Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11
The instrument is the problem if your actual level is .04, or .045, and you blow a warning because the instrument is not accurate . The limit is .05, it isn,'t .04 or .045.. That is why they don't charge anyone with exceeding .08 based on the roadside unit. They take the person to the station to test them on a more accurate unit. And regardless of what you are charged with, you should be entitled to a trial. As my link demonstrates ,there have been issues with the roadside units, one officer blew a fail and he had not consumed any alcohol at all. From that link
This may not be common, but without a trial to prove guilt or innocence, innocent people will be wrongly punished.
This isn't supposed to be a police state, where the police declare you guilty and sentence you without a trial.
|
This whole approach by governments is very similar to their approach to firearms laws. Instead of really punishing and removing the rights of the offenders who are the cause of 90% of the problems - the multiple repeaters who also have no licenses, insurance, etc. - they remove fundamental rights from and cause unjustifiable grief to people who never or seldom offend and cause little or no societal harm.
The real criminals don't care. They will just get another short remand with free meals, some further minor fines they won't pay, and will go right back to the same behaviour the minute they are free. They will cause more havoc and uncovered damage with no recourse and still receive no contextually effective consequences.
Meanwhile, a BC grandma (actual case) who has not touched alcohol for decades will have her car towed and impounded after being pulled over with no grounds, and the LEO judging that she is impaired because of her relative feebleness. It will cost her thousands in legal fees and impound charges and cause her to lose her car for weeks, with no recourse for the wrongful seizure and charges, when the charges are summarily dismissed. There have been a number of similar cases during the period before courts forced modification of the original versions of the horrid ".05 laws" in AB and BC.
Its very easy to just sheepishly accept such abrogations of the right to be presumed innocent, and to not be subjected to unreasonable police actions and seizures, when the measure in question appears so relatively victimless and you have never been the victim of interim dissipation of your own rights, and unrecoverable financial and other costs, due to false allegations and charges and/or unreasonable such actions. This type of regulatory approach has to be resisted by anyone who wants to preserve any modicum of individual freedom in society.