

Drinking and driving is drinking and driving ... an unacceptable human weakness that contributes to the death of about 1,250 innocent mothers, fathers and children across Canada every year. There is no reason, nor justification for people to drink and drive.

Agreed, when it comes to the IMPAIRED driver, found "guilty" properly. In BC drivers are allowed to have .05 BAC within their system and drive, and when the BAC numbers are close, extreme care has to be taken that everything is done correctly!

[Donald G]

To simnut ...

Every action taken by the police is taken AFTER you were found drinking and driving. The fact that you and some lawyer might be able to dream up a reason for you to be found not guilty on a technicality, which has nothing whatever to do with your ability to drive while drinking, is not my concern.

[jerome2877]

To simnut ...

Every action taken by the police is taken AFTER you were found drinking and driving. The fact that you and some lawyer might be able to dream up a reason for you to be found not guilty on a technicality, which has nothing whatever to do with your ability to drive while drinking, is not my concern.

Ok I'll tell my story again. I was stopped after consumimng 3 beers. I blew into the ASD and it read warn. The cop stated that I would have a 30 day prohibition from driving and 30 day impound of my vehicle (both incorrect, it should have been 3 days for both). This misinformation lead to me giving a second sample into an ASD and the second read fail. Under the original IRP they took the second sample as the preffered one and he then gave me a 90 day IRP.

Now the first thing is the cop gave me the wrong information and had I known the concequences of blowing again I wouldnt have. The mistake would have been corrected after but I did not know that he was incorrect at the time and I was facing missing a month of work. Secondly in the revisions to the IRP it states that it is the lower of the 2 tests that prevail so the "so called fix" to the IRP to answer the unconstitutionality that was ruled in supreme court should be applied to me no? Well the OSMV sure doesn't want that as they would owe me alot of money and many others as well.

So when I talk of unfair I am speaking from personal experience. I was unable to cross examine the cop in my appeal all they cared abut was whether an ASD read fail and was I a driver. 3 days would have been enough to deter me not to take the chance ever again and I would not have given the second sample if I was given that.

[goatboy]

Ok I'll tell my story again. I was stopped after consumimng 3 beers. I blew into the ASD and it read warn. The cop stated that I would have a 30 day prohibition from driving and 30 day impound of my vehicle (both incorrect, it should have been 3 days for both). This misinformation lead to me giving a second sample into an ASD and the second read fail. Under the original IRP they took the second sample as the preffered one and he then gave me a 90 day IRP.

Now the first thing is the cop gave me the wrong information and had I known the concequences of blowing again I wouldnt have. The mistake would have been corrected after but I did not know that he was incorrect at the time and I was facing missing a month of work. Secondly in the revisions to the IRP it states that it is the lower of the 2 tests that prevail so the "so called fix" to the IRP to answer the unconstitutionality that was ruled in supreme court should be applied to me no? Well the OSMV sure doesn't want that as they would owe me alot of money and many others as well.

So when I talk of unfair I am speaking from personal experience. I was unable to cross examine the cop in my appeal all they cared abut was whether an ASD read fail and was I a driver. 3 days would have been enough to deter me not to take the chance ever again and I would not have given the second sample if I was given that.

So, none of this is your fault for drinking three beers, driving and then blowing a fail?????

I laugh that no where in your whining do you actually contest the fail that you blew, just that if you had known better you shouldn't have given the second breath test. There is only one fail here and we know who that is.

[jerome2877]

So, none of this is your fault for drinking three beers, driving and then blowing a fail?????

I laugh that no where in your whining do you actually contest the fail that you blew, just that if you had known better you shouldn't have given the second breath test. There is only one fail here and we know who that is.

I definitely do contest the fail reading as they were both done within 3 minutes of each other and I am not a small man so three beers for me is like 1-2 for many. Also the cop either did not know or he lied about the prohibition for a warn. I have stated that I have learned and now Do Not have even one drink before driving! What I have learned though is not to trust the police or the Toys they can use to punish you on the roadside! I by no means was a danger to anyone. The people who cause accidents and death are proven to be well over the fail threshold.

The "fail" as you put it is our government and this gargbage law that allows no cross examination of the police and relies on Screening devices to impose punishment! And of course people like yourself that support this law who would be the first ones "whining" if it was them caught up in this B.S!!

[my5cents]

I definitely do contest the fail reading as they were both done within 3 minutes of each other and I am not a small man so three beers for me is like 1-2 for many. Also the cop either did not know or he lied about the prohibition for a warn. I have stated that I have learned and now Do Not have even one drink before driving! What I have learned though is not to trust the police or the Toys they can use to punish you on the roadside! I by no means was a danger to anyone. The people who cause accidents and death are proven to be well over the fail threshold.

The "fail" as you put it is our government and this gargbage law that allows no cross examination of the police and relies on Screening devices to impose punishment! And of course people like yourself that support this law who would be the first ones "whining" if it was them caught up in this B.S!!

Jerome2877, the lynch mob mentality is running wild and those with it are blind to your reasoning. They are also blind to the true reasons for the IRP and ADP.

In their simplistic view, if the police say that someone was tested and a screening device said they were a "warn" or a "fail", that's good enough.

It leaves one to wonder that if this type of law enforcement is so reliable, why waste so much time and money on the legal system for real crime. (and before some gets the idea to jump all over me for intimating that the enforcement of these drinking driving laws is "real crime", one of the reasons the IPR was deemed not in contravention of the Charter was because the IRP does't constitute an offence). Many persons charge criminally with such offenses as theft and drug possession receive punishments far less severe than what one gets for an IRP Fail.

In the real world, things aren't always cut and dry or black and white and what looks simple isn't.

You just have to sit through a trial in court, hear first, the prosecution's witness tender his/her direct evidence,, so clear, so simple,, the accused so guilty. But then the defense has an opportunity to ask this witness some questions, in cross examination,, not so clear,,, not so simple,,, the accused,,,, maybe not so guilty.

When the OSMV can force you to serve your suspension, EVEN THOUGH a case has been filed with the Supreme Court and you are still waiting for a court date...YES, you are being punished before you appeal process is finished. Suspended time CANNOT be given back by the OSMV...and whether you want to believe it or not, there ARE and WILL be valid issues or appeals from drivers.

I think the irony even worse, you can be forced, and frequently are, to start you suspension before crown counsel has even approved the charges going ahead. (Charges for reg impaired are heard in Provincial Court, not Supreme)

[simnut]

To simnut ...

Every action taken by the police is taken AFTER you were found drinking and driving. The fact that you and some lawyer might be able to dream up a reason for you to be found not guilty on a technicality, which has nothing whatever to do with your ability to drive while drinking, is not my concern.

Wrong again Donald....and I know this for a FACT! I know it ALL too well!!!!! FIRST of all, it all begins with the PROOF that the police THINK you've been drinking and driving!!!! It is THAT area that is always in question in the first place and our RIGHT to question the validity of the officers accusation, right? It has to be proven that you were drinking and driving...and impaired! How about having FIVE, yes count them....FIVE signed witness statements that alcohol was not involved before or during the incident in question? FIVE!!!! In a court of law, five witnesses for the driver and one witness (the officer) against the driver, would have held up in court ....EASILY!!!!!!!!! But not with the OSMV. Why? Because they don't have to take those letters into account, that's right......and really fair (sarcastically said)!!!!

Read section 215 of the MVA of BC for instance.....the 24 hour prohibition. Now read section 215.3....carefully.....

Decision of the superintendent

215.3 If, after considering an application for review under section 215.1, the superintendent is satisfied that

(a) the person on whom the notice of driving prohibition was served had the right to request and requested that the peace officer administer a test to indicate his or her blood alcohol level but the peace officer failed to provide the person with the opportunity to undergo the test, or

(b) the person on whom the notice of driving prohibition was served was not a driver within the meaning of section 215 (1),

the superintendent must revoke the driving prohibition.



Look at A and B of the section above....those are the ONLY two things the OSMV has to satisfy in order to uphold the 24 hour prohibition!!!!!! What a joke!!! Even you can come up with more variables that occur or are present in a 24 hour investigation.....but NONE of them COUNT!!!! This particular section is one reason I'm totally *bleep* at the government....NOT THE OFFICERS......


If you only knew how an officer (I believe that most officers are of integrity, but there are some out there that are not) can screw up your day by having a vendetta against you , not even for the "alleged" drinking and driving...but for a completely unrelated subject!!! If this happened to you, you would be as adamant as I am about this whole, so called appeal process that is in place and having to deal with the OSMV, because there is NO recourse for you...the driver!!!!!!!! I wish some would get this through their skull!

I hope all the officers involved with this board know that this is NOT a beef against all officers....just one in particular...and with the government.

[simnut]

I think the irony even worse, you can be forced, and frequently are, to start you suspension before crown counsel has even approved the charges going ahead. (Charges for reg impaired are heard in Provincial Court, not Supreme)

When "appealing" through the OSMV with these adminstrative sanctions, you do NOT get to see court until all avenues are exhausted with the OSMV (pay 200 buck there, pay 200 bucks here etc). THEN, all you get is what they call a judicial revue...and that happens at the Supreme Court level.....yea...the big bucks arena! THEN, after you have proven to the judge that there were errors in the procedures or evidence.....all the Supreme Court judge can do is "advise" the OSMV to re-evaluate the appeal. The Supreme Court cannot tell the OSMV to "change" their original decision.

[Donald G]

Those who go to great verbal lengths to justify their drinking and driving are, to me, just that; those who go to great lengths to justify their drinking and driving. They do not seem to accept that did you drink and drive has only one of two possible answers ... yes or no. It is not an essay type question and marks are not given for elaborate detail being added.

[goatboy]

I definitely do contest the fail reading as they were both done within 3 minutes of each other and I am not a small man so three beers for me is like 1-2 for many. Also the cop either did not know or he lied about the prohibition for a warn. I have stated that I have learned and now Do Not have even one drink before driving! What I have learned though is not to trust the police or the Toys they can use to punish you on the roadside! I by no means was a danger to anyone. The people who cause accidents and death are proven to be well over the fail threshold.

The "fail" as you put it is our government and this gargbage law that allows no cross examination of the police and relies on Screening devices to impose punishment! And of course people like yourself that support this law who would be the first ones "whining" if it was them caught up in this B.S!!

Of course you don't think you were a danger to anyone, you only had three beers and blew over .10, but of course it was the police, the ASD and my fault everything that happened to you. You are correct on one thing, I fully support this law and am not affraid to admit it. I am also not stupid enough to get caught up in all this BS!

[goatboy]

Wrong again Donald....and I know this for a FACT! I know it ALL too well!!!!! FIRST of all, it all begins with the PROOF that the police THINK you've been drinking and driving!!!! It is THAT area that is always in question in the first place and our RIGHT to question the validity of the officers accusation, right? It has to be proven that you were drinking and driving...and impaired! How about having FIVE, yes count them....FIVE signed witness statements that alcohol was not involved before or during the incident in question? FIVE!!!! In a court of law, five witnesses for the driver and one witness (the officer) against the driver, would have held up in court ....EASILY!!!!!!!!! But not with the OSMV. Why? Because they don't have to take those letters into account, that's right......

You're saying that you did not have anything to drink before you blew over?

[zzontar]

I definitely do contest the fail reading as they were both done within 3 minutes of each other and I am not a small man so three beers for me is like 1-2 for many.

Blowing consecutively without the required time between tests will give a falsely high reading.

[simnut]

You're saying that you did not have anything to drink before you blew over?

You are fairly familiar with the case I am talking about goatboy.....one that I am closely involved with.