You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Too much thought? Either you like to hear yourself... uh.. type? Or you've got keyboard diarrhea.
You can try and change the world.. but I wish you good luck with that.
Oh, I like to type..can still do 70 words a minute. And no, my keyboard feels fine. Not trying to change the world....change one LITTLE , TINY procedure.................and protect the "right" someone is given. Many think I'm "police bashing".....quite the opposite. I'm AM bashing the OSMV though, for taking a law and twisting it to their advantage where it DOES step on the rights of certain drivers.
There, was that short enough?
Was too short, had to add this line. Makes me feel better!
It hints to the idea that these new and tough drinking and driving laws are beginning to get a little scary. These "laws" and penalties are being based on ASD's don't have a memory (meaning no proof is available) and CAN be used improperly. Just an interesting read.
Last edited by Graeme S; 06-18-2011 at 09:09 PM.
Reason: Removing referral link
When a police officer begins his investigation into the drinking and driving of a novice driver, they must begin with section 90.3! Section 90.3(2b)
Not true,...if Police choose to proceed with the investigation thru that section, then that is the procedure they follow. You are saying that they must only proceed that way...and that is not true. If there are grounds to believe impairment exists and it is over .05mg% or over .08mg% then they follow those procedures. You don't ignore symptoms of possible Criminal Code impairment just to proceed with a 12 hour suspension, simply because the driver is potentially violating restrictions placed on his drivers' licence. You use the 12 hour suspension process to issue a VT for drive contrary to restrictions....zerol alcohol. If in this process you discover a level of impairment under .05mg% then a 12 hr suspension would be appropriate. If it is between .05mg% and .08mg% then you would issue a "normal 215" suspension and follow that process. If it was above .08mg% then you are looking at criminal code proceedings as an additional option, depending on the circumstances.
If you read section 90.3 carefully, does it not say that the police officer, if pulling over a Novice driver...they must proceed in the manner of section 90.3.
90.3(2) A peace officer may, at any time or place on a highway or industrial road if the peace officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a driver has alcohol in his or her body,
The part above tells us that a peace officer MAY begin the next process as stated in sections (a) and (b).
(a) request the driver to drive the motor vehicle, under the direction of the peace officer, to the nearest place off the travelled portion of the highway or industrial road, and
(b) by demand made to that driver, require the driver to promptly provide a sample of breath that, in the opinion of the peace officer, is necessary to enable a proper analysis of the breath to be made by means of an approved screening device and, if necessary, to accompany the peace officer for the purpose of enabling that sample of breath to be taken.
Do you see that little, powerful word at the end of section 90.3(2)a? It is "and". That connects the two sections, A and B. Once the officer pulls over the driver off the travelled portion of the road, the second step is requiring the driver to provide a sample of breath. The two go hand in hand, because of that little word.
According to the Ombudsmen of BC, I am to be getting a letter from the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, ICBC and the Solicitor General ....all combined into one as they all fall under the same "category".......this should be interesting. If anyone is interested in the "answer" I get from them, just let me know.
Okay..another reason for officers to handle Novice drivers with more "completion of evidence".
A novice driver gets a 24 hour without a roadside test.
A novice driver gets a notice to suspend their license for 4 months.
A novice driver wants and arranges to get their day in court- AN IMPORTANT RIGHT
The Superintendent suspends the license before it goes to court
It will take two months to get to the Supreme Court of BC
The novice driver is without a license for two months, until court date.
Court date arrives..and...the novice driver "wins" his case.
Novice driver gets his license back.
How the hell is the Superintendent going to compensate the novice driver for the 2 months that he was "WRONGFULLY" without his license.....guilty until proven innocent!??? The answer? The OSMV won't........and doesn't have too.
What is wrong with that picture? The OSMV has everyone by the short hairs if this is the way they can operate. What gives with not getting "our day in court" (if that be the plan) before "sentence" is handed out? We should all be a little worried as to the "lawful entity" the OSMV has become. And it's not just with the drinking and driving........NO ONE can dispute ANYTHING the OSMV decides unless it goes to the Supreme Court of BC. The OSMV does not need to look at relevant information regarding a certain case supplied by the defendant. In the case of the 24 hour prohibition.....if the OSMV is satisfied you had an opportunity to ask for a roadside test, and you didn't (even if you DIDN'T know you could)....well......tough titties! No other relavant information supplied by YOU needs to be looked at. What if YOU lost your license for 2 months and after court....discovered (what you knew already) that you were innocent, getting your license back?
If only the officer had demanded a roadside test with this novice driver......proven the fact.....there wouldn't even have been a court case. It would have been all in "black and white".
Remember, all of us that are "regular" drivers...this is not a big deal....really....getting a 24 hour prohibition. It just means you can't drive for 24 hours. If you get another one, well, you haven't learned your lesson and you deserve what you get.
Novice drivers need to be handled differently.....dang....I keep coming back to section 90.3!
I agree first mistake is on the driver making the decision to drive after drinking.
I really think the new IRP (Immediate Roadside Prohibitions) help to alleviate this problem. Police Officers are way more likely to use an ASD now when engaging in any type of alcohol driving investigation rathe than simply handing out 24hr Prohibitions.
In my mind, 24hr Prohibitions are the lazy Police Officers way of dealing with the problem. Obviously there's certain criteria to meet before handing out a 24hr Prohibition ie grounds to believe the driver's ability to drive is affected by alcohol (or drugs). Now in the old days (pre IRP time), I think Police Officers (especially VPD) would just hand out 24hr Prohibitions rather than going Criminal Code route. It didn't matter if you were shit faced, the cop would just give you a 24hr and be done with it. They only way VPD would charge your criminally was if there was a collision.
Police aren't as "afraid" to use the ASD now with the IRP. Basically, the cop has a pretty good idea if the driver is going to blow a fail or not. Before the IRP, if the guy blows a fail you were committed to doing a criminal code investigation. Now with the IRP, they can avoid the lengthy work of a Criminal Code investigation which is easily 20 hrs of work.
There are reasons why the 24hrs is still used. Lucky for us, we're in the big city. An ASD is only 5 minutes away. I'm sure in smaller towns where there's only maybe 2 Officers working at a time, they may not be able to afford an ASD, no one is trained to use an ASD or they simply can not have an ASD delivered in a reasonable amount of time to satisfy the demand without infringing on citizen's rights. If the officer is unable to use the ASD but there is obviously some concern to allowing the driver to drive...well the cop really has nothing else but to go with the 24 Hr prohib. Also if it is drug related rather than alcohol you have to go with a 24hr, unless they're so wrecked you can go criminal code.
Think of it this way, the cop already has some grounds that you driving is questionable. Using the ASD just gives more evidence to the case.
For SIMNUT, the procedure that Zulu pointed out is pretty standard. I can see how you have issues with the way things are but in reality I would think it's very rare for a Novice driver to get a 24hr suspension without an ASD and then challenge it and blow under. For that kind of symptomology I would suspect for that to happen, the driver only had a little bit to drink (under 0.049) and also consumed some drugs making him seem more messed up than the ASD shows.
__________________
check out BCaquaria for all your aquarium needs
also visit the Ham Radio Forums for discussion on radio communication
I've got a really simple way to avoid all that stuff...
Respect the terms of the N licensing program - zero alcohol.
Real simple.. too bad stupid people can't respect the privilege of driving.
That's the problem...there WAS zero alcohol BAC WHILE driving! And there is NO way that the officer can prove or show evidence that the driver had a level BAC WHILE in care and control of the vehicle. The officer based the 24 hour prohibition based on smell of beer on breath, AN HOUR after the incident....AFTER the driver admitted to have some beer AFTER the incident!!! If the officer HAD demanded a roadside test, this would have shown the "defendants" statements to be true.
In this case, it was an irate officer not respecting the driver and the information provided her.
What if, because the 24 hour was just based on "odor on breath" the driver had just kissed his girlfriend who WAS drinking? What if the driver just had a candy that smells and tastes like a liquor or alcohol? What if the driver DID have a beer between the time of the accident and the time he dealt with the police? TOO MANY what if's to condemn a driver to be without a license for 4 months. If you're gonna screw up their life like that...you had be PRETTY DAMM sure that the novice driver has a BAC of at LEAST .02 or .03.
I agree first mistake is on the driver making the decision to drive after drinking.
I really think the new IRP (Immediate Roadside Prohibitions) help to alleviate this problem. Police Officers are way more likely to use an ASD now when engaging in any type of alcohol driving investigation rathe than simply handing out 24hr Prohibitions.
In my mind, 24hr Prohibitions are the lazy Police Officers way of dealing with the problem. Obviously there's certain criteria to meet before handing out a 24hr Prohibition ie grounds to believe the driver's ability to drive is affected by alcohol (or drugs). Now in the old days (pre IRP time), I think Police Officers (especially VPD) would just hand out 24hr Prohibitions rather than going Criminal Code route. It didn't matter if you were shit faced, the cop would just give you a 24hr and be done with it. They only way VPD would charge your criminally was if there was a collision.
Police aren't as "afraid" to use the ASD now with the IRP. Basically, the cop has a pretty good idea if the driver is going to blow a fail or not. Before the IRP, if the guy blows a fail you were committed to doing a criminal code investigation. Now with the IRP, they can avoid the lengthy work of a Criminal Code investigation which is easily 20 hrs of work.
There are reasons why the 24hrs is still used. Lucky for us, we're in the big city. An ASD is only 5 minutes away. I'm sure in smaller towns where there's only maybe 2 Officers working at a time, they may not be able to afford an ASD, no one is trained to use an ASD or they simply can not have an ASD delivered in a reasonable amount of time to satisfy the demand without infringing on citizen's rights. If the officer is unable to use the ASD but there is obviously some concern to allowing the driver to drive...well the cop really has nothing else but to go with the 24 Hr prohib. Also if it is drug related rather than alcohol you have to go with a 24hr, unless they're so wrecked you can go criminal code.
Think of it this way, the cop already has some grounds that you driving is questionable. Using the ASD just gives more evidence to the case.
For SIMNUT, the procedure that Zulu pointed out is pretty standard. I can see how you have issues with the way things are but in reality I would think it's very rare for a Novice driver to get a 24hr suspension without an ASD and then challenge it and blow under. For that kind of symptomology I would suspect for that to happen, the driver only had a little bit to drink (under 0.049) and also consumed some drugs making him seem more messed up than the ASD shows.
You know, I've never argued the point that ANYONE should drink, then drive. But I have a question.......
Why was section 90.3 legislated at the time the Graduated License Program came out in BC?
In my way of thinking, it came out to be able to lay a charge, and take a driver off the road, that IS NOT allowed to drive with a BAC of below .05. This is the novice driver. It also came out to mandate officers to demand a roadside test when beginning an investigation into a suspected novice driver and drinking and driving. Remember, this officer gave this charged based on "odor on breath". That's it! Is that enough for a driver to lose their license for 4 months? No, not in this country.....at least I would hope not. Prove it....and all is fair game.
The ASD's are designed to test the BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) of a driver...not the alcohol that is in their mouth.... remnants of a drink within their mouth, or even the breath that you expel normally. It takes deep lung air which is going to give the closest "measurement" of the BAC. If you've just had a drink, or used mouth wash , or had a Certs......the officer should wait for 15 minutes before applying the ASD so that the contents of the mouth don't construe the ASD readings. A driver could have a beer...wait for 15 minutes....and only a PORTION of that alcohol content would show up on the ASD as the body hasn't even begun to "process" the drink and have it enter the blood stream. I know...a novice driver is not to have ANY BAC.....but if this novice driver would have been given a roadside test.....even by the time the police were dealing with him.....it would have given a guide line to them as to whether the driver was telling the truth or not.
I agree, the manner in which Zulu conducts his investigation is correct...I like his reasoning behind it.
Oh oh, another question
Would any one of you accept a 90 day prohibition because an officer , using observation alone, considered you over .08?
Even the law says NO. A roadside test is required to cause a 90 day (or any other driver sanction above a 24 hour prohibition) to be issued. Don't you think a novice driver deserves the same consideration...keeping in mind the 24 hour is basically a 4 months suspension for this level of driver. Hang on, the law says the novice driver can't be "nailed" either without a roadside test! Section 90.3(2b) I know...they are a lowly novice driver, but their lives are impacted the same as us "regular" drivers.......and THAT deserves some thought by the officer when conducting an investigation into drinking and driving.
I agree, that the ASD's will be , or are used now more frequently than the past. The reason? The "undisputable" penalties are harsh and there has to be "prove". But this is my point exactly.........in the case of a novice driver.
That's the problem...there WAS zero alcohol BAC WHILE driving! And there is NO way that the officer can prove or show evidence that the driver had a level BAC WHILE in care and control of the vehicle. The officer based the 24 hour prohibition based on smell of beer on breath, AN HOUR after the incident....AFTER the driver admitted to have some beer AFTER the incident!!! If the officer HAD demanded a roadside test, this would have shown the "defendants" statements to be true.
You missed my point...no drink at all, means no BAC to begin with.
Not your "drink, then sober up, then drive and get caught" version. Don't drink to begin with. Or don't drive afterwards, period.
So what's the real reason behind your rant on this? Your kid get caught driving after drinking? Or you trying to become a lawyer? I'm interested why you're so hot on this topic, when the issue according to the police officers here isn't as common as you seem to make it out to be.
__________________
Don't be the next RS.net statistic - If you drink, don't drive. You'll lose your licence, and the rest of us will laugh at you.
You missed my point...no drink at all, means no BAC to begin with.
Not your "drink, then sober up, then drive and get caught" version. Don't drink to begin with. Or don't drive afterwards, period.
So what's the real reason behind your rant on this? Your kid get caught driving after drinking? Or you trying to become a lawyer? I'm interested why you're so hot on this topic, when the issue according to the police officers here isn't as common as you seem to make it out to be.
See, this is the problem. Many...and you as it also appears.....consider the driver GUILTY until proven innocent. Not one of you in this forum would even consider accepting that if it were to involve you.
Nope, my kid did not get caught driving after drinking! He had a couple of beer AFTER the incident. He went into a ditch while looking at his cell phone and this he admitted right away to the officer. I KNOW...that's a whole different topic!! We'll leave that one alone at this point please! It was a deserted stretch of narrow road..no one around...and he sustained a 2-3" gash on his chin (down to the jaw bone) from the steering wheel. He went about 1/2 kilometer down the road to a friends house whose wife is a nurse for help. WHILE there getting cleaned up...he had beer! Nothing....NOTHING....illegal about that! He then went back to his truck to deal with the situation.....and which point the police were there. If he was SO guilty....why did he go back to his truck? Why ? Because there was nothing illegal in what he had done!!!!!! <------------- Why is that so hard to understand? There is a time of about 1 hour between him going into the ditch and the officer dealing with him. The officer had NO prove that he had ANY BAC at the time of having care and control of the vehicle!!!! This is the reason it will get overturned in the Supreme Court of BC. It's cut and dried. They can't even change the charge to the 12 hour suspension....as there was no breath analysis done as required by section 90.3 . And, before you say it....even the "irate" officer didn't consider it "leaving the scene" of an accident....she considered it reasonable. Even ICBC honored the insurance claim...they considered this reasonable...so don't bother bringing up the fact that he "left the scene".
But , if you would carefully read my posts...this aspect never entered my discussion about the 24 hour prohibition and the novice driver. These questions I have been raising are a result of researching the 24 hour prohibition , the 12 hour suspension and the novice driver.
I'm am not trying to become a lawyer....but as a citizen of Canada, and of BC....I am entirely in my rights to question procedures and the MVA as it's written. If you read the MVA, sections 215 and 90.3......you will see discrepancies between how a novice driver should be handled and how they are handled!
I am passionate about the fact, that novice drivers MUST be demanded by the officer to provide a breath sample when they are pulled over because of suspected drinking and driving .
I am passionate about the fact that a section of the MVA (the 24 hour prohibition) has morphed into something completely different (involving a novice driver) that what it was written for .......section 90.3 was written for the novice driver.
I am passionate about proper procedures as the MVA states, and not an "irate" officer who may have had a bad day (which we all do) just firing out a 24 hour prohibition which could affect a persons life for 4 months.
I am passionate about the fact that the police don't have to tell you the right that is on the back of the 24 hour prohibition notice.
I am passionate about the fact that the OSMV has become an untouchable "entity" (which we should all be concerned about), collecting "disputing fees" and then just doing what they want anyways.
I am passionate about the fact that laws are written to PROTECT our rights (yes...even the lowly novice driver) and provide a method of "bringing down" justice and that these should be followed.
Oh, I'm passionate about my wife too
So, this is where I'm coming from. Sure, my son received a 24 hour prohibition....but that is a whole different ball game and has nothing to do with my "rant" I have going now.
Funny how RCMP Officer Monty Robinson can have an MVA and kill the other driver on a motorbike... and do the same thing (go and have a few drinks, then return to the scene...), go back to the scene of the accident... ironic, isn't it?
I figured there was some ulterior motive to your ranting. Now I understand..
__________________
Don't be the next RS.net statistic - If you drink, don't drive. You'll lose your licence, and the rest of us will laugh at you.
Funny how RCMP Officer Monty Robinson can have an MVA and kill the other driver on a motorbike... and do the same thing (go and have a few drinks, then return to the scene...), go back to the scene of the accident... ironic, isn't it?
I figured there was some ulterior motive to your ranting. Now I understand..
But you have to remember, in our case.....it was just a vehicle going into the ditch...just happened to be a steep ditch and he was off the road by only a few feet. No one else was involved. It is a VERY narrow road (the lanes are 8.6' wide at that point, as compared to the 10' or more on typical paved roads) and 1.5' of sandy shoulder. Yup...looking at the cell phone when it rang was the WRONG thing to do...ESPECIALLY at that point of the road. Caught the shoulder and in he went.
Y'all have to remember to, he didn't leave the scene for a couple of drinks after the accident.....he went to get help for the injury he received and HAD a couple of beer. Two different scenarios. Hey, I'm not saying it was a smart thing to do....but when your bleeding heavily from a large facial cut....and you have friends just down the road......it's just you there......shock, your way of thinking changes.....it will be different that if you were not in shock. I am a certified Search and Rescue Manager for the province of BC..and in the first day of training we are taught...."don't try to think like a lost person...or don't assume that a lost person will do the "normal" or "smart" thing. They are lost..their proper way of thinking has now been "tainted" by panic." The same will happen when a person is in shock. We sit here by the computer and "think" of what we would or should do......put yourself in a situation and then try again.
You want to hear ironic? A majority of the RCMP members that I talked to in my "research", didn't even know about section 90.3....the 12 hour suspension for novice drivers. These are the same officers that expect "civilians" to know the right involved (request a roadside test) when issued a 24 hour prohibition! I emailed the OSMV regarding the 12 hour suspension, and was told by the office that a roadside test was NOT required to hand it out. I sent an email back...explaining section 90.3 and received an email back apologizing for the incorrect information that I had received from them. Me, a citizen and NOT a lawyer....having to explain the MVA to the OSMV and correcting THEM....that is a worrying fact! I phoned ICBC help line to ask about the 12 hour suspension...the gentleman said.."there IS a 12 hour suspension?? Never heard of it." The OSMV states, that a novice driver "faces a 12 hour suspension if caught with a BAC of between .01 and .05" ( Impaired Driving - Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles - Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General ) How can that office enforce that if the officer hands out a 24 hour prohibition without a roadside test? And, if you read that section of their website.....an investigation BEGINS with section 90.3, and can be followed up by any normal driver sanctions as BAC levels are "reached"
You see, there are a lot of inconsistencies happening. If ICBC help line is surprised to hear of a 12 hour suspension.....these 24 hour prohibitions being handed out to novice drivers without a roadside test happens more than you think! If many of the officers don't know about the 12 hour suspension...well...the same thing.
My point in all this. What if an officer hands a novice driver a 24 hour prohibition...and the driver requests a roadside test......blows below .05? The right within that section AND on the back of the notice says "the prohibition from driving is terminated and you are allowed to drive". It doesn't say "THIS prohibition" (meaning the 24 hour notice just handed to the driver).....it says "THE prohibition". Now....how does the officer "honor" that right? If he lets the novice driver go, it is in contravention of the MVA of BC. If he then issues a 12 hour suspension, "the prohibition from driving" didn't occur and the right "handed to him by the officer on the 24 hour notice" was not honored. Giving a novice driver a 24 hour without a roadside test goes against the MVA and how it is written. And this is why section 90.3 was legislated. WHEN an officer DOES pull over a novice driver for suspected drinking and driving...they MUST demand a breath sample. It eliminates the right on the back of the 24 hour notice.....and provides NO appeal for the novice driver if issued a 12 hour suspension. Quite simple actually.
So, this rant is not to prevent anyone from getting a prohibition or suspension. This rant involves almost 8 months of research. As much as we civilians are to follow the letter of the law, so must the "officials". That's the reason we have written law!
Okay y'all...got my letter back from the superintendent of Motor Vehicles, basically saying what I've known all along, and not answering the questions I have. I will type it out here for you all to read as it has nothing to do with any case, current or past. Good thing I like typing eh?
Quote:
Impaired driving is the number one criminal cause of death in Canada. Impaired driving claims an average of 127 lives, and results in more than 3,000 injuries, per year in British Columbia. Although young drivers are under-represented in the total licensed driving population, they are over-represented in fatality and injury crashes. The Graduated Licensing Program (GLP) was implemented in British Columbia to reduce fatality and injury risk and improve driving behaviour, skills and attitudes associated with new drivers.
Drivers in the GLP program must be alcohol free when they are in care and control of a vehicle. Section 90.3 of the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) gives police the authority to issue a 12 hour suspension to GLP drivers if they are found to be driving with any amount of alcohol in their body (i.e. it can be used if a driver's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is less than 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.)
When police have reason to believe that a driver's ability to operate a motor vehicle is affected by alcohol, they have the authority under section 215 of the Motor Vehicle Act to issue a 24 hour driving prohibition.. This section applies to all drivers including drivers in the GLP program.
If an ASD test indicates alcohol is present in the blood at a rate lower than .05 BAC, police cannot issue a prohibition under section 215.3 to a fully licensed driver. If the driver is in the GLP program, however, police may issue a 12 hour suspension under section 90.3.
The MVA sets out what grounds the Office of the Superintendent can consider for reviewing a 24 hour prohibition. The grounds for review, which are listed in section 215.3 of the MVA, are limited to a consideration of whether or not the person was a driver or whether the person had the right to and did request a breath test.
I trust this information has been helpful. Thank you for writing.
My questions were the following:
Can the right (to ask for a roadside test and, if blow below .05, be allowed to drive) on the reverse side of the 24 hour notice be ignored when dealing with a novice driver? I guess this is kind of answered in paragraph four.....but how?
Should they add "unless you are a driver in the GLP" to both the MVA (Section 215.6) and on the back of the notice, because unless those "disclaimers" are there, Section 215 does not completely "match" or work with a novice driver?
Section 90.3 requires an officer to BEGIN with section 90.3 when initiating an investigation into a novice driver and drinking and driving, correct?
How can a novice driver face a 12 hour suspension by an officer that “suspects” any level of alcohol or drugs in their system as stated on your website when a roadside test is required for a 12 hour suspension? (this contradicts section 90.3)
Why are police officers not required to let “civilians” know about this right….the VERY right that is used against us on an appeal of a 24 hour notice? Are they afraid of loosing a “conviction” an actual thought we civilians have? At the VERY least, have the officer tell the driver to read the back, and make sure they understand the right.
Does section 215 describe a driver that is allowed to drive with a BAC of below .05?
My biggest issue lies within paragraph four of the letter I was sent. Remember, the driver uses a right that is stated on the notice he is handed...where it says "you are allowed to drive" if your BAC is below .05. In the case of the novice driver (as stated in this paragraph) that is not the case. Can you imagine a police officer handing you, the novice driver....the notice and saying "don't bother reading the back, it doesn't apply to you". Or, perhaps..they should be saying that!
That right on the back of the 24 hour notice is a VERY important part of section 215!!! Remember....a police officer is saying you are guilty......until you prove you are innocent by asking for a roadside test. No officer is good enough to KNOW what BAC level the driver is at (.02 to .07 range). The right stated within this section is a "safeguard", that allows us "civilians" to prove innocence...or being within the allowable BAC levels here in British Columbia. A great check and balance to the section. If what you are offering (on the back of the notice) doesn't apply in the novice drivers situation.....how can you apply the section to begin with?
Section 215 was written long before the GLP came out...was not designed for the GLP, was not even amended to accommodate the GLP driver..it is being used for something it was not intended for in the case of the novice driver.
I know novice drivers have a zero tolerance for alcohol within their system. But use section 90.3....the only difference being is that the officer must demand a roadside test.....and that is the intent of section 90.3.
Their tune is changing!!!! Notice what it says under the 12 hour suspension heading? A direct copy and paste:
If you are licensed under the GLP (Learner or Novice) and are stopped by police while having the care and operation of a vehicle and police suspect you have any level of alcohol in your body (they may or may not request a breath sample into an approved screening device) – you will receive an immediate 12-hour driving suspension for alcohol impairment. Police will take your driver’s licence and you may not drive until the suspension period is over and you have retrieved your licence from the police station.
Here they are saying that a police officer MUST begin with a section 90.3 if they suspect a novice driver to be drinking and driving......as I have been saying all along! They still have an error where they say (they may or may not request a breath sample into an approved screening device) as section 90.3 REQUIRES a breath sample taken, in order to be issue a 12 hour suspension according to Section 90.3(3):
(3) If
(a) a driver, without a reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a demand made under subsection (2) (b), or
(b) the peace officer, pursuant to an analysis of the breath of the driver under subsection (2) (b), has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the driver has alcohol in his or her body,
Then, under the 12 hour roadside suspensions (other consequences) heading:
Blood alcohol content between 0.05 and 0.08 – if you register a blood alcohol content in this range or are impaired by drugs, you will face the regular consequences fully-licensed drivers face. See Driving While Impaired page on this website.
Again, this is what I've been saying all along!!! If the novice driver registers between .05 and .08 , nail them with a 24 hour prohibition!!!! But this happens ONLY after a breath sample is taken!!! My point....exactly!
The OSMV is now agreeing, according to their website, with my thinking regarding suspected drinking and driving and novice drivers. This webpage states that an officer must begin with section 90.3 in their investigation of a novice driver....then CONTINUE on with "regular consequences that fully-licensed drivers face." A novice driver cannot get a 12 hour suspension or a 24 hour prohibition without a DEMANDED breath sample.
Giving a novice driver a 24 hour prohibition WITHOUT a demanded breath sample is/was incorrect application of section 215 of the MVA.....or improper procedures.
Now...some of you may think that this is coincidental....but I believe that my "campaign" had a bit or a lot to do with this. Even if I didn't have anything to do with this....this change is for the good...the way it is supposed to be.
Someone give this guy a cape.. he's a superhero now.
Nope, just someone that had an issue and didn't roll over and die......or someone that was SCARED of the authorities like some of you.
And, I have to say this.....your an asshole...to put it bluntly. You may be proud of that....not sure. Or maybe jealous....one person took on the Superintendent and actually made a difference....made changes happen when SOME didn't think it was possible.
I had ICBC, the OSMV and the Solicitor General scrambling.....not bad for an ordinary citizen. Don't like my success? Then STFU!!! Posted via RS Mobile
Next time your kid gets caught, I guess he'll get a 12-hour suspension then.
Cue the Dennis Leary music!
Lol, he never got caught in the first place!! Read that CAREFULLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Never got caught in the first place.
What is so hard to understand about that? Never...means notta,didn't, wasn't, diddly... Caught...means doing you have to be doing something illegal........
Let's see, no,not,....those are simple words....most 3 year olds can understand that....can't figure out why you can't...... Posted via RS Mobile
I get it buddy.. we all get it. What you don't seem to get.. is we don't care about you or your chest pounding.. or the desired ego-boost you're so desperately seeking from this online forum.
You need a life. I come here for fun, but you're like an addict looking for the next high.
__________________
Don't be the next RS.net statistic - If you drink, don't drive. You'll lose your licence, and the rest of us will laugh at you.
Don't lump yourself as "we" or with others. YOU,my friend, are the only immature one involved with this discussion. All others have discussed in a mature fashion. No chest pounding....sorry...I'm more evolved than that.....it may be important in your world! I've kept this thread active because there are people that ARE and/or maybe interested in it....sorry again....not for an ego boost.
And you know what? I really don't give a shit if you care or not......you're just a slight pain in the ass is all! Posted via RS Mobile
Tell ya what.. when someone comes along with a thread saying "I'm a N driver, and I got caught drinking and driving, but they only gave me a 12 hour suspension!?" then I'll have them come to this thread and thank you personally for changing the world.
Thank you, drive thru.
__________________
Don't be the next RS.net statistic - If you drink, don't drive. You'll lose your licence, and the rest of us will laugh at you.
.....And don't worry....I will PM those that are interested in this from now on....consider this thread closed. Moderators....can we shut this one down as it has nothing to do with the OP....I guess u could say it's been hijacked...yes...I'm guilty Posted via RS Mobile
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
I emailed the OSMV regarding the 12 hour suspension, and was told by the office that a roadside test was NOT required to hand it out. I sent an email back...explaining section 90.3 and received an email back apologizing for the incorrect information that I had received from them. Me, a citizen and NOT a lawyer....having to explain the MVA to the OSMV and correcting THEM....that is a worrying fact! 
