2018 impaired driving to be decriminalized.

[Talking moose]

Same suspensions fines etc... no criminal charges
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/drunk-driving-laws-decriminalize-2018-changes-police-licence-1.4468021

[Talking moose]

Interesting that MADD supports this move.

[Weedy1]

Is it April 1st?

[elkhunter11]

Just what we need, more police issuing long term suspensions and impounding vehicles for long terms, costing owners thousands of dollars, without a chance to defend yourself in a court of law. More of our rights taken away, and one step closer to being a police state.

[Hillbilly 12]

What the hell is happening, this country's laws are screwed. Is there nothing that is going in the right direction?

[grouse_hunter]

Now that's efficiency! Now the cops will perform the roles of the judge, the jury and the executioner! Public safety uber alles.

[elk396]

Hmmmmm, missed that one by about 30 years:(

[Pixel Shooter]

All motivated by the mighty dollar.

[elkhunter11]

All motivated by the mighty dollar.

Exactly, we give up our right to a trial, to provide more money for the province.

[roper1]

Someone will challenge it in court for sure.

[JReed]

It’s ironic that these scummy lawyers are whining in the article that these changes are over dollars and cents, when they’re the one’s getting these losers off on petty technicalities over “dollars and cents”

Don’t want a licence suspension, impound fees, or time in court.......then don’t drink and drive. It’s pretty simple

[Sierra1]

We’re finally getting on track with other countries...defending impaired driving is a law firm industry and a farce of justice.
MADD supports it because drunk driving is increasing again after years of decline.
How about another option for those who want their day in court...you get convicted...you lose your driving PRIVILEGE for life.
That sound fair?

[Twisted Canuck]

Just what we need, more police issuing long term suspensions and impounding vehicles for long terms, costing owners thousands of dollars, without a chance to defend yourself in a court of law. More of our rights taken away, and one step closer to being a police state.

Now that's efficiency! Now the cops will perform the roles of the judge, the jury and the executioner! Public safety uber alles.

All part of the program, tovarisch!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tovarishch

[elkhunter11]

We’re finally getting on track with other countries...defending impaired driving is a law firm industry and a farce of justice.
MADD supports it because drunk driving is increasing again after years of decline.
How about another option for those who want their day in court...you get convicted...you lose your driving PRIVILEGE for life.
That sound fair?

Even people accused of murder are entitled to a trial, so why wouldn't a person accused of impaired driving get a trial?

But if you want to try to penalize people for demanding their right to a day in court, make the other option that the officer that presented the charges lose his license for life for making a false accusation, if the accused is found not guilty. That sounds just as fair.

[CMichaud]

I am confused by this story....

If I remember right, decriminalized does not mean legal.

The new rules will see administrative penalties eg suspension (already happening) instead of criminal charges....however....

It seems that Police will have the ability to lay criminal charges at their discretion which will mean administrative penalties will also be in effect?

Officers will be given wide discretion whether to criminally charge those who blow over the legal limit. But, for the most part, first time offenders will see roadside administrative sanctions rather than face criminal charges according to CBC sources.

This is where I really get confused as isn't this exactly why the Government had to come up with a new policy?

The changes follow an Alberta Court of Appeal decision in May that struck down existing drunk driving laws. The province's top court found tying the suspension of a driver's licence to the outcome of their court case was unconstitutional.

So confused........

[260 Rem]

We’re finally getting on track with other countries...defending impaired driving is a law firm industry and a farce of justice.
MADD supports it because drunk driving is increasing again after years of decline.
How about another option for those who want their day in court...you get convicted...you lose your driving PRIVILEGE for life.
That sound fair?

Yes

[roper1]

Smoke a fat one & head 'er home. No prob crossing the border, no criminal record affecting employment, MADD thinks this is good why?

[sns2]

It’s ironic that these scummy lawyers are whining in the article that these changes are over dollars and cents, when they’re the one’s getting these losers off on petty technicalities over “dollars and cents”

Don’t want a licence suspension, impound fees, or time in court.......then don’t drink and drive. It’s pretty simple

You sir deserve a prize! Pretty simple I would say.

[sns2]

Even people accused of murder are entitled to a trial, so why wouldn't a person accused of impaired driving get a trial?

But if you want to try to penalize people for demanding their right to a day in court, make the other option that the officer that presented the charges lose his license for life for making a false accusation, if the accused is found not guilty. That sounds just as fair.

This too deserves a prize.

[sns2]

You know what a good system would be? Put a blower on the wheel of every vehicle that detects both booze and pot. It's not foolproof, but it's a helluva lot better than drunks and stoners killing people on our roads, and to a lesser extent clogging up our courts. If you are not a boozehound or stoned you should have no objection to such a system.

[bucksman]

Even people accused of murder are entitled to a trial, so why wouldn't a person accused of impaired driving get a trial?

But if you want to try to penalize people for demanding their right to a day in court, make the other option that the officer that presented the charges lose his license for life for making a false accusation, if the accused is found not guilty. That sounds just as fair.

Do you have any rich friends that always get out of their DUI’s by paying a hefty fine but have been caught multiple times? This is cancelling that out...

[dmcbride]

Do you have any rich friends that always get out of their DUI’s by paying a hefty fine but have been caught multiple times? This is cancelling that out...


The fines and no criminal charges is a lot cheaper than a good lawyer.

[elkhunter11]

Do you have any rich friends that always get out of their DUI’s by paying a hefty fine but have been caught multiple times? This is cancelling that out...

It is also taking away our right to a trial to defend ourselves in a court of law, which is a basic right in all free countries. When our most basic rights are taken from us, our society is doomed.

[Silvercreek]

Just what we need, more police issuing long term suspensions and impounding vehicles for long terms, costing owners thousands of dollars, without a chance to defend yourself in a court of law. More of our rights taken away, and one step closer to being a police state.

When did driving impaired become 1 of your rights?

If you are stupid enough to drink and drive you deserve everything you get.

[Scott N]

When did driving impaired become 1 of your rights?

If you are stupid enough to drink and drive you deserve everything you get.

I think the obvious point is that everyone accused of impaired driving aren't actually guilty of impaired driving.

edit: poor choice of words... just because someone accuses you of something, it doesn't always mean that the accusation is true.

[bobinthesky]

When did driving impaired become 1 of your rights?

If you are stupid enough to drink and drive you deserve everything you get.


Don't be ridiculous, no one thinks they have the right to drink and drive and you know that. Every one is entitled to a fair trial, that's the basis of our entire legal system, that is the point being made.

[elkhunter11]

When did driving impaired become 1 of your rights?

If you are stupid enough to drink and drive you deserve everything you get.
You obviously have a problem with reading comprehension if you think my post is saying that we have the right to drive while impaired. I am simply stating that we have the right to a day in court , whether we are accused of a minor offense like exceeding the posted speed limit, or a criminal offense like murder, and that should not change. Our entire legal system is based on our right to a trial, so it is one of our most basic rights, a right that should never be taken away from us. You might be willing to live in a police state, where the police become the judge, jury and executioner, but myself and many other people prefer a free country where we still have some rights.

[58thecat]

I know of a few scumbags that were guilty as hell and got off with a scumbag lawyer....sad.
Driving is a privileged, not a right, break the rules and the penalties should be harsh but the snowflakes will squeeeeeel and as always there will be heard first.

[Unregistered user]

Well I guess I picked the wrong year to quit drinkin'!

[silver]

Don’t want a licence suspension, impound fees, or time in court.......then don’t drink and drive. It’s pretty simple

Don't be SUSPECTED of drinking and driving.

[mac1983]

I personally know a couple of repeat impaired drivers, that when busted go hire this defense lawyer that charges from $15 000 to $18 000 a case and they get off every time. And they were guilty as sin. The impaired defense lawyers have a pretty good thing going. Not sure what the answer is but impaired driving is stupid. I believe the ignition interlock should be made permanent for repeat offenders.

[Hillbilly 12]

I personally know a couple of repeat impaired drivers, that when busted go hire this defense lawyer that charges from $15 000 to $18 000 a case and they get off every time. And they were guilty as sin. The impaired defense lawyers have a pretty good thing going. Not sure what the answer is but impaired driving is stupid. I believe the ignition interlock should be made permanent for repeat offenders.

Sure at their expense, not mine.

[223MB]

I personally know a couple of repeat impaired drivers, that when busted go hire this defense lawyer that charges from $15 000 to $18 000 a case and they get off every time. And they were guilty as sin. The impaired defense lawyers have a pretty good thing going. Not sure what the answer is but impaired driving is stupid. I believe the ignition interlock should be made permanent for repeat offenders.

Same here. A buddy of mine who owns a trucking company blew well over twice the legal limit, admitted to the cop of drinking a case of beer and got off on all charges. He paid $18,000 for his lawyer but it’s a good investment considering his business relied on him having a license. I wonder how much of a cut the judge takes?

[Skoaltender]

Quite a few drinking and driving advocates on here.

[mac1983]

It's almost a pay to play scheme if you have the money.

[223MB]

It's almost a pay to play scheme if you have the money.

Should be no second chances, get charged once and you never drive again.

[mac1983]

Permanent driving bans are pretty drastic, if you kill someone for sure. Have seen good results from the interlock program, make that permanent for repeat offenders and you have something.

[BuckCuller]

This just tells us the direction this province has gone where the court system is so backlogged that higher profile criminals are getting off because of long wait times in the courts so now they are trying to relieve some of the burden by removing lower profile cases out of the courts so they can go after bigger fish. This doesn’t affect me much as I do not drink and drive but I would hate to see a murderer or a thief go free because they are to backlogged with impaired driver cases.

[Scott N]

Quite a few drinking and driving advocates on here.

I don't see a single post advocating drinking and driving on here. Not a single one.

[elkhunter11]

I don't see a single post advocating drinking and driving on here. Not a single one.

Exactly, but some people consider anything that goes against any impaired driving laws to be advocating impaired driving. Even the courts have ruled that some of our impaired driving laws are unconstitutional, but the courts are certainly not advocating that people drive while impaired.

[elkhunter11]

This just tells us the direction this province has gone where the court system is so backlogged that higher profile criminals are getting off because of long wait times in the courts so now they are trying to relieve some of the burden by removing lower profile cases out of the courts so they can go after bigger fish. This doesn’t affect me much as I do not drink and drive but I would hate to see a murderer or a thief go free because they are to backlogged with impaired driver cases.

I don't drink and drive either, but how would you feel about having your license suspended, and your vehicle towed and impounded when you are innocent?

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/2593624-accuracy-of-b-c-breathalyzers-questioned/

“When tested, the machine showed a reading of 32 (milligrams of alcohol),” said Doroshenko, referring to an RCMP Kamloops note to Davtech, the Ottawa firm that fixes the machine.

“The second test after calibration showed a reading of 172.”

“The highest I think we saw, there was one unit from Abbotsford that just issued a fail when the officer tested it for basic functionality at the beginning and then they said ‘retired unit’,” Doroshenko said.

“He hadn’t been drinking at all. It just gave a fail.”

“They’re not perfect units,” he said, waving one of the police repair reports in the air.

“There was one calibration sheet that recorded readings for eight units and six of eight were 10 milligrams above what they should have been.”

[fitzy]

I don't drink and drive either, but how would you feel about having your license suspended, and your vehicle towed and impounded when you are innocent?

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/2593624-accuracy-of-b-c-breathalyzers-questioned/

Not a perfect system. They can be wrong the other way too.

How about unless you're ok with some drunk slamming into you and you're family one night let's work with what we have to keep them off the road.

If you have a better idea contact someone and share it. Whining about it here gets you precisely no where.

[elkhunter11]

Not a perfect system. They can be wrong the other way too.

How about unless you're ok with some drunk slamming into you and you're family one night let's work with what we have to keep them off the road.

If you have a better idea contact someone and share it. Whining about it here gets you precisely no where.

The courts have already decided that the current law is unconstitutional. The problem is, that the proposed replacement, is likely just as unconstitutional. As for getting slammed into by an impaired driver, I am just as much against being slammed into a driver who is using his phone, and that still happens at least as often. I have never been in an accident caused by an impaired driver, but I was in an accident that was caused by a young punk on his phone. Only instead of receiving a big fine, and a suspension, he received a fine no worse than a speeding ticket.

[fishtank]

Should be no second chances, get charged once and you never drive again.
got to give them another shot at the Darwin award . let hope no innocent bystanders is around when they attempt it again ..:thinking-006:

[Ken07AOVette]

Further Liberal stupidity. I am as impressed with this as I am the joker that was just caught with drugs, guns, loaded handgun, rolls of 20's and has a huge long criminal record, got 60 days in jail.
Now they are buying all the drinker votes, already have the drug users, the immigrant vote, always had the Eastern vote, the FN vote and now the ex-ISIS vote. What stupidity is left to decriminalize?
When nothing is illegal anymore crime will run even more rampant. Maybe the shining light at the end if the tunnel will be that it will no longer be illegal to kill intruders. We can only hope.

[BuckCuller]

I don't drink and drive either, but how would you feel about having your license suspended, and your vehicle towed and impounded when you are innocent?

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/2593624-accuracy-of-b-c-breathalyzers-questioned/

I wouldn’t like to be falsely charged with anything. One day a women that doesn’t like me could say I sexually assaulted her and I wouldn’t get much chance to prove my innocence just the same.
When it comes to dealing with police i’m always polite, happy and play stupid which always works out in my favour so I’m not to concerned with being falsely charged.
There is no chance of getting the money back for tow and compound fees.

My brothers truck got towed and impounded while he was hunting because the RCMP just happened to run across his truck parked in the ditch while he was hunting.
Luckily I was around to pick him up and figure out who stolen his truck. No reimbursement.
I tell you though if he would have froze to death because they took his truck I would have filed murder charges.

[SamSteele]

I might be a bit biased after watching my father and another man die on the side of the highway after being hit by a repeat drunk driver who left the scene. No 16 year old should have to call his mother to tell her that her husband was killed.

I fully support throwing the book at those that drink and drive. I couldn’t care less about your legal fees, towing fees, and the inconvenience you may experience. None of that compares to growing up without a family member, which could have been entirely avoided had the repercussions for drinking and driving been more severe.

SS

[whiteout]

I might be a bit biased after watching my father and another man die on the side of the highway after being hit by a repeat drunk driver who left the scene. No 16 year old should have to call his mother to tell her that her husband was killed.

I fully support throwing the book at those that drink and drive. I couldn’t care less about your legal fees, towing fees, and the inconvenience you may experience. None of that compares to growing up without a family member, which could have been entirely avoided had the repercussions for drinking and driving been more severe.

SS

Presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of our legal system, you start chipping away at it and soon the police will be wanting to be able to sentence you on the side of the road for other offenses as well.

No police officer should have the power to impose a sentence on the side of the road and then force you to prove your innocence at a later date.

By all means, increase the penalty for impaired driving, but those penalties should be handed down by a court. Not by the same, possibly biased officer, who is accusing you of the offense. And certainly not before the Crown has to prove its case.

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

You know what a good system would be? Put a blower on the wheel of every vehicle that detects both booze and pot. It's not foolproof, but it's a helluva lot better than drunks and stoners killing people on our roads, and to a lesser extent clogging up our courts. If you are not a boozehound or stoned you should have no objection to such a system.

I like this idea. If it were refined to a great extent such as face recognition while the person is driving and voice recognition when starting the vehicle I think it's possible. :thinking-006:

[BuckCuller]

I might be a bit biased after watching my father and another man die on the side of the highway after being hit by a repeat drunk driver who left the scene. No 16 year old should have to call his mother to tell her that her husband was killed.

I fully support throwing the book at those that drink and drive. I couldn’t care less about your legal fees, towing fees, and the inconvenience you may experience. None of that compares to growing up without a family member, which could have been entirely avoided had the repercussions for drinking and driving been more severe.

SS

You should have no reason to call yourself biased as I hate drinking and driving also and I have not had your devastating misfortune.
However we are talking about government and they don’t care about anything but votes and money.
This is an attempt to clear up the court system by pushing the burden down the line to the police instead of investing more money into the justice system. They have to use the courts if they throw the book at them and that costs money and adds congestion to the court system. The way they waste money elsewhere takes away from what could be done and this is there quick fix.

[covey ridge]

Even people accused of murder are entitled to a trial, so why wouldn't a person accused of impaired driving get a trial?

But if you want to try to penalize people for demanding their right to a day in court, make the other option that the officer that presented the charges lose his license for life for making a false accusation, if the accused is found not guilty. That sounds just as fair.

Because an accused person gets found not guilty and gets off does not mean that the officer is guilty of making a false accusation. Often the accused gets off because a technicality or the lawyer has established a reasonable doubt. If an officer is penalized for acting in good faith it will be no time before Police are reluctant to lay any charges.

That said, I am all for throwing the book at the officer if found guilty of knowingly presenting false accusations or committing perjury.

On the other side, no one should ever be penalized for demanding their right to a trial.

The government needs to find some other way to un clutter the system. I would say that the most push back on this is from the lawyers whose bread and butter is getting drunks off. It is the lawyers who will loose out if drunks are not prosecuted. It is the public that will be safer if the drunks are not allowed to drive. Sure the very odd sober guy might loose his license and vehicle, but that is one thing that lawyers can help and feel good about.

[covey ridge]

No police officer should have the power to impose a sentence on the side of the road and then force you to prove your innocence at a later date.


I hope you are not implying that the Police actually want to do this? I think that the government is dumping this on the Police. I think that good cops like to gather evidence, make a good case and charge bad guys and look forward to their day in court.

It is the lawyers that have made this a gravy train industry.

BTW I am in favor of dropping the legal from .08 to .05 and no breaks or discretion on the part of the officers. Let those drunks all have their day in court. Let the court be the one to offer discretion and not create another thing where the cop is damned if he does and damned if he does not.

[elkhunter11]

Because an accused person gets found not guilty and gets off does not mean that the officer is guilty of making a false accusation. Often the accused gets off because a technicality or the lawyer has established a reasonable doubt. If an officer is penalized for acting in good faith it will be no time before Police are reluctant to lay any charges.

That said, I am all for throwing the book at the officer if found guilty of knowingly presenting false accusations or committing perjury.

On the other side, no one should ever be penalized for demanding their right to a trial.

The government needs to find some other way to un clutter the system. I would say that the most push back on this is from the lawyers whose bread and butter is getting drunks off. It is the lawyers who will loose out if drunks are not prosecuted. It is the public that will be safer if the drunks are not allowed to drive. Sure the very odd sober guy might loose his license and vehicle, but that is one thing that lawyers can help and feel good about.

And the fact that an officer accuses a person of an offense, desn't mean that the person actually committed that offense. Without a trial, we only have the officers word to go on, and officers have been found guilty of perjury, or of fabricating evidence, or of concealing evidence, or of simply making a mistake. So we need a trial to establish the facts, and see if the officer is following procedure and is presenting the actual facts. Having a trial forces the officers to do their job.
The poster that I was responding to wanted to further penalize any person that demanded his right to a trial, at least you don't agree with that .
As for the sober person that loses his license and vehicle, without the option of a trial, he will never be compensated for his loss, and the truth will never be discovered. He could lose his job, and have his life ruined because of a mistake. In extreme cases, this could cause a person to resort to suicide, or even a murder/suicide all because he was denied a trial.
I am sorry, but as badly as our charter of rights is written, the right to a trial s still something that must be maintained if we are to remain a free country. If our right to a free trial is taken away for suspected impaired driving, they will soon do it for other offenses, and it won't be long before fair trials are nothing but a memory, in our future police state.

The simple truth, is that the easiest way to get rid of the back up of court cases for impaired driving, is to ban alcohol all together. As well, you can be sure that this would save lies, and would greatly reduce the incidence of alcoholism, and the problems that it brings such as domestic abuse etc. If a person is really serious about protecting people against impaired drivers, there is no solution that would be more effective.

[elkhunter11]

I might be a bit biased after watching my father and another man die on the side of the highway after being hit by a repeat drunk driver who left the scene. No 16 year old should have to call his mother to tell her that her husband was killed.

I fully support throwing the book at those that drink and drive. I couldn’t care less about your legal fees, towing fees, and the inconvenience you may experience. None of that compares to growing up without a family member, which could have been entirely avoided had the repercussions for drinking and driving been more severe.

SS

I am all for harsh sentences for the people found guilty of impaired driving. There is no way that person should ever have the opportunity to commit three or four or five counts of impaired driving. But I did post "convicted" of impaired driving, not just "accused" of impaired diving without having been convicted in a court of law. Have a trial, and if the person is found guilty, then throw the book at them, but don't declare them guilty on the side of the road, while denying them a trial.

[covey ridge]

And the fact that an officer accuses a person of an offense, desn't mean that the person actually committed that offense.

Yes, but do you really believe that happens a lot? I am sure that the odd case could slip through, but the facts of the case are checked by the officer's superior and then the assigned crown goes over the facts. I have been in court for literally hundred of cases and not all have been proved by the crown, but I have only heard of one case where the judge suggested that the officer was lying. Most cases get chucked out on reasonable doubt which to the court is any doubt. The rule is that the crown must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt the benefit of that doubt must go to the accused. For the most part it may suggested that the officer was mistaken but very seldom suggests that the officer did not have grounds to lay the charge, let alone had an ulterior motive.

[Talking moose]

And the fact that an officer accuses a person of an offense, desn't mean that the person actually committed that offense. Without a trial, we only have the officers word to go on, and officers have been found guilty of perjury, or of fabricating evidence, or of concealing evidence, or of simply making a mistake. So we need a trial to establish the facts, and see if the officer is following procedure and is presenting the actual facts. Having a trial forces the officers to do their job.
The poster that I was responding to wanted to further penalize any person that demanded his right to a trial, at least you don't agree with that .
As for the sober person that loses his license and vehicle, without the option of a trial, he will never be compensated for his loss, and the truth will never be discovered. He could lose his job, and have his life ruined because of a mistake. In extreme cases, this could cause a person to resort to suicide, or even a murder/suicide all because he was denied a trial.
I am sorry, but as badly as our charter of rights is written, the right to a trial s still something that must be maintained if we are to remain a free country. If our right to a free trial is taken away for suspected impaired driving, they will soon do it for other offenses, and it won't be long before fair trials are nothing but a memory, in our future police state.

The simple truth, is that the easiest way to get rid of the back up of court cases for impaired driving, is to ban alcohol all together. As well, you can be sure that this would save lies, and would greatly reduce the incidence of alcoholism, and the problems that it brings such as domestic abuse etc. If a person is really serious about protecting people against impaired drivers, there is no solution that would be more effective.

Eggzakley.

[elkhunter11]

Yes, but do you really believe that happens a lot? I am sure that the odd case could slip through, but the facts of the case are checked by the officer's superior and then the assigned crown goes over the facts. I have been in court for literally hundred of cases and not all have been proved by the crown, but I have only heard of one case where the judge suggested that the officer was lying. Most cases get chucked out on reasonable doubt which to the court is any doubt. The rule is that the crown must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt the benefit of that doubt must go to the accused. For the most part it may suggested that the officer was mistaken but very seldom suggests that the officer did not have grounds to lay the charge, let alone had an ulterior motive.

If it happened to you, would you care if it didn't happen often?

[sns2]

I think everyone has had the opportunity to express themselves. All sides have been expressed. It has also generated complaints that are valid. Now is a good time to wind this one up before it gets away on us.