17 drunk driving cases tossed because of police.

[jerome2877]

Woops, I wrongly accused you Jerome (cut and paste error).....................good thing you didn't lose you license for 3 months because of it.

At least you can admit your mistake, unlike the police or government!!

[Trunk-Monkey]

All you have to do is find a toxicologist to say that roadside breath tests are reliable. The government could not find a drunk driving expert who would say that the manner in which tests are taken at the roadside and the equipment used will produce reliable tests. Instead, the Government produced an affidavit of a police officer. Not an expert qualified to give the necessary opinion about the reliability of this type of testing.

Your basing this of course on fact that you know all of this police officer's training? I didn't think so.....

[Trunk-Monkey]

But there are people involved with those procedures....so procedures can be "suspect". My point is this, where humans are involved...perfection is not .

Based on that theory then lab results from a toxicologist should not be allowed since they are humans and deal with procedures. Right? Not so...there are many checks and balances that came into affect with the new IRP system.

They are the way to go......on one condition...in my opinion anyways. The minute a case is file with the Supreme Court, the OSMV "suspends" the suspensions until dealt with in court.

The OSMV is an independant body that sorts this out. I know your issues with this office but I have faith in them.

[Trunk-Monkey]

At least you can admit your mistake, unlike the police or government!!

Tell me exactly what the police have to "admit" when using a tool that has been approved by the government for them to use? I think you are barking up the wrong tree here.

[theyeti]

oh its been approved by the government . same folks who approve our garbage food and so called medicine . great i am fully confident now . i say we do exactly as they suggest

[jerome2877]

Tell me exactly what the police have to "admit" when using a tool that has been approved by the government for them to use? I think you are barking up the wrong tree here.

Well the Port Moody police should have admitted long ago that they were not using the proper calibration methods, instead they chose to have an investigation that took over a year. They knew damn well they were wrong but did they suggest revoking IRP's that were handed out with improperly calibrated devices?

The Vancouver police have been lazy and used improper procedure with the calibration reports (that are part of what you call checks and balances) but it took Paul to expose this and fight in supreme court to get this brought to light

So who's barking up the wrong tree?

[abbyrugby]

Your basing this of course on fact that you know all of this police officer's training? I didn't think so.....

All you have to do is find a toxicologist to say that roadside breath tests are reliable. Just one and this whole debate dies.

[abbyrugby]

The OSMV is an independant body that sorts this out. I know your issues with this office but I have faith in them.

Now that's funny $hit....................... ................seriously, you should go on the road with that material.

[diggerdick]

Deny deny deny even when confronted with blatant evidence kind of remind me of the Vancouver airport inquiry.

[zzontar]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/impaired-penal ... 32452.html

VICTORIA - More than 1,100 British Columbia motorists caught up in tougher drunk driving rules before part of the law was found unconstitutional will have some of their punishments overturned, but their drunk driving penalty still sticks.

[simnut]

Based on that theory then lab results from a toxicologist should not be allowed since they are humans and deal with procedures. Right? Not so...there are many checks and balances that came into affect with the new IRP system.

The OSMV is an independant body that sorts this out. I know your issues with this office but I have faith in them.

First of all Trunk, I am not trying to be argumentative, I hope you realize this is discussing....after all, I am a stubborn Dutchman!

I have one question. Where, in all those checks and balances, are knowledgeable individuals (other than the unknowledgable driver) that are on the same side as the driver?

[simnut]

http://bcjustice.com/index.php?option=c ... &id=5180...

An interesting read......

I have one confusing issue with this whole process. In the article titled Remedy/Conclusion, the following is stated...by the Supreme Court Judge.

[111] The purpose of a judicial review is to “ensure the legality, the reasonableness and the fairness of the administrative process and its outcomes” and not to replace that process: Dunsmuir at para. 28.

How does that work if this "judicial revue" happens two years after the "event" and suspension being served already?

[112] The appropriate remedy is to remit the matter to the Superintendent for a new review. I understand that the Superintendent’s practice when a matter is remitted is to assign another Adjudicator to consider the matter. However, in an abundance of caution, and to address the reasonable apprehension of bias, I direct that a different Adjudicator undertake the second review and that these reasons be brought to his or her attention so the same errors can be avoided.

So, errors were determined.....but how does that help the petitioner regarding the money spent by him/her and suspension served already? This is my ONLY issue with the IRP's.......can the proponents of the IRPS not see that?

There are many such cases, where the Supreme Court of BC has advised the OSMV to set aside a previous decision and "relook" at the evidence before them. These are the cases where the OSMV does NOT do justice or service to the citizens of BC.....and there is NOTHING we citizens can do about it.....

[Trunk-Monkey]

Useless personal attack....

[simnut]

Useless personal attack....

Ditto...!!!!

[zzontar]

Tell me exactly what the police have to "admit" when using a tool that has been approved by the government for them to use? I think you are barking up the wrong tree here.

It doesn't matter how well a tool works if the person using it doesn't know how to use it, like if you're under the limit and have residual mouth alcohol, and an officer makes you blow consecutively without knowing (or maybe knowing) that blowing consecutively will give a higher reading as well as will residual mouth alcohol without the required wait, then giving you an IRP.