05% law may be unconstitutional

damngrumpy

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Judge rules against drunk driving law
by The Canadian Press - Story: 67940
Nov 30, 2011 / 12:13 pm



Photo: The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
RCMP Const. Faz Majid removes an open bottle of beer from a motorist's car during a roadside check in Surrey, B.C., on September 24, 2010. The B.C. Supreme Court says the high costs and lengthy roadside suspensions imposed on some drivers who fail a blood-alcohol test are unconstitutional. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck


The B.C. Supreme Court says the high costs and lengthy roadside suspensions imposed on some drivers who fail a blood-alcohol test are unconstitutional.
Justice Jon Sigurdson found British Columbia's new laws aimed at cracking down on drunk driving go too far by allowing an automatic 90-day driving suspension when someone blows over .08 on a breathalyzer test.
The law also allows for penalties that could cost the suspended driver over $4,000 and Sigurdson says those are significant without any opportunity for a driver to appeal.
He says the province could have easily provided a way for drivers to challenge the results of the screening device.
However, Sigurdson upheld provisions of the law that allow for suspension of up to 30 days for anyone that blows between .05 and .08.

This should raise a whole lot of questions seeing as Alberta and Saskatchewan
are contemplating similar legislation. I wonder where it will go from here?
 
WLDB

WLDB

Senate Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,182
0
36
Ottawa
People shouldnt be driving with any alcohol in their system. Hell, there are a fair number of sober drivers out there who shouldnt be driving either.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,346
556
113
59
Alberta
They need to either make alcohol consumption and driving a motor vehicle illegal or quit toying with the law. The half measure .05 is a load of crap feel good law that does not deter drunk drivers. People who drive drunk are not deterred by feel good laws and in most cases aren't even deterred by heavy penalties.
 
Mowich

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
75
Eagle Creek
I read elsewhere that the judge has asked both parties to return with arguments that may 'resolve the infringement.'

So all is not lost yet. If BC's Crown Attorneys can come up with a viable method of protecting citizens rights within the existing law, then we may still have a chance of seeing the law stand.

TenPenny said:
With the way the laws are being enforced, it's not DOING those things that is the problem, it's being ACCUSED of doing them that's the problem.
Click to expand...

This is true.

petros said:
If you fail the dance, you fail the dance.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the way the law is enforced right now, one is akin to being guilty until proven innocent. Everyone deserves the right to due process, even........sadly, drunks.

Retired_Can_Soldier said:
They need to either make alcohol consumption and driving a motor vehicle illegal or quit toying with the law. The half measure .05 is a load of crap feel good law that does not deter drunk drivers. People who drive drunk are not deterred by feel good laws and in most cases aren't even deterred by heavy penalties.
Click to expand...

Zero tolerance.

A 40% drop in the death rate is a significant number and shows that the penalties are a substantial deterrent.

You are right about habitual drunk drivers, RCS.......there will always be people who think they are smart enough to get away with it, or simply don't give a damn about the consequences. That does not mean that we can't do everything within the law to catch the others.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,295
11,385
113
Low Earth Orbit
Retired_Can_Soldier said:
They need to either make alcohol consumption and driving a motor vehicle illegal or quit toying with the law. The half measure .05 is a load of crap feel good law that does not deter drunk drivers. People who drive drunk are not deterred by feel good laws and in most cases aren't even deterred by heavy penalties.
Click to expand...
Numbers schmumbers. Impaired driving covers far more than booze.
 
PoliticalNick

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
This is definitely unconstitutional. Up to $4000 in fines and a 90 day suspension without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom is insane. They are handing out a sentence for a criminal offense without due process and that cannot be allowed to happen. Especially when you think that the cop on the side of the road is now judge, jury and executioner. Really you don't even have to be drunk, one drink and say the wrong thing to a cop in a bad mood and there goes your license (and maybe your job) and $4000. And what about a 30 day suspension for being under the legal limit??? Thats like getting a ticket for going 45 in a 50 zone. I think this is an outrage and hope the judges ruling puts the cops in their place.

BC has already had some issues over DUI enforcement. They tried a zero tolerance over christmas a couple of years ago and were giving 24-72 hour suspensions for a sip of wine. It didn't last long and they backed off in a hurry once a couple of lawyers reminded them the legal limit was .08 not .00 .

Before anyone gets the wrong idea...I don't drink & drive (I barely drink) and I will give any of my friends or family a ride if they have been drinking.
 
Spade

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
9
Aether Island
The presumption of guilt and immediate punishment meted out by the police based on a fallible measure without first recourse to the courts are what makes this bad law. Of course no one should drive impaired, but can impairment be confirmed by swirling electrons?
 
Retired_Can_Soldier

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,346
556
113
59
Alberta
Mowich said:
Zero tolerance.

A 40% drop in the death rate is a significant number and shows that the penalties are a substantial deterrent.

You are right about habitual drunk drivers, RCS.......there will always be people who think they are smart enough to get away with it, or simply don't give a damn about the consequences. That does not mean that we can't do everything within the law to catch the others.
Click to expand...

We are not catching the others Mowich, at least not in Ontario. The .05 law isn't about getting real drunk drivers off the road, it's just a cash grab wrapped in self righteousness. What happens here is you get your car impounded, you get a 3 to 12 hour suspension, but no charges are laid and they alert your insurance company.

It a bullcrap law to appease MADD and the insurance companies.

I understand people looking for justice with drunk driving, the punishment for habitual drunk driving is a joke, but this is just window dressing for avoiding the real issue.
 
JLM

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
damngrumpy said:
Judge rules against drunk driving law
by The Canadian Press - Story: 67940
Nov 30, 2011 / 12:13 pm



Photo: The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
RCMP Const. Faz Majid removes an open bottle of beer from a motorist's car during a roadside check in Surrey, B.C., on September 24, 2010. The B.C. Supreme Court says the high costs and lengthy roadside suspensions imposed on some drivers who fail a blood-alcohol test are unconstitutional. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck


The B.C. Supreme Court says the high costs and lengthy roadside suspensions imposed on some drivers who fail a blood-alcohol test are unconstitutional.
Justice Jon Sigurdson found British Columbia's new laws aimed at cracking down on drunk driving go too far by allowing an automatic 90-day driving suspension when someone blows over .08 on a breathalyzer test.
The law also allows for penalties that could cost the suspended driver over $4,000 and Sigurdson says those are significant without any opportunity for a driver to appeal.
He says the province could have easily provided a way for drivers to challenge the results of the screening device.
However, Sigurdson upheld provisions of the law that allow for suspension of up to 30 days for anyone that blows between .05 and .08.

This should raise a whole lot of questions seeing as Alberta and Saskatchewan
are contemplating similar legislation. I wonder where it will go from here?
Click to expand...

Constitutional doesn't mean right. The figures have already indicated the number of traffic deaths are down and THAT should be the bottom line. It's not rocket science, if you don't want to fork out $4000 in penalties DON'T imbibe prior to driving. If you have to drink wine with your meal, take a taxi or get the meal delivered to your house. If the problem is with the breathalyser use three breathalysers. It's just one of these things where you do WHATEVER IT TAKES to save lives. Who cares what some weak kneed judge has to say about this sh*t?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom