B.C.'s new drunk driving laws declared unconstitutional

[pikergolf]

A lot of you guys sound like the anti gun lobby, you use the same argument anyway. "If it saves one life it's worth it", "who needs to drink at lunch", "I certainly don't drink after a couple so nobody should" etc. We have a perfectly good anti drinking law in place, just enforce it. The new law Ab. is looking at is begging to be abused. What's that look for kid?, you can get your car at the compound etc. Everybody complains about police abusing their authority, this law begs to be abused. I would hope that I will be presumed innocent until proved otherwise. Rant over

[rugatika]

wow...so our premier wants to emulate a liberal government that brings in unconstitutional laws. Bring on the wildrose.

Enforce the laws we have. Can't say this enough.

As always, and I'm not sure why I am anymore, I'm surprised at the number of people on here that are ok with giving up a "little bit" of liberty. We get the government we deserve.

[eastcoast]

well im glad I was wrong about my prediction of this one, I thought they wouldn't rule it was unconstitutional but im happy that I was wrong, we all agree that we need less drunk drivers on the street but walking on people's right's is not the way to do it, it's time like this when I actually restore my faith in government a little bit, well not government the court system, the courts are just as much there to prosecute people for wronging other people and the government, as they are for punishing the government if they do something wrong, wonder what redford is gonna do now?

[rwm1273]

Redford will do another back flip and come up with some other idiotic policy or law to mess with.

I hope she just calls an election soon, so that we can actually elect our premier.

[elkhunter11]

Why not leave it where it’s at and come down a lot harder on the people that are actually drunk and driving and breaking a law…

Because that is not how our governments do business. They would rather make up new laws, than enforce the ones that we already have. For some reason, they think that it makes it look as though they are accomplishing something.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Redford will do another back flip and come up with some other idiotic policy or law to mess with.

I hope she just calls an election soon, so that we can actually elect our premier.

nope she is gonna bulldoze it through anyways apparently.

http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/albe...487/story.html

how much money is this gonna cost the taxpayer to save face?

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by rugatika

wow...so our premier wants to emulate a liberal government that brings in unconstitutional laws. Bring on the wildrose.

Enforce the laws we have. Can't say this enough.

As always, and I'm not sure why I am anymore, I'm surprised at the number of people on here that are ok with giving up a "little bit" of liberty. We get the government we deserve.

i'm suprised we totally agree on something

[hal53]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

nope she is gonna bulldoze it through anyways apparently.

http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/albe...487/story.html

how much money is this gonna cost the taxpayer to save face?

What a stunned wonder!!!!....that's what happens when you get a lawyer as Premier...we all know that they are smarter than everyone else...so let's spend more cash...SHEESH!!!. Don't like our chances for a quick election...she knows she's hooped...so we will be stuck with yet another 3rd choice Premier for as long as she can drag it out...the only people smiling over this is the ATF....

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by hal53

What a stunned wonder!!!!

x2 What a friggin gong show this is becoming.

[Okotokian]

How many of the posters here actually read the story in question? It has nothing to do with .05 or the conflict between .05 and .08. The story is about police being allowed to decide on severe penalties for blowing over .08 or refusing to blow, without reference to a judge or a trial... taking away licences, impounding cars, imposing financial penalties. The judge simply said that the police can't be given that much power and that a citizen has a right to go before a judge and argue their case. I agree whole-heartedly.

[elkhunter11]

nope she is gonna bulldoze it through anyways apparently

And it shouldn't take very long for a court challenge and a decision similar to the one in B.C. Then she will really look like a loser.

[Classic_Cool]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

we all agree that we need less drunk drivers on the street but walking on people's right's is not the way to do it,

No offense but walking on people's rights actually is the way to do it. Not that I'm suggesting we have guys in riot gear beating the drunks with clubs. But the fact is the legal system is too gummed up with he said/he said type crap.

The people protesting this law are largely crying about the police handing down judgement on the side of the road when all they have to rely on is the reading of their hand meters. News flash, that's all the judge has to rely on too. The reading on the side of the road is the only reading you get because in court you're probably not drunk anymore. All that going to court about it accomplishes is to give the defendant a chance to say the cop is corrupt, that was my buddy's stuff, etc, etc.

Sometimes the justice system NEEDS to be decisive or we'll spend the next thousand years arguing about what's right and what's wrong.

[HunterDave]

You might want to read the complaint and decision again Oko.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/...#_Toc310333396

[elkhunter11]

The people protesting this law are largely crying about the police handing down judgement on the side of the road when all they have to rely on is the reading of their hand meters. News flash, that's all the judge has to rely on too.

The point being that a judge is appointed to make those judgements during a trial, which the accused is entitled too. If police officers were trusted to make legal decisions in place of a judge, why bother with trials and judges?

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

No offense but walking on people's rights actually is the way to do it. Not that I'm suggesting we have guys in riot gear beating the drunks with clubs. But the fact is the legal system is too gummed up with he said/he said type crap.

The people protesting this law are largely crying about the police handing down judgement on the side of the road when all they have to rely on is the reading of their hand meters. News flash, that's all the judge has to rely on too. The reading on the side of the road is the only reading you get because in court you're probably not drunk anymore. All that going to court about it accomplishes is to give the defendant a chance to say the cop is corrupt, that was my buddy's stuff, etc, etc.

Sometimes the justice system NEEDS to be decisive or we'll spend the next thousand years arguing about what's right and what's wrong.

so you think giving up rights will keep us safer?

sorry the charter overrules a provinces laws, that's the way it is and the way it will always be, you are willing to give up your rights go ahead, but alot of great men died so I can have mine, and il fight to the end to keep big nanny state government from taking mine away.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

You might want to read the complaint and decision again Oko.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/...#_Toc310333396

You will need to show me where I am wrong. I don't see it. Here's the judges summary of his decision:

[382] My decision is as follows:
(a) The ARP legislation is not ultra vires the Province on a division of powers basis. The impugned legislation is within the Province’s jurisdiction to legislate with respect to the licensing of drivers and the enhancement of highway traffic safety.
(b) The ARP legislation does not create an “offence” as that term is used in section 11(d) of the Charter. Therefore, the legislation does not trigger the application of s. 11(d) of the Charter and it is not necessary to address whether the ARP regime violates the presumption of innocence.
(c) The ARP legislation infringes s. 10(b) of the Charter but the infringement is saved by s. 1 as it is a reasonable limit, prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
(d) The ARP legislation infringes s. 8 of the Charter insofar as it concerns the prohibition, penalty and costs arising from the screening device registering a “fail” reading over 0.08. This infringement is not a reasonable limit which is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
(e) The ARP legislation does not infringe s. 8 of the Charter insofar as it concerns the prohibition, penalty and cost consequences arising from the screening device registering a reading in the “warn” range of between 0.05 and 0.08.

So (d) is where the new law errs. it has to do with penalties arising from .08

And (e), to me, says the .05/.08 issue is a non-issue legally.

How do you see that differently? Thanks.

[Classic_Cool]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

so you think giving up rights will keep us safer?

sorry the charter overrules a provinces laws, that's the way it is and the way it will always be, you are willing to give up your rights go ahead, but alot of great men died so I can have mine, and il fight to the end to keep big nanny state government from taking mine away.

Not trying to start a grudge with you but those great men didn't die simply for freedom, they died for freedom and justice. Some of those great men would roll over in their graves if they saw what criminals can get away with these days with all the holes in the legal system.

People get so hung up on freedom that taking away a right can't ever possibly be a good thing. Individual freedom has to balance with responsibility to society. People who don't like the society are free to join a different one or if they're really gung ho they can campaign to change things. But the law was never meant to move in only one direction.

Incidentally I think 0.05 is too low a limit.

[Scott N]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

No offense but walking on people's rights actually is the way to do it. Not that I'm suggesting we have guys in riot gear beating the drunks with clubs. But the fact is the legal system is too gummed up with he said/he said type crap.

The people protesting this law are largely crying about the police handing down judgement on the side of the road when all they have to rely on is the reading of their hand meters. News flash, that's all the judge has to rely on too. The reading on the side of the road is the only reading you get because in court you're probably not drunk anymore. All that going to court about it accomplishes is to give the defendant a chance to say the cop is corrupt, that was my buddy's stuff, etc, etc.

Sometimes the justice system NEEDS to be decisive or we'll spend the next thousand years arguing about what's right and what's wrong.

If you think the court system is jammed up now, wait until it gets jammed up even more with people who blow between .05 and .08. This isn't helping get the problem drivers off the road, why waste resources on it? What happens if a driver blows over .04, but under .05? Do you actually think that the police aren't going to pursue a license suspension / car impoundment under the new law in that situation? In this country a person, guilty or not guilty, has the right to defend themselves in a court of law.

Also, you're wrong if you thing an impaired driving charge will get a conviction based on a road side screener. Sorry, but the judge does not rely on a roadside tester.... they are just not anywhere near as accurate as the equipment back at the cop shop (or Checkstop bus). That's why many of us have some serious concerns about what exactly this new law is going to do. Our legal system is not based on the assumption of guilty until proven innocent.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

Not trying to start a grudge with you but those great men didn't die simply for freedom, they died for freedom and justice. Some of those great men would roll over in their graves if they saw what criminals can get away with these days with all the holes in the legal system.

People get so hung up on freedom that taking away a right can't ever possibly be a good thing. Individual freedom has to balance with responsibility to society. People who don't like the society are free to join a different one or if they're really gung ho they can campaign to change things. But the law was never meant to move in only one direction.

Incidentally I think 0.05 is too low a limit.

actually those men died to depose a government that trampled all over their people's rights whenever it was convenient for them.



Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

A lot of you guys sound like the anti gun lobby, you use the same argument anyway. "If it saves one life it's worth it", "who needs to drink at lunch", "I certainly don't drink after a couple so nobody should" etc. We have a perfectly good anti drinking law in place, just enforce it. The new law Ab. is looking at is begging to be abused. What's that look for kid?, you can get your car at the compound etc. Everybody complains about police abusing their authority, this law begs to be abused. I would hope that I will be presumed innocent until proved otherwise. Rant over

A lot of us are not anti authority, and actually believe in not breaking laws.
I think most say just use your head or don't but be prepared to pay the price.

[BGSH]

Everyone has broken the law before, weather or not we drive 1km over the speed limit, or take an emergency phone call well driving, the fact is give someone life in prison for having a couple drinks and getting caught behind the wheel, that does not solve a thing, stiffer sentences is not the answer, you have to educate youth through schools and in the community, there should be a class in school about the effects of drinking and driving and taking drugs while driving, it is a split decision that leads one to get behind the wheel while they have been drinking, they should take that security guard that stands at shoppers and does nothing and make him use full and put him close to a bar to monitor those who are going to get in there car and call them a cab instead.

[Element]

I'm going to repost a comment I posted on a previous thread about this. Hopefully it starts to click for a few of you. I'm headed down to Texas on Saturday as the trial starts on Monday for the drunk driver that killed my mother. It's going to be painful to have to re-live this event all over again.
--------
Imagine... It's Thanksgiving evening, you're relaxing with your wife after a nice big turkey dinner, all is good in the world and you suddenly get a phone call from a trauma surgeon explaining that your mother has been killed and your father is barely hanging on to life due to a car accident. The next phone call is from the police explaining that a drunk driver may have caused the accident.

This was my 2010 Thanksgiving and I lost my mom in this accident and thankfully my father has made a full recovery. The accident occurred in Houston, TX and it was a 23 year old that hit them head on who had been drinking. Until you've lived it and fully understand the consequences of drinking and driving, I think it's difficult for many of you to have the full perspective of the impact that this has on families around our great province.

I know many of you like to have that one/two beer and it has little impact on your ability to drive, but you must understand that this is not the case with everyone.

Would you be willing to sacrifice your one beer after that round of golf with a client or dinner with friends to save your mother, wife, daughter, son from that one driver who assumed they were also okay to drive with only one or two drinks in their system?

I'm in favor of new legislation.

[Classic_Cool]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

actually those men died to depose a government that trampled all over their people's rights whenever it was convenient for them.



Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

What's essential?

And if we're not going to rely on the police and the breathalyzer at the scene then what else are we going on? The judge wasn't there. Neither was the jury if it comes to that.

If we take the attitude that everyone's got an excuse for why they got that ticket and that the police can't be trusted then we may as well give up the rule of law altogether.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

What's essential?

And if we're not going to rely on the police and the breathalyzer at the scene then what else are we going on? The judge wasn't there. Neither was the jury if it comes to that.

If we take the attitude that everyone's got an excuse for why they got that ticket and that the police can't be trusted then we may as well give up the rule of law altogether.

so you want the cops to be judge jury and executioner on the side of the road?

you know the reason most drunk driving cases are thrown out of court? cause cops make mistakes on their report/ false positives on breathalizers etc, now you want to give them more power when they have a bad record of failing before?

[Scott N]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

If we take the attitude that everyone's got an excuse for why they got that ticket and that the police can't be trusted then we may as well give up the rule of law altogether.

Have you noticed the RCMP's record lately? When the police lie to the public (the tazer incident at the Vancouver Airport a few years ago comes to mind first), the public has the right to be a little cautious.

[BGSH]

Here is an updated link

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...b=EdmontonHome

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Element

I'm going to repost a comment I posted on a previous thread about this. Hopefully it starts to click for a few of you. I'm headed down to Texas on Saturday as the trial starts on Monday for the drunk driver that killed my mother. It's going to be painful to have to re-live this event all over again.
--------
Imagine... It's Thanksgiving evening, you're relaxing with your wife after a nice big turkey dinner, all is good in the world and you suddenly get a phone call from a trauma surgeon explaining that your mother has been killed and your father is barely hanging on to life due to a car accident. The next phone call is from the police explaining that a drunk driver may have caused the accident.

This was my 2010 Thanksgiving and I lost my mom in this accident and thankfully my father has made a full recovery. The accident occurred in Houston, TX and it was a 23 year old that hit them head on who had been drinking. Until you've lived it and fully understand the consequences of drinking and driving, I think it's difficult for many of you to have the full perspective of the impact that this has on families around our great province.

I know many of you like to have that one/two beer and it has little impact on your ability to drive, but you must understand that this is not the case with everyone.

Would you be willing to sacrifice your one beer after that round of golf with a client or dinner with friends to save your mother, wife, daughter, son from that one driver who assumed they were also okay to drive with only one or two drinks in their system?

I'm in favor of new legislation.

nobody wants more drinking and driving, but this law will not do much except jam up the courts, with your line of thinking we should have a cop on every corner and in everybody`s car all the time.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Scott N

Have you noticed the RCMP's record lately? When the police lie to the public (the tazer incident at the Vancouver Airport a few years ago comes to mind first), the public has the right to be a little cautious.

don`t forget the cop kicking the guy in the face in kelowna.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKGyoFvpve4

[Scott N]

Originally Posted by Element

I'm going to repost a comment I posted on a previous thread about this. Hopefully it starts to click for a few of you. I'm headed down to Texas on Saturday as the trial starts on Monday for the drunk driver that killed my mother. It's going to be painful to have to re-live this event all over again.
--------
Imagine... It's Thanksgiving evening, you're relaxing with your wife after a nice big turkey dinner, all is good in the world and you suddenly get a phone call from a trauma surgeon explaining that your mother has been killed and your father is barely hanging on to life due to a car accident. The next phone call is from the police explaining that a drunk driver may have caused the accident.

This was my 2010 Thanksgiving and I lost my mom in this accident and thankfully my father has made a full recovery. The accident occurred in Houston, TX and it was a 23 year old that hit them head on who had been drinking. Until you've lived it and fully understand the consequences of drinking and driving, I think it's difficult for many of you to have the full perspective of the impact that this has on families around our great province.

I know many of you like to have that one/two beer and it has little impact on your ability to drive, but you must understand that this is not the case with everyone.

Would you be willing to sacrifice your one beer after that round of golf with a client or dinner with friends to save your mother, wife, daughter, son from that one driver who assumed they were also okay to drive with only one or two drinks in their system?

I'm in favor of new legislation.

My condolences to the loss of your mother and the accident that injured your dad. I'm curious to know what the BAC of the driver that caused the accident was though? Did they just have "one or two", or were they completely tanked like most drunk drivers who are involved in accidents are?

[pikergolf]

The scary part is because it works, the Police Chiefs will be looking at all kinds of scenarios where you can punish someone without actually going to court. Sad that people only look at what is immediately before them and not at the long term implications. Police state is coming.