Quote:
Originally Posted by WSMLEO
With every post you make, you show more and more how uneducated you are on this matter, standing on a roof top spewing your ignorant BS for everyone to hear.
First of all, of course you get your day in court, if you get charged with impaired, or refusal, you are released with a court date, same as any ticket. Police cannot convict you of anything, they simply lay charges and compel you to court. The board I was talking about is only in relation to appealing your vehicle seizure.
Second, the ASD's are accurate, they are very accurate, and they are tested constantly. If anything, an ASD can only show a lower blood alcohol than a true blood test would show. Second, even though provincial law says that .50 leads to a provincial 3 day sanction, ASD's are calibrated to only show a "caution" if you blow between 60-100 mg%. Even though over 80 mg% is a criminal offence, the ASD doesn't show a fail unless you blow over 100 mg%. Everything is truncated in your favour. Also, if you have a concern about the ASD used, immediately after you do your test, you are given a piece of paper and have your right to a second test explained to you. At that point, you have the right to provide a second sample into another instrument to ensure its accuracy and the lower of the two tests, if there is any discrepancy, is used.
But please Elkhunter, continue spewing your factually incorrect opinions on here. Or maybe do some actual reading and educate yourself on the subject.
|
I am not talking about being charged with being impaired or with being in excess of .08, I am talking about having your vehicle towed and impounded because you are supposed over .05. I have no problem with being charged with being over .08, because you are given a trial, it's the new .05 nonsense that I have a problem with.
As for the accuracy of the roadside machines, are you denying that the incidents listed in the link below actually happened? I suppose that they are all lies and fabrications?
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/documents-cast...awyer-1.745545
As to my being uneducated on the matter, from that same link, a Supreme Court Judge agreed with the issue that I have with this, I suppose that he is uneducated on the matter as well?
Quote:
|
Earlier this month, a B.C. Supreme Court judge struck down part of the law, saying people were being subjected to fines and suspensions based on a roadside screening test without any recourse to a meaningful appeal process or a lawyer.
|