B.C.'s tough new impaired-driving rules declared almost completely constitutional

[iEatClams]

Originally Posted by taylor192

For those worried about having a couple beers or glass of wine while out, the same punishments for WARN still apply. This decision has done nothing to help the common person who enjoys a few drinks, it only helps truly drunk drivers which is a shame as those are the people we should be targeting.

+ 1

the only small victory or positive here is that our rights will be protected.

Think of developing countries where cops can pull you over and have you locked up when in fact you are fully innocent of the crimes charged against you.

[RiceIntegraRS]

^yeah our rights are protected but unfortunately our wallets arent.

[Gt-R R34]

Originally Posted by taylor192

It all depends on how it is struck down, yet in this case you are correct the old law now takes affect.

To add to this is not a "win":

For those who FAIL the crown has the option of pursuing criminal charges or not. Under the struck down law those who FAIL are immediately punished, 90 day suspension, 30 day impound. Thus the crown may not decide to pursue first time offenders seeing as how they've been punished already. Instead now the crown should (and I suspect will) pursue all criminal drunk drivers.

That's my opinion, not fact - yet I really hope they throw the book at them in court. They challenged this law to get around the harsh roadside punishments, which I thought were reasonable for people blowing > 0.1 BAC, so lets show them how harsh the criminal punishment is instead.

Yes and no.

Atleast this way now, there is a way to fight your charges. Even if they are charged with DUI, it requires a lot more work on the peace officer. Which is why i suspect that they do not go press charges unless it's a multi-offender. And i mean multi.

Everything has to be documented correctly, the breathalyzer has to show if you're over the legal limit. Or lawyers are going to have a field day pwning cops if they try what they are trying now.

"I'm no going to press charges, but here's a 90 days suspension, 30 days impound, consider yourself lucky."

It's really more like, they don't want to do all the paper work.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by RiceIntegraRS

^yeah our rights are protected but unfortunately our lives arent.

I fixed your comment. This ruling allows drunk drivers back onto the road the next day while they wait for the court ruling.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Gt-R R34

"I'm no going to press charges, but here's a 90 days suspension, 30 days impound, consider yourself lucky."

It's really more like, they don't want to do all the paper work.

OK, yet I don't see a problem with this. My friend had a DUI in university and it cost him $15K of lawyer fees and several anxious months before the court just let him off. I'm sure he wouldn't much preferred to just lose his license/car for a few months and be done with it, and I wouldn't preferred he suffer some sort of punishment for what he did. Instead he was driving drunk again soon.

The reason these laws went in was cause the court has no teeth and takes too long. I hope this ruling sees not only the roadside suspension/impound rewritten, yet also a change in the criminal proceedings to prosecute DUIs faster and with harsher punishments.

[twixxer]

imo the biggest issue is the new laws are too strict on someone who is marginally over the limit and not strict enough on repeat drunk drivers.