This is going to be my last post as I've realized some of you just need something to complain about and will do so no matter what facts are presented to you. Its unfortunate because I truly believe that all levels of government, both in criminal law and other aspects of our lives, truly do step on and trample our rights. This just isn't one of them. Its unfortunate because when you cry that the sky is falling, in regards to things that you don't bother to educate yourself about and make incorrect arguments on. It really devalues such efforts when it really matters.
This thread has gone all over the place and it seems like every time one issue is reasonably explained away, some people try and create a new one. Here are some fun facts.
The following has been law and been determined to be constitutional and has been this way since before most of us were born:
- Police can stop you, completely at random, for no other reason than to check your sobriety. They can detain you until they are satisfied that you are in fact sober enough to drive. - Supreme court approved
- Police can seize your vehicle from public highways, without a trial. There are a plethora of reasons that your vehicle can be removed from a highway and seized, impaired driving is but one of many. Highways are government property and unless you follow the rules (in the case of Alberta under the TSA) your vehicle can be seized. You have no recourse at the time of this seizure, a judge is not going to come to your traffic stop and render a decision. However there are always appeal processes. If Police incorrectly exercise their power under the law to seize vehicle, they can face significant consequences. - There have been many appeals, its determined constitutional, its a risk you take putting your private vehicle on a public highway... make sure you are compliant with the rules.
- If you refuse to cooperate with a lawful demand for breath samples, you are arrested and charged. - Again, Appeals have confirmed this is constitutional
Many arguments I am seeing are in relation to the above mentioned issues. Well these are not new, this has been around for a long time. Literally the only thing changing is the removal of the reasonable suspicion(an extremely low threshold) for breath testing. How is this different than it being mandatory to produce a driver's licence, or mandatory to produce insurance. A Police officer, with no other reason, can stop you for the purpose of checking your insurance, and if you don't produce it, your vehicle can be seized and you receive a ticket.
I see a lot of complaints about peoples "rights" and it seems that some people believe that in Canada, their rights come from some internal moral code which dictates which rights they have, based on their feelings. Your rights are based in law, specifically in the Canadian Constitution, which contains the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The rights you have are spelled out in this document. Somehow I missed the section about having a right to your public roadways without interruption or regulation. It's well accepted that there are rules that must be followed, mandatory breath testing will now be one of those rules.
I also find it ironic that many of the people complaining about their rights being stripped away are the same ones that incessantly complain about the Canadian Justice System (rightfully so) and the inordinate amount of "rights" that criminals have, getting away with crimes despite being career, recidivist criminals based on "loopholes" and other charter breaches, despite overwhelming evidence against them. I can't seem to keep it straight, do we have too many rights or not enough? Impaired driving is by FAR the most litigated type of criminal code offence, I think by now we've got it pretty well figured out what is constitutional and what isn't.
In relation to your link Elkhunter…. I'm not sure why you are posting about British Columbia's provincial sanction program. Its irrelevant for several reasons.
1. That is BC, this is Alberta... their laws are different than ours, quite significantly so actually.
2. Alberta Police use different ASD's than the ones quoted in your article as being defective
3. Your own quote shows that "part" of BC's law was deemed unconstitutional, not the entire thing, BC was forced to change their laws to comply with this ruling.
4. If you had searched for a more relevant article, you probably would have found that in fact, an appeal was launched to challenge the constitutionality of Alberta's provincial impaired driving laws and "part" of the laws in Alberta, were in fact deemed unconstitutional as well. However, the vehicle seizures and immediate roadside sanctions were not in this part. These items were deemed constitutional and the only issue, which has since been rectified was the fact that Alberta issued an indefinite licence suspension to a person charged with Impaired driving and this was only lifted once the case was concluded in criminal court. This law has since been altered to place a finite amount of time on the suspension (90 days). Other than this piece of the legislation, Alberta laws have withstood scrutiny and been found constitutional.
5. As I previously mentioned, the concerns about BC's sanctions hold no weight in Alberta as our Provincial laws are not at all the same as those in BC. Our laws were actually made after BC's and after seeing what was and wasn't determined to be constitutional there.
I will agree with you that no instrument or device could ever be trusted to be 100% accurate or 100% reliable, nor could any person. That's why Alberta has a provision that allows for a second test with a different device if you feel your test wasn't accurate. This is in an effort to remove any reasonable doubt.
Those of you saying that the new laws will immediately be struck down as unconstitutional...…. I suppose time will tell. What I can tell you, is that our legal system is based on British Common Law, the same as many other commonwealth countries, including Australia and Ireland. Coincidentally, both of those countries introduced mandatory alcohol screening many years ago. In both countries, a significant increase in the detection of impaired drivers was noted following these laws. A significant decrease in impaired driving followed this significant increase in detection. Both countries have ruled these laws to be constitutional.
I guess in closing I will say that I am no fan of our current federal or provincial governments. In fact, I don't think I can find a single thing they have done that I agree with. The one exception I can find that the liberals actually got right, was this law. I suppose they had some help as this legislation was written by Robert Palser, a senior prosecutor with the Alberta Provincial Crown. I've had the opportunity to meet him several times and he is unequivocally an absolute genius and Albertans are lucky to have him.
The bottom line is this. If you aren't over the legal alcohol limit, you won't face any punishment. If you are, this makes it a bit more likely that you will be detected and face appropriate consequences. The change is very minor and will be unnoticeable to the vast majority. Most of the complaints fielded in this thread, have been about things that have been in effect for many years, and have been established as not being a violation of your rights. I guess I will reiterate, driving is not a right, and you are free to do as you wish on your private property. However, if you wish to drive on public highways, you have to abide by the rules, which will now include mandatory breath testing.
|