Help! Notice of driving prohibition

[Vga]

Hi,

So i went out the other night and had a few drinks and stopped drinking many hours before I drove home (over 3) on my way home there was a check stop and when the officer asked if I had anything to drink I was truthful and admitted I had a couple of drinks over 3 hours ago. He asked me to pull over and told me to follow him for a breathalyzer. On the way to his car, he said to me that I seem completely fine but that he is required to administer the test. I blew a 'warn' and the officer said that sometimes the tests aren't too accurate, that you can blow a warn one time and the second time it is a pass. I blew a second time and unfortunately it was a warm again.

Since this was my first and only offense, I have been driving for 10 years now...I got a minimal ticket (3 days warn), my license revoked, but he allowed me to call someone to pick me up so my car wouldn't be impounded.

Now I am quite upset that I got this ticket because I was responsible with my consumption and I know that a warn on an ADS means 0.05-0.08 concentration in the bloodstream....which means I was either under or just at the limit.

I plan to have the ticket reviewed, so i will have to do a written review for the judge. I was wondering if there is any chance that the ticket can be dropped. What can I say in the letter to better my chances?

Thank you very much for any help!

J

[xilley]

LOL.

[tarobbt]

If you gave a blewjob the 2nd time it pretty much guarantees the conviction of an alcohol level between 0.05 - 0.08.

In my opinion your chances of getting out of it is pretty close to zero.

The OSMV will only be looking at a a few key points in this case to come to a decision.

-Alcohol in your system?
-Care and control of the vehicle at the time?
-Results of the 1st and 2nd test

Time for you to pony up for a lawyer.

[H.Specter]

I plan to have the ticket reviewed, so i will have to do a written review for the judge. I was wondering if there is any chance that the ticket can be dropped. What can I say in the letter to better my chances?

good night sweet prince

[Spidey]

I am guessing your prohibition is over, or almost over at this point since it was only 3 days.

We both know you know exactly how many drinks you had. You said you stopped drinking over 3 hours ago. People who say they only had "a couple" or "a few" know exactly how may they had, and know there is a high likelihood of being shafted. So there's no point playing the "I didn't know how many I had". Because if you don't remember, you are either lying, or you are so drunk you shouldn't be driving. If you only had "a couple" or the most common answer "only 2", you would not blow a warn.

What are you exactly trying to get out of the review? Are you trying to not have to pay for the ticket, or not have the offence on your driving record? Or both?

You are lucky that your car didn't get towed and impounded for 3 days as well, as that was definitely an option. You said you were being "responsible". Well you weren't. At least not under the new Immediate Roadside Prohibition in BC under the Motor Vehicle Act. Being responsible would technically mean you being s designated driver without any alcohol consumption.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by tarobbt

If you gave a blewjob the 2nd time...

WAT

[dinosaur]

Roadside drunk driving prohibition quashed by B.C. judge | Globalnews.ca

KAMLOOPS, B.C. – A judge has dismissed the roadside ban given to a man who got two warning readings after blowing into a roadside screening device, saying there is no evidence to suggest the man’s ability to drive was affected by alcohol.

But B.C.’s superintendent of motor vehicles says police will continue to hand out immediate, three-day roadside prohibitions to those who drink and drive despite the judgment.


Lee Michael Wilson received a three-day driving ban Sept. 19, 2012 after the roadside device registered a blood-alcohol level in the warning range.

The Superintendent of Motor Vehicles turned down his request to review the prohibition, so Wilson took the issue to the B.C. Supreme Court.

In a ruling posted online recently, Justice Dev Dley dismissed the roadside prohibition, saying there was no evidence indicating Wilson’s ability to drive was affected by alcohol.

Sam MacLeod, the superintendent of motor vehicles, says the government’s lawyers are reviewing the ruling and haven’t decided whether they’ll launch an appeal, but those who drink and drive will be held to account through immediate roadside driving prohibition.

MacLeod wouldn’t say if he’ll give police instructions to look for and record additional evidence before issuing the driving bans. (CHNL/The Canadian Press)

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by dinosaur

Roadside drunk driving prohibition quashed by B.C. judge | Globalnews.ca

If the Police properly documents the actions of the driver, it shouldn't be a problem. Thing is though, the driver was never Charged for Impaired driving. Regardless whether someone wants to take a 3 day warning ban to the Supreme courts is their right and money out of their pocket.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by dinosaur

Roadside drunk driving prohibition quashed by B.C. judge | Globalnews.ca

"A judge has dismissed the roadside ban given to a man who got two warning readings after blowing into a roadside screening device, saying there is no evidence to suggest the man’s ability to drive was affected by alcohol."

I don't know why anyone is surprised - if doing 130 in an 80 zone is acceptable because "everybody else does it in that area", blowing through a red at that speed in the right turn lane is okay because "she didn't speed up", and killing two people by launching OVER THE CENTER MEDIAN AT THEM can be shrugged off by the courts because the two above factors don't add up to "dangerous driving"... then hell, why should a breathalyzer mean anything at all??

[zulutango]

Now I am quite upset that I got this ticket because I was responsible with my consumption and I know that a warn on an ADS means 0.05-0.08 concentration in the bloodstream....which means I was either under or just at the limit.

No, actually it means you were at least .10 mg% above the limit of .05. They are set to warn at anywhere from .06 up to the fail limit.

[ancient_510]

Originally Posted by Vga

I blew a 'warn' and the officer said that sometimes the tests aren't too accurate, that you can blow a warn one time and the second time it is a pass. I blew a second time ...

On the same ASD or on a different unit?

BC Motor Vehicle Act 215.42(2)
A second analysis performed under this section must be performed with a different approved screening device than was used in the first analysis.

If it was on the same unit, lawyer up and appear in court. You have a good case.

[l2_narain]

For the 2nd sample, did he make you blow into the same ASD or a 2nd device?

edit: oops didn't read ancient response..

[BallPeenHammer2]

OP: You're goddamn lucky enough he didn't impound your car and throw the book at you.

Don't even TRY to dispute it.

Even asking on here makes yourself look like an idiot.