Quote:
Originally Posted by Acuracura
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.