Okay y'all...got my letter back from the superintendent of Motor Vehicles, basically saying what I've known all along, and not answering the questions I have. I will type it out here for you all to read as it has nothing to do with any case, current or past. Good thing I like typing eh?
Quote:
Impaired driving is the number one criminal cause of death in Canada. Impaired driving claims an average of 127 lives, and results in more than 3,000 injuries, per year in British Columbia. Although young drivers are under-represented in the total licensed driving population, they are over-represented in fatality and injury crashes. The Graduated Licensing Program (GLP) was implemented in British Columbia to reduce fatality and injury risk and improve driving behaviour, skills and attitudes associated with new drivers.
Drivers in the GLP program must be alcohol free when they are in care and control of a vehicle. Section 90.3 of the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) gives police the authority to issue a 12 hour suspension to GLP drivers if they are found to be driving with any amount of alcohol in their body (i.e. it can be used if a driver's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is less than 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.)
When police have reason to believe that a driver's ability to operate a motor vehicle is affected by alcohol, they have the authority under section 215 of the Motor Vehicle Act to issue a 24 hour driving prohibition.. This section applies to all drivers including drivers in the GLP program.
If an ASD test indicates alcohol is present in the blood at a rate lower than .05 BAC, police cannot issue a prohibition under section 215.3 to a fully licensed driver. If the driver is in the GLP program, however, police may issue a 12 hour suspension under section 90.3.
The MVA sets out what grounds the Office of the Superintendent can consider for reviewing a 24 hour prohibition. The grounds for review, which are listed in section 215.3 of the MVA, are limited to a consideration of whether or not the person was a driver or whether the person had the right to and did request a breath test.
I trust this information has been helpful. Thank you for writing.
|
My questions were the following:
Can the right (to ask for a roadside test and, if blow below .05, be allowed to drive) on the reverse side of the 24 hour notice be ignored when dealing with a novice driver? I guess this is kind of answered in paragraph four.....but how?
Should they add "unless you are a driver in the GLP" to both the MVA (Section 215.6) and on the back of the notice, because unless those "disclaimers" are there, Section 215 does not completely "match" or work with a novice driver?
Section 90.3 requires an officer to BEGIN with section 90.3 when initiating an investigation into a novice driver and drinking and driving, correct?
How can a novice driver face a 12 hour suspension by an officer that “suspects” any level of alcohol or drugs in their system as stated on your website when a roadside test is required for a 12 hour suspension? (this contradicts section 90.3)
Why are police officers not required to let “civilians” know about this right….the VERY right that is used against us on an appeal of a 24 hour notice? Are they afraid of loosing a “conviction” an actual thought we civilians have? At the VERY least, have the officer tell the driver to read the back, and make sure they understand the right.
Does section 215 describe a driver that is allowed to drive with a BAC of below .05?
My biggest issue lies within paragraph four of the letter I was sent. Remember, the driver uses a right that is stated on the notice he is handed...where it says "you are allowed to drive" if your BAC is below .05. In the case of the novice driver (as stated in this paragraph) that is not the case. Can you imagine a police officer handing you, the novice driver....the notice and saying "don't bother reading the back, it doesn't apply to you". Or, perhaps..they should be saying that!
That right on the back of the 24 hour notice is a VERY important part of section 215!!! Remember....a police officer is saying you are guilty......until you prove you are innocent by asking for a roadside test. No officer is good enough to KNOW what BAC level the driver is at (.02 to .07 range). The right stated within this section is a "safeguard", that allows us "civilians" to prove innocence...or being within the allowable BAC levels here in British Columbia. A great check and balance to the section. If what you are offering (on the back of the notice) doesn't apply in the novice drivers situation.....how can you apply the section to begin with?
Section 215 was written long before the GLP came out...was not designed for the GLP, was not even amended to accommodate the GLP driver..it is being used for something it was not intended for in the case of the novice driver.
I know novice drivers have a zero tolerance for alcohol within their system. But use section 90.3....the only difference being is that the officer must
demand a roadside test.....and that is the intent of section 90.3.