Traffic Laws are changing.... should we be worried ?
Posted: Feb 8th, 2018, 11:32 am
I confess I have never been comfortable with our new drinking and driving laws.
It started with a driving suspension when someone was charged (not convicted) with a drinking and drive offense. What the ??? Isn't the law,,, innocent until PROVEN guilty ? Nope, in BC being charge with drinking and driving got you a provincial suspension BEFORE you either plead guilty or were convicted.
Then the IRP (Immediate Roadside Prohibition). It basically says a police officer, having the ground to demand that you blow in a RSD (Roadside Screening Device) pursuant to an investigation under the Criminal Code of Canada, could then switch tracks and process you under the strength of the RSD reading under the Provincial Motor Vehicle Act and basically find you guilty of an offense (which they carefully avoid calling it) at the side of the road. Depending on the reading there are all sorts of penalties, as high as $4000, all on the say so of Cst Duddly Do Nothing. The IRP can save (depending on how inept the constable is) 7 - 8 hours of paper work processing you under the Criminal Code.
But now we have Pot, yes alcohol hasn't caused enough problems over the decades and decades, we needed to legalize another intoxicant.
At this point there is no reliable test to prove that consumption of Pot in one form or another has impaired your ability to drive. Also, apparently the intoxicant in Pot THC remains in your system so, a test of blood or urine will only reveal previous consumption and can't be linked to a current level of intoxication.
As a result, law enforcement has taken a HUGE step backwards to the investigation of intoxicated driving with ONLY the use of physical tests. To "prove" Cannabis intoxication.
Now police have been investigating impaired driving by drugs for years and years and gathering evidence by physical tests, BUT, the police could NOT proceed against the driver with the IRP, they had to prove the impairment in criminal court before a judge with all the rules of evidence and presumption of inocents.
The IRP, that I admit I don't like, still has the less reliable RSD as a form of additional indications that a driver had consumed too much alcohol, in addition to any physical test.
Yes, I know every cop is extremely well trained, extremely honest and certainly above reproach and can be trusted to be judge and jury at the side of the road. But we do hear about the man who suffers a stroke and the grandfather who is a passenger in his vehicle driven by his sober grandson, who were wrongly (illegally ?) dealt with.
Now are some of us non-drinking, non-pot using motorists going to get in a jackpot because of an infirmity can't perform physical tests to the satisfaction of one of these extremely well trained, honest, trustworthy civil servants ?
I'm guessing there will be same "legally reliable" hearing where a bureaucrat (not a judge) will review the police statement and require the driver to make a statement (you know like some of those countries that don't have a Charter of Rights, like you thought we had)
Where's that going to go ?
Cop, "he was unsteady on his feet, he couldn't touch he nose as instructed".
Driver, "I didn't consume anything, I've got a bum knee, I missed my nose once, I was nervous..."
It started with a driving suspension when someone was charged (not convicted) with a drinking and drive offense. What the ??? Isn't the law,,, innocent until PROVEN guilty ? Nope, in BC being charge with drinking and driving got you a provincial suspension BEFORE you either plead guilty or were convicted.
Then the IRP (Immediate Roadside Prohibition). It basically says a police officer, having the ground to demand that you blow in a RSD (Roadside Screening Device) pursuant to an investigation under the Criminal Code of Canada, could then switch tracks and process you under the strength of the RSD reading under the Provincial Motor Vehicle Act and basically find you guilty of an offense (which they carefully avoid calling it) at the side of the road. Depending on the reading there are all sorts of penalties, as high as $4000, all on the say so of Cst Duddly Do Nothing. The IRP can save (depending on how inept the constable is) 7 - 8 hours of paper work processing you under the Criminal Code.
But now we have Pot, yes alcohol hasn't caused enough problems over the decades and decades, we needed to legalize another intoxicant.
At this point there is no reliable test to prove that consumption of Pot in one form or another has impaired your ability to drive. Also, apparently the intoxicant in Pot THC remains in your system so, a test of blood or urine will only reveal previous consumption and can't be linked to a current level of intoxication.
As a result, law enforcement has taken a HUGE step backwards to the investigation of intoxicated driving with ONLY the use of physical tests. To "prove" Cannabis intoxication.
Now police have been investigating impaired driving by drugs for years and years and gathering evidence by physical tests, BUT, the police could NOT proceed against the driver with the IRP, they had to prove the impairment in criminal court before a judge with all the rules of evidence and presumption of inocents.
The IRP, that I admit I don't like, still has the less reliable RSD as a form of additional indications that a driver had consumed too much alcohol, in addition to any physical test.
Yes, I know every cop is extremely well trained, extremely honest and certainly above reproach and can be trusted to be judge and jury at the side of the road. But we do hear about the man who suffers a stroke and the grandfather who is a passenger in his vehicle driven by his sober grandson, who were wrongly (illegally ?) dealt with.
Now are some of us non-drinking, non-pot using motorists going to get in a jackpot because of an infirmity can't perform physical tests to the satisfaction of one of these extremely well trained, honest, trustworthy civil servants ?
I'm guessing there will be same "legally reliable" hearing where a bureaucrat (not a judge) will review the police statement and require the driver to make a statement (you know like some of those countries that don't have a Charter of Rights, like you thought we had)
Where's that going to go ?
Cop, "he was unsteady on his feet, he couldn't touch he nose as instructed".
Driver, "I didn't consume anything, I've got a bum knee, I missed my nose once, I was nervous..."