24 Hour Prohibition & Driving W/O Consideration

[zulutango]

Simnut ( in his forst ever post, btw) said that

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.

"I believe that we do have the right to drive, as much as we have the right to walk in public. And as such, we must be protected of our rights."

You may well believe that, but that is not the case in existing law. Courts continue to uphold that driving is NOT a RIGHT in Canada. BTW Harry, your background is interesting..http://www.okanaganlakebc.com/commun...em_results.htm

[Simnut]

Please keep in mind, I do NOT endorse drinking and driving by anyone, novice or "regular" drivers! It is the procedures....one way steps on the rights of the novice driver (yes, they do have rights), the other way is applying a charge that does not apply. Remember, the 24 hour prohibition (meaning you are prohibited from driving) was designed to take a driver off the road for 24 hours, NOT to create a 4 month suspension for a novice driver. Section 90.3 was legislated for that.

Section 90.3(2b) means to me, that IF a police officer pulls a novice driver (a driver that fits the description in section 25 (10.1))over, they are to demand a roadside test.

(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,

(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.

This is stated quite clearly to me, and was brought into legislation with the GL Program. IF alcohol is detected, below .05, a 12 hour suspension is issued because of the zero tolerance policy.

Now, I've never said that a novice driver CAN'T be issued a 24 hour prohibition. If the novice driver blows OVER .05, issue the 24 hour prohibition! But the officer can now, because the officer DEMANDED the breath sample and the following does not come into play.

Section 215(6)
(6) If a driver, who is served with a notice of driving prohibition under subsection (2), forthwith requests a peace officer to administer and does undergo as soon as practicable a test that indicates that his or her blood alcohol level does not exceed 50 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood, the prohibition from driving is terminated.

It does not come into play because of this:

Section 215(6.2)
(6.2) Despite subsection (6), a driver who is served with a notice of driving prohibition does not have a right to request or undergo a test under subsection (6) if

(a) the peace officer who served the notice first performed a test of the driver's blood alcohol level with an approved screening device,

(b) the test indicated that the driver's blood alcohol level exceeded 50 mg of alcohol in 100mL of blood, and

(c) the peace officer used the results of the test as part of the basis on which the peace officer formed reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the driver's ability to drive a motor vehicle was affected by alcohol.

The course of events changes because the officer DEMANDED the breath sample, it wasn't requested by the driver. Section 215 permits a driver to be allowed to drive if a roadside test proves the driver to be below .05 if the driver REQUESTS a roadside test to prove "innocence". This is the problem I have. If a novice driver requests the roadside test, and blows below .05, is he/she allowed to drive? If not, and the officer issues a 12 hour suspension, the first charge is a moot point, right?

Do you see the difference? A major part of this is because of why the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles denies the appeals of the 24 hour suspension, and this applies if you're a novice or "regular" driver. If the OSMV denies appeals based on the fact that the driver has the right to request a roadside test, but failed to asked for it, and the officer did not refuse the test....the novice driver SHOULD be let go as stated on the reverse side of the notice. This means that the OSMV and the police endorse novice drivers driving with alcohol in their system. Now, if a police officer then tries to issue the 12 hour suspension, they are now using "evidence" that they should have asked for in the first place....because of the novice driver.

Three questions:

Does Section 215 of the MVA describe a driver that is allowed to drive with a BAC of below .05?

Does Section 90.3 describe a driver that must NOT have any alcohol in their system while driving?

Which charge is then applicable to the novice driver as a first step into the investigation?

It's actually, quite simple!


If the novice driver blows over .08, nail them with whatever tools are available.

Justice Louis LeBel argued that a driver's licence is not a privilege but a right. Anyone who meets the driving requirements, age and passes the required driving test is given a licence. There is no discretion to deny anyone a licence if the person meets the requirements.

Is driving a privilege or a right? Driving is a right as is the right to hold a driver’s licence. Like all rights, there are restrictions and limits. The Right to Drive is limited in that the government may specify qualifications that must be met by potential drivers, including that they maintain a respectable driving record.

If a driver meets all of the requirements to obtain a license, the government cannot restrict that person’s right to obtain a driver’s licence and drive. In such a case, an experienced lawyer can apply to the court to get an order forcing the government to give them a driver’s licence.

[zulutango]

This should be argued in Supreme Court by people with far more knowledge than you or me. So far a Revscene bb discussion has not yet been ruled as legal precedent in BC. One would have to assume that legal research was done by the Govt before they passed this legislation. The "get impaired drivers off industry" has a huge lobby and DWI law cases take up more space in the CC than anything else. That must have been considered by someone who was trained to consider those types of things.

[Simnut]

Oh, I agree that this should be argued in the Supreme Court. And that is my goal.

You see, I'm confused as to why section 90.3 was legislated in the first place? Could it have been all the legal research done by the Govt and they realized that section 215 DOESN'T cover the novice driver? Why not just stay with the 24 hour then....my thinking is because it, in it's entirety, does not apply to the novice driver.

Shirley Bond, the Minister of the Solicitor General is looking into this now, and I am waiting for her staff to get back to me. I'm not out to get "impaired" drivers off, that's not my point. My point is using the MVA properly....as it was legislated to work.

If you answer the three questions of my previous post, can you see my point?

[zulutango]

Novice and learner drivers have many different restrictions imposed on them that unrestricted drivers do not. The purpose of the GLP was to reduce crashes/injuries/deaths for untrained drivers by imposing restrictions that helped do just that. As someone who says that they are not in favour of impaired drivers, why not remove alcohol, one of the major demonstrated contibuting factors, from the inexperienced and untrained drivers? I'm sure that BC research has shown that even limited consumption of alcohol by such a driver is not a positive thing. The other countries that have similar GLPs found that and they also decided to do the same thing. I'm trying to figure why it seems that you are trying to get the law changed so that novice drivers with BAC up to .05mg% should be permitted to drive, when you say..."Please keep in mind, I do NOT endorse drinking and driving by anyone"...

[Simnut]

You are missing my point. I am NOT trying to get the law changed so that novice drivers with BAC up to .05 should be permitted to drive!!!!! But if they are issued a 24 hour prohibition without a demanded breath sample, the rights stated on the back of the 24 hour prohibition notice states that they are!!!!!! THIS is why I am saying the 24 hour as a first step is not valid!!!! The 24 hour prohibition describes a driver that IS allowed to drive with up to .05 BAC. So, how can this charge be applied to a novice driver!?? That is my point!


Hey, I'm the first to back the zero tolerance for alcohol for the novice driver, but use section 90.3 as the first step of the investigation into such! It accomplishes the same thing as the 24 hour prohibition, but does not create loopholes or stepping on the rights of such drivers.

I assume that you are/were a police officer?

If you are/were, or if you can "imagine" to be one...what would you do if a novice driver, when you issued him/her the 24 hour prohibiition, asked for a roadside test to prove that they were under the BAC of .05 but alcohol is detected? What if they prove to be under .05 and understand the right written on the back of the 24 hour notice? On the back it says:

“If a blood alcohol test was NOT administered and was not a basis for serving this notice, you have the RIGHT to forthwith request a test to determine your blood level. In the event the test indicates that your blood alcohol level does not exceed 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, the prohibition from driving is terminated. The prohibition will not appear on your driving record and you will be allowed to drive.”


Now....you have just handed a ticket to a driver, that understands the rights on the ticket.....you're in a predicament. Do you let the driver go...remember, he/she is a novice driver, where they are not to have ANY alcohol in their system while driving. Many officers/officials have told me they would then just issue a 12 hour suspension. How do you explain that to the driver that was just "told" by the above information on the ticket they just received....that they are allowed to drive? Ooops.....I'm sorry....wrong charge. Here is a 12 hour suspension. After receiving a 12 hour suspension, they will NOT be able to drive? Do officers have the knowledge of the law and have the capability to explain why that driver now cannot? A real confusing situation.........and incorrect situation.

Perhaps a 24 hour prohibition only works with a novice driver as a first step of the investigation IF, IF the driver does not know their rights and does NOT ask for a roadside test. So, a charge works by "lack of information" to the driver. But to me, this would be considered stepping on someones rights.

__________________________________________________ _______

If we take the same scenario as above, but you, as the officer, begin your investigation with section 90.3. You demand a roadside test.....and give the driver a 12 hour suspension when alcohol is detected. Bingo! Incontestable! Oh, but the driver blew a .06....24 hour prohibition! Incontestable! Simple!

[Simnut]

In this discussion, I would like all to please remember....I have full respect for the police and the job police officers do. I wouldn't want to do it....it's not an easy job! I have two RCMP members in my family and completely understand what their training has provided so they can do their job. But, because of the type of job it is, precision while doing the job is so important. If you are, or know a police officer.....CYA (cover your ass) is a VERY important part of the job, not only in allowing a "case" to be finished properly..but protecting the officer from "backlash" of any kind.

I am very interested in this issue that I've been discussing here, because of the procedure only....not the fact that someone is going to get a violation ticket, or worse , from drinking and driving. As a "civilian" I need to know that correct procedures ARE being followed, and in this case......I don't believe they are. Sure, the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and the way they handle things at their end do not help with this situation. They have morphed into a "lawful entity" unto themselves, which may not be a good thing....for us civilians! I know they are there to protect the driving public, and me being one of them.....appreciate the fact that they do.

But, when useful information like "you have the right to ask for a roadside test if issued a 24 hour prohibition" is not given to...and made sure that the driver understands, I find this to be an issue. It is an issue because this is the exact reason the OSMV will deny a 24 hour prohibition appeal! I know this would create more work for the officer at the scene....now the ASD has to be brought out, time taken to explain what the driver needs to do....etc. But, isn't it fair for all? If the driver is under .05, it is fair for the driver because they are allowed to drive. If it is over .05, the 24 hour still stands..the officer is doing their job.

Novice drivers have lower penalty levels and harsher ramifications. But they have rights too. If a police officer issues the 24 hour prohibitions to them, meaning the officer is treating them as one class of driver (regular driver) does the right on the reverse side of the ticket not apply to them too?

I am starting to rehash what I've stated already. I believe this whole situation can be made uncomplicated with a novice driver and drinking and driving. Utilize the correct section when beginning the investigation.

[Simnut]

As I sit here thinking.....as usual about this , a part of the 24 hour process comes to mind that kind of throws an other aspect into this. The timing of everything. When a driver is handed their copy of the notice, the first time that they can "read" their right about requesting a roadside test......the prohibition is in effect already. What I'm saying is that the prohibition is in effect BEFORE the driver can even learn or read of their right to request. And this is corroborated by the statement "the prohibition is terminated and you are allowed to drive". Something has to be in place to be terminated. So, section 215 is almost a 2 part scenario. A charge......and an event to terminate the charge, IF used. So, if the second event doesn't happen, the charge "sticks". If the second event is used and an BAC of below .05 is found, a regular driver can continue on. If the second event is used, and alcohol is detected below .05 of a novice driver, another charge can be/should be issued using "evidence" provided BY the driver...not demanded by the police which it should have been in the case of a novice driver.

Okay...I've got to get to sleep now.....my wife says this is becoming an obsession with me! lol I actually quite enjoy the research and semantics of these two sections. And , as you can tell, I like to "discuss", sorry....I take after my father, a stubborn dutchman!

I've just checked the bios of the mods in this forum, and I'm surrounded by police officers....don't worry...I feel safe! I have to keep in mind how YOUR training keeps you guys suspicious.....and I mean this is a proper way. Being suspicious in your job keeps you safe, and "motivation" and direction for your job. I am a civilian, and have another way of looking at things.... I have no intentions of trying to do your job as you've be trained....that's not my point. My point is that perhaps the direction of the province maybe in error.

[zulutango]

And that is what the Supreme Court will have to decide if things need to be changed. Thanks for your insight and your input.

[Simnut]

Originally Posted by zulutango

And that is what the Supreme Court will have to decide if things need to be changed. Thanks for your insight and your input.

Agreed! But what a costly venture!

[zulutango]

And now you are puting a cost on the truth????

[Simnut]

Originally Posted by zulutango

And now you are puting a cost on the truth????

Well, let's see...to take this to the Supreme Court, I've been quoted 20 to 30 thousand dollars for a "class action" suit...which is basically the way you have to go.

Can I borrow $30k?

The OSMV just does what they want, basically untouchable..unless it goes to the supreme court. To fight a 24 hour prohibition and it's appeal denial is over $2500. Ridiculous in my mind.....not many have that kind of money just laying around. The "new" and "improved" OSMV has been made to be this way to cut down the back log in the court system, to whose benefit? Many would say the OSMV.........

I'm not sure if your statement was said in a sarcastic or cynical way ..... I hope not. But thats okay, because I get the same type of "answers" from officials/officers within the detachments in my area. I'm not sure why certain people just can't answer those three questions I ask:

Does Section 215 of the MVA describe a driver that is allowed to drive with a BAC of below .05? Yes or no

Does Section 90.3 describe a driver that must NOT have any alcohol in their system while driving? Yes or no

Which charge is then applicable to the novice driver as a first step into the investigation? 215 or 90.3

[gars]

Originally Posted by Simnut

Well, let's see...to take this to the Supreme Court, I've been quoted 20 to 30 thousand dollars for a "class action" suit...which is basically the way you have to go.

Can I borrow $30k?

Try talking to your local MLA?

[Simnut]

Originally Posted by gars

Try talking to your local MLA?

Yes sir, I have. I've talked to my MLA (no response yet), and also the MLA that "counts" so to speak. Shirley Bond, the MLA from Prince George and the Minister of the Solicitor General of BC who now has her staff looking at this.

I've talked personally (well, via the phone) with the Manager of Prohibitions with Driver Services in Victoria also, who was VERY talkative, spent almost an hour talking with her. She was on the ball, worked with her "lawyer type" people down there and gave me an answer in 2 days. Here is the basic answer I got:

"The novice driver, when "invoking" his right on the reverse side of the 24 hour notice IS allowed to drive (IF under .05).....until the officer gives the 12 hour suspension" What....10 minutes?

To me, that is like dangling a carrot in front of a donkey, then taking it away. Why "jerk" a driver around like that...when it doesn't have to happen in the first place. If this is allowed by law, so be it. BUT, it doesn't mean that it is right or something "civilians" have to agree with.

IF taken to court, and IF it is shown that a 24 hour prohibition is an invalid charge to issue to a novice driver as the FIRST step of the investigation, what would that mean? All novice drivers that received a 24 hour prohibition in that manner would have these charges removed from their record. It would also mean that all "fees" that resulted in these charges would have to be reimbursed. License reinstatement fees, impoundment fees etc. You know how much that would cost the OSMV/government? Can you now realize how much of a fight this will be?

On the one hand, I would LOVE to prove that this is an invalid charge in the first step of an investigation with a novice driver. On the other hand, I would love to have JUST the procedures/policies changed. Nothing has to be rewritten, just done in a different order!



Just start the investigation with section 90.3, this is why is what legislated in the first place.....easy.

[zulutango]

Maybe the "confusion" exists becaue we are dealing with 2 areas here...the first is a novice driver who is driving contrary to restrictions that require no alcohol (and all the rest of the specific restrictions)...and the second is a driver who is impaired by having over 50mg%. A fully licenced driver is not capable of being charged for having too many passengers in his vehicle but a novice does. A learner MC driver is restricted from driving after dark. If he is stopped for speeding at midnight he is subject to the speeding VT and to the drive contrary to restrictions VT than a fully licenced Mc rider would not. Initially he is stopped for one charge but the investigation has discovered that he is a L who is breaking his specific L restrictions. It's not double jeopardy, it's 2 different laws being broken. The Cop can let him off the speeding ticket...or charge him, but he should not let him continue to drive. I 'm interested in seeing the outcome of your request. Please keep us updated.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Simnut

When a driver is handed their copy of the notice, the first time that they can "read" their right about requesting a roadside test......

What if they're too drunk to read it clearly??

[Simnut]

Originally Posted by zulutango

Maybe the "confusion" exists because we are dealing with 2 areas here...the first is a novice driver who is driving contrary to restrictions that require no alcohol (and all the rest of the specific restrictions)...and the second is a driver who is impaired by having over 50mg%. A fully licenced driver is not capable of being charged for having too many passengers in his vehicle but a novice does. A learner MC driver is restricted from driving after dark. If he is stopped for speeding at midnight he is subject to the speeding VT and to the drive contrary to restrictions VT than a fully licenced Mc rider would not. Initially he is stopped for one charge but the investigation has discovered that he is a L who is breaking his specific L restrictions. It's not double jeopardy, it's 2 different laws being broken. The Cop can let him off the speeding ticket...or charge him, but he should not let him continue to drive. I 'm interested in seeing the outcome of your request. Please keep us updated.

In the case of too many passengers, the proof is right there...right in front of everyone's eyes. The speeding is proven, by either radar or vehicle timing. In the case of alcohol IN the system, the proof (which stands in a court of law) is via a ASD or a breathalyzer. You see the difference?

In the case of the 24 hour and the 12 hour, we are talking about a driver that has alcohol in their system but at two allowable levels. The 24 hour will stick even IF the driver has a BAC of only .01 IF that driver does not request a roadside test. The 90.3 "sticks" regardless, with a novice driver.

A 24 hour can be given by observation alone. For a regular driver, all this does is prevents them from driving for 24 hours...no big deal compared to what occurs with a novice....lesson learned and there IS a way out as mentioned. For a novice driver, it means a 4 months suspension of their license. Now, would it seem that the officer had be pretty sure that this driver has alcohol in his system to affect his "life" to that extent? What if the odor on the breath or odor emanating from the vehicle was from a candy, mouthwash.....someone else in the car?

I believe this is one of the reasons why section 90.3 (where a roadside test is mandatory) came into effect. To make SURE there is alcohol in the novice drivers system and not base it just on "assumption or reasonable and probable grounds, because the ramifications are so harsh along with the fact that section 215 just doesn't describe a novice driver.

Do you notice that these two charges are called a 24 hour prohibition (meaning you still have your license, but are prohibited from driving for that period of time) and a 12 hour suspension (meaning you, in effect, DON'T have a license for that period of time)?

The severity of the penalties given to a novice driver require "evidence" (roadside test) to be fair to the novice driver.

What would happen, if section 90.3 was not legislated? Remember, 90.3 does not say that a novice driver must have zero tolerance for alcohol (section 25(10.1) ,mandates that) , it is a charge to be carried out if the novice driver DOES have alcohol within their system. If we didn't have section 90.3, officers would have to let novice drivers go if shown to be under .05. I believe (stubborn old dutchman coming outta me again ) that section 90.3 "replaces" the 24 hour prohibition and the novice driver. And, if you read section 90.3 carefully, it says that "when" an officer DOES pull over a novice driver and suspects alcohol in their system, they MUST demand a roadside test. For the reasons I have mentioned above.

I will definately keep all informed as to how it goes for this "campaign". I hope everyone can see that I am not out to "change" any laws.....just to show that one can't be used against a "class" of driver here in BC. But that is not a negative thing.....section 90.3 does just as well in this situation! So it is just a procedural issue!

Can you see how easy life would be for the police, the OSMV and the courts if they DID utilize the section 90.3 against novice drivers? Pure heaven for all....no appeals processes, no doubt about alcohol present, no court cases ....

[zulutango]

I'll see your stubborn old Dutchman and raise ye a stubborn and cheap...sorry...thrifty...old Scotsman laddie Like Mike Meyers dad said...if it isn't Scottish it's crap!!!

[Simnut]

Originally Posted by zulutango

I'll see your stubborn old Dutchman and raise ye a stubborn and cheap...sorry...thrifty...old Scotsman laddie Like Mike Meyers dad said...if it isn't Scottish it's crap!!!

Oh no, a Dutchman and a Scotsman, "discussing"!!! Do we have any referee's around? Hang on, just checked the mods again.....we're okay...guys with lots of practice!

[Simnut]

A break through in this discussion perhaps, and the "brickwall" we keep hitting our heads on!

It eludes to the 2 areas that you have mentioned zulutango! The 24 hour prohibition is applicable to ANY driver, yes, even the novice driver if over the allowable level of being able to drive in BC, .....05. I agree with that. If a novice OR regular driver are over .05, the right on the back of the 24 hour notice is a moot point. If a roadside test is requested and the driver is over .05, the "allowed to drive" doesn't matter or enter the equation at all.

It is the realm of the level of .01 to .049 that bothers me. THIS is where the grey area is. A regular driver is allowed to drive, legally the novice isn't! The .01 to .049 area is where the novice driver can or will receive the 12 hour suspension, but can this be evaluated by observation alone? No it can't. It has to be determined by an ASD. Now we start to see why section 90.3 has been legislated. A mandatory roadside test to determine this and part of why I have been saying that the investigation into a novice driver needs to be started with a 90.3.

It appears that only half of section 215 does not apply to novice drivers. The 24 hour prohibition applies to the novice driver if he's over .05, but doesn't apply to the novice driver if he/she is below .05. So the description of a driver in section 215 is a driver that can't drive with a BAC of over .05 (both novice and regular) or can drive with a BAC of under .05(regular driver) THIS is where the confusion arises.

The novice driver will get a license suspension as a result of both of these charges from the OSMV. You could say, then whats the big deal? It comes down to the last line in the right on the back of the 24 hour notice, "and you will be allowed to drive". That line comes into play and becomes a "dangled carrot" when the DRIVER requests the roadside test.....it doesn't come into play when the police officer demands a roadside test. If a police officer stops a novice driver and demands a roadside test, the officer can apply the 12 hour suspension OR the 24 hour prohibition, dependent on the BAC levels. Again...section 90.3, where a police officer must demand a road side test.
_________________________________________
Definition of "dangled carrot". A right that the novice driver "initiated" by asking for a roadside test, because he/she has been told or read that this is their right and they KNOW they are below .05. But even blowing below .05, they will not be allowed to drive, legally! The carrot is now not just dangled in front of them, it is taken away.
_________________________________________
The only way to prevent this scenario from happening is for the officer to demand a roadside test first.......and if that happens, section 90.3 is actually "invoked" first. This is the only difference between an officer applying section 215 or 90.3........but the right on the back of the 24 hour notice is eliminated.

[zulutango]

If I stopped a driver and I had grounds to believe that they had consumed alcohol and it was still in their body then I entered into an investigation to see if they were legally impaired. If you find a dead body in the trunk of a car you enter into a murder investigation...not one for the driver permitting an unbelted passenger in a vehicle. You investigate the most serious charge first. If the body has died from natural causes and it being transported to the morgue because the hearse broke down then at the worst you may have a charge of indignity to a body.


If your impaired investigation finds that the level is over .05mg% and under .08mg% then you get into the 24 hour suspension process irregardless of the drivers DL status. If the reading is under .05mg% and the driver is found to be violating the restrictions of his L or N DL then you apply the appropriate 12 suspension as mandated under 90.3. The driver knows they have consumed alcohol and that they are forbidden to to do so by the restrictions written on the back of their DL, so it should be no surprise that they are open to being prosecuted under 25(15) for violating those restrictions, part of which is the 12 hour penalty. I'm not good enough to tell the difference between .049 mg% and .051 mg% by observing symptoms of consumption and I don't know who is so I will be using the ASD/RSD to find out. How I proceed depends on the actual level.

We must remember that the Police are not required to demand...the section says that...A peace officer may . A N or L driver who consumes and drives/ has C&C knows in advance that they will be suspended if caught...only thing that is not known by them is if they will get a 12 hour or 24 hour suspension. They have no right to expect to get off if they submit to a demand, the zero alcohol printed on their DL tells them that. They are not volunteering to take a get home free test. They already know that they are going to get at least a 12 hour...what they might not get as a result of the ASD, is prosecuted under the CC or have a 90 day prohib under the 215 legislation. What the test result will show them is if they will get suspended for 12 or 24 hours...or it will show them that they have zero alcohol in their system. They know that this is not true because they have been drinking. They can't expect the RSD will give them a reading of zero when they know they drank. There can't be confusion if they know in advance that they are choosing to violate the restrictions. Just remember Russel Peter's dad's words.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by zulutango

You investigate the most serious charge first.

I think this is the key to the whole thing - you could have just said this and saved yourself a lot of typing

Originally Posted by zulutango

...irregardless...

(sorry, pet peeve)

Like Mike Meyers dad said...if it isn't Scottish it's crap!!!

I thought that was Fat Bastard?

And Nigel Powers (Austin's dad) said, "There's only two things I hate in this world: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch."

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by Soundy

I think this is the key to the whole thing - you could have just said this and saved yourself a lot of typing


Kinda what i said in post # 26.



Quote:
Like Mike Meyers dad said...if it isn't Scottish it's crap!!!



I thought that was Fat Bastard?

see this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCrT96QJBfQ


check # 3225 here
http://www.moviequotes.com/repository.cgi?pg=3&tt=96674



And Nigel Powers (Austin's dad) said, "There's only two things I hate in this world: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch."

Dr evil summed it all up though.."I never knew my birth parents. There was a car accident. My birth mother was incinerated, and I only survived because her smoking carcass had formed a protective cocoon of slaughtered human effluence. A Belgian man and his fifteen year-old love slave were looting the accident scene, and came across a blood soaked baby, moi. They raised me to be evil. You know, that old chestnut."

[Simnut]

I'm not saying to let anybody off the hook! It's a matter how the investigation is conducted and of given "rights" when conducted in a particular manner. What I am saying is that you cannot give a novice driver a 24 hour prohibition (and a 12 hour as far as that goes, as stated in section 90.3) without a "demanded" breath sample.

If you, as the officer, don't demand a breath sample in the 24 hour charge, then you HAVE to respect the right written IN the act and on the back of the notice IF the novice driver "requests" a roadside test and blows below .05. You ,as the officer, are "handing" that right to him as you hand the 24 hour notice. In your act of handing him the 24 hour prohibition (without a demanded breath sample) you are "treating" him or classifying him as a driver that has that right available. Again, the key words..."allowed to drive" stated in black and white (actually grey and blue) on the exact prohibition you are issuing. If you say, but he's a novice driver and he's not allowed ANY alcohol in his system, then why are you handing him a piece of "" that tells him he is allowed to have below .05 BAC? Can it be that only one side of the prohibition notice applies to him, not the other?

My problem lies with what happens IF the novice driver requests, blows below .05 and is NOT allowed to drive because you then issue a 12 hour suspension. That "right".... that YOU, just handed to him a few minutes ago ON the 24 hour prohibition you were issuing, might as well have been confetti, cow dung....or anything, because it ended up not being a "right", right? If you put yourself in the position of giving someone a right, you have to stand by it!

Now, in saying this........in your post, you say that you would demand a breath sample to see what direction you would go! PERFECT!!!!!!! EXACTLY!!!!!!! By demanding the breath sample, you , as the attending officer have ELIMINATED the "use" of the right on the back of the 24 hour notice. That right on the reverse side of the notice only happens when the driver "requests" a roadside test.

Can you issue a 12 hour suspension to a novice driver without a roadside test? NO.
How do you know if they are over or under the .05 "allowable" limit in BC ? Roadside test, as you do.


In the manner that you do it (conduct the investigation I mean ) it works...perfectly.


Perhaps I'm putting to much thought into this "allowed to drive" thing. But you know what....as a civilian, dealing with an officer....and I read that right, and I fulfill the requirements of that right...and I'm still not allow to drive.........????????? Whaaaa???????


But you know, it's easy.....just demand a breath sample (as you do)........hang on.............thats the way Section 90.3 starts!

[jlenko]

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.