24 hr prohibition police report?

[Soundy]

That's the problem - you still might. Every cop on this board could tell you you'd be fine that way, but if a cop who comes across your situation decides he thinks you "in care and control" of your car, you're busted. I don't know if the law actually has a solid definition of what constitutes "in care and control", but from the stories here, it seems to be pretty open-ended.

[skidmark]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Unfortunately exactly what constitutes being "in care an control" seems to be open to pretty broad interpretation by the cop involved.

Whose interpretation is ultimately decided by the courts. You learn pretty quickly what is acceptable and what isn't and don't waste your time with what isn't.

[skidmark]

Originally Posted by Soundy

He didn't even say that he HAD been drinking, only that he was sleeping in his truck. You're the last person I would expect to jump to conclusions, skidmark

Apparently my conclusion was correct judging by posts 18 and 20 in this thread. Given the context of the thread I expected that he would add the tidbit that he had not been drinking if he had not been.

[BNR32_Coupe]

Sleeping in your car is definitely not illegal, as long as its in a safe spot. When an officer confronts you while you sleep in your vehicle and start jumping to conclusions about impairment, request that he has a breathalyzer brought in, and have your cell phone record the conversation the entire time in case he decides to tow your car anyways.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by skidmark

Apparently my conclusion was correct judging by posts 18 and 20 in this thread. Given the context of the thread I expected that he would add the tidbit that he had not been drinking if he had not been.

I did grant that in a later post:

Originally Posted by Soundy

Experience, as much as anything, I think. They've seen enough to have a pretty good idea of what really happened most of the time.

It's just a little odd to see skidmark make that assumption, as he's proven less likely to make that leap... granted, in this case, we see it WAS correct, but still...

[mr.slave]

Originally Posted by Soundy

I did grant that in a later post:

so what cause i was in my truck sleeping it off instead of driving home pissed i should get my license taken away for 2 months.

[CRS]

Originally Posted by mr.slave

so what cause i was in my truck sleeping it off instead of driving home pissed i should get my license taken away for 2 months.

Not if you were on the passenger side with the keys in the glove compartment

[zoo]

Originally Posted by CRS

Not if you were on the passenger side with the keys in the glove compartment

Thats still care and control of a motor vehical
You can still get a 24 hour or get charged if you are intoxicated as the keys are still accessable.
Best thing to do is put them in the trunk or on top of your tire

[yvrnycracer]

Originally Posted by Five-Oh

Having said that, if at that time the accused requests a breath test, the officer is obligated to administer a breath test.

Is the officer only obligated to administer a roadside breath test?! And in the case of a "WARN" (which if I am not mistaken is anywhere between .05 and .1) would the individual have the right to request a proper "in station" test to clarify whether or not they have in fact gone over the legal limit?! Just to note that a warn is kind of like saying someone is possibly going the speed limit... but they may be speeding so we'll punish them anyway... In reality an officer could issue a 24 hour suspension just because they are having a bad day as there really is no required proof to issue one and fighting a 24 hour suspension is next to impossible. One will never be given the chance to face a judge, only being able to speak with a civil servant over the phone or to submit a dispute in writing. Even if the civil servant finds that there are no grounds or lacking evidence to dismiss the claim, they can reserve the right to adjourn the hearing and advise the officer to resubmit the report with errors and omissions corrected.

The system is backwards but those who bring the issue up will never be looked at in a positive light because drinking and driving is a very sensitive subject. Those who are actually stupid enough to drink and drive ruin it for those who really are innocent and run into an officer in a bad mood (innocense is in massive minority of cases i am sure).

I believe our drinking and driving laws should be tougher even considering lowering the allowable legal limit... but the law should be black and white and have no grey area like we have with our 24 hour suspensions and ADP's... Either you are wrong or you aren't no maybes... but you should always be allowed to prove that you weren't wrong in a proper arena (ie in front of a judge...)

But in a land where an insurance company controls every aspect related to the roads there will never be any black and white... grey is too profitable...

** On a side note... why do some jurisdictions have roadside screening devices that will give a numbered result on the spot really leaving no grey area and some have the pass/fail/warn system!?

[skidmark]

Originally Posted by yvrnycracer

Is the officer only obligated to administer a roadside breath test?! And in the case of a "WARN" (which if I am not mistaken is anywhere between .05 and .1) would the individual have the right to request a proper "in station" test to clarify whether or not they have in fact gone over the legal limit?!

If the officer uses a screening device initially there is no opportunity to demand a breath test. You've been tested. It's only when a prohibition is issued based on observation rather that ASD testing. The ASD is as accurate as the instrument in the detachment.

In reality an officer could issue a 24 hour suspension just because they are having a bad day as there really is no required proof to issue one and fighting a 24 hour suspension is next to impossible.

Then they would have to lie in the report to the Superintendent as well. Not likely to happen. Why would I risk a $70,000 a year job just to yank your chain?

One will never be given the chance to face a judge, only being able to speak with a civil servant over the phone or to submit a dispute in writing.

Not so, all are possible.

Even if the civil servant finds that there are no grounds or lacking evidence to dismiss the claim, they can reserve the right to adjourn the hearing and advise the officer to resubmit the report with errors and omissions corrected.

Maybe, but in my experience they adjudicate in favour of the accused.

I believe our drinking and driving laws should be tougher even considering lowering the allowable legal limit... but the law should be black and white and have no grey area like we have with our 24 hour suspensions and ADP's... Either you are wrong or you aren't no maybes... but you should always be allowed to prove that you weren't wrong in a proper arena (ie in front of a judge...)

Many European jurisdictions have done this.

** On a side note... why do some jurisdictions have roadside screening devices that will give a numbered result on the spot really leaving no grey area and some have the pass/fail/warn system!?

That's a question that you will have to ask the RCMP "brass." They dictated what response the ASD would display. I know that it can display numbers for all tests if it is set that way.

[yvrnycracer]

Originally Posted by skidmark

If the officer uses a screening device initially there is no opportunity to demand a breath test. You've been tested. It's only when a prohibition is issued based on observation rather that ASD testing. The ASD is as accurate as the instrument in the detachment.

Then why have the pass/warn/fail system?! Because then they don't actually know if you are below or above .08/.1

Then they would have to lie in the report to the Superintendent as well. Not likely to happen. Why would I risk a $70,000 a year job just to yank your chain?

But if its the officer and partner and the accused with no other witnesses who are the powers that be going to believe?! It's like going in to court and saying I wasn't speeding and the officer says you were. In the case of that they are using an approved screening device to back up their claim, where here it can be simply on the word of the officer with no evidence to back it up aside from the officers observations which are totally subjective.

Not so, all are possible.

The first step in the process is through a civil servant am I not correct in this?!

Maybe, but in my experience they adjudicate in favour of the accused.

I am glad to hear most follow the rule of law and due process!

Many European jurisdictions have done this.

And we should as well! Then there is no grey area!

That's a question that you will have to ask the RCMP "brass." They dictated what response the ASD would display. I know that it can display numbers for all tests if it is set that way.

VPD have the P/W/F system, New West uses numbers... shouldn't there be a standard across the board!?

No response to the notion that Grey is profitable...

[skidmark]

When you blow a fail, the impaired driving investigation starts and you are taken back to the detachment for testing on another instrument (currently the BAC Datamaster C with the RCMP) that does give numbers so that we know how far over 80 mg% you are.

[yvrnycracer]

Originally Posted by skidmark

When you blow a fail, the impaired driving investigation starts and you are taken back to the detachment for testing on another instrument (currently the BAC Datamaster C with the RCMP) that does give numbers so that we know how far over 80 mg% you are.

Yes and then the words FAIL on the "Approved Roadside Screening Device" would make sense... anything up to that... it should be a PASS... plain and simple... if the government wants the numbers to be lower or even go to a ZERO tollerance why not do this instead of giving the officer the power of judge jury and executioner with a 24 hour prohibition system... (i know the .08/.1 is a criminal code of canada regulation) and why amend or add to a law that the government of canada deems acceptable

I am all for stricter laws when it comes to this BUT allowing a grey area is just wrong...

[Five-Oh]

Originally Posted by yvrnycracer

Yes and then the words FAIL on the "Approved Roadside Screening Device" would make sense... anything up to that... it should be a PASS... plain and simple... if the government wants the numbers to be lower or even go to a ZERO tollerance why not do this instead of giving the officer the power of judge jury and executioner with a 24 hour prohibition system... (i know the .08/.1 is a criminal code of canada regulation) and why amend or add to a law that the government of canada deems acceptable

I am all for stricter laws when it comes to this BUT allowing a grey area is just wrong...

I'm still not following you on what grey area you are talking about. A "WARN" tells me you are between 50 and 100 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. 50 is the motor vehicle act limit, not the criminal limit. We have no discretion on this, a "WARN" is always a 24 hour suspension and a "FAIL" means the person is detained and brought back for samples on the Datamaster.

[yvrnycracer]

Originally Posted by Five-Oh

I'm still not following you on what grey area you are talking about. A "WARN" tells me you are between 50 and 100 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. 50 is the motor vehicle act limit, not the criminal limit. We have no discretion on this, a "WARN" is always a 24 hour suspension and a "FAIL" means the person is detained and brought back for samples on the Datamaster.

IC that clears that up :thumbup: but why is there a difference between the MVA limit and the CC limit?!

That being said the officer can issue a 24 hour suspension at his own discretion if I am not mistaken without even performing a roadside test!?

[PR0WL]

Yes a 24 hour suspension can be issued without a roadside test.

[blockknocker]

I received a 24/hr suspension because I asked a female cop out on a date.

[skidmark]

Originally Posted by yvrnycracer

IC that clears that up but why is there a difference between the MVA limit and the CC limit?!

There's a huge difference in the outcome. The 50 mg% limit in the MVA only results in a 24 hour prohibition if you fall into the 50 to 100 mg% range. If you are over the 100 then all sorts of heavy penalties might be applied.

That being said the officer can issue a 24 hour suspension at his own discretion if I am not mistaken without even performing a roadside test!?

That's right, but if it is done this way you have the right to demand breath testing and if your sample is less than 50 mg% your licence is returned to you.

[skidmark]

Originally Posted by blockknocker

I received a 24/hr suspension because I asked a female cop out on a date.

With no alcohol in your body??

[Soundy]

Musta been corked to be asking out an on-duty cop

[asdfpic]

Originally Posted by blockknocker

I received a 24/hr suspension because I asked a female cop out on a date.

haha wow. were you totally tanked or just walking by a female cop on duty and asked her out?
your my hero

[Soundy]

"24 hour suspension" = blockknocker hanging from the ceiling in her bondage dungeon.

[yvrnycracer]

Originally Posted by skidmark

There's a huge difference in the outcome. The 50 mg% limit in the MVA only results in a 24 hour prohibition if you fall into the 50 to 100 mg% range. If you are over the 100 then all sorts of heavy penalties might be applied.

It still doesn't explain why there is a difference between the CC and the MVA...

And a 24 hour suspension has no effect on your standing with our fair insurance company/law making authority/licensing agency?!

Why there is a difference between anything in the canadian road safety regs, the provincial mva and the criminal code is beyond me.

[yvrnycracer]

Originally Posted by skidmark

That's right, but if it is done this way you have the right to demand breath testing and if your sample is less than 50 mg% your licence is returned to you.

Would this have to be done with the Datamaster (not sure of the exact name) at the station?! And would a lawyer be contacted prior to this test!?

[skidmark]

Originally Posted by yvrnycracer

It still doesn't explain why there is a difference between the CC and the MVA...

For that you would have to ask the politicians that made the rules....

And a 24 hour suspension has no effect on your standing with our fair insurance company/law making authority/licensing agency?!

Not so. Too many 24 hour prohibitions and wave goodbye to your driver's licence for a lot longer. I must admit though, I am surprised that there are no penalty points associated with them.

Why there is a difference between anything in the canadian road safety regs, the provincial mva and the criminal code is beyond me.

We won't hold that against you.