[Brenda]

$1:

What does need to change is the ridiculous amount of paperwork and bureaucratic procedure that goes along with an impaired driving arrest.

And that while it should be so simple.
It's pretty easy to prove guilt is this one...

Judges should get their act together. Sample above legal limit, case closed.

[Chumley]

I think maybe a "semi-random" system of sort could work.

If you are a cop cruising around the bar area at closing time and see a guy pull out from the bar who shows no signs of intoxication but is leaving an establishment that is there for the purpose of drinking and partying, to me that would be a reasonable random spot check.

Or if the police are cruising a neighbourhood and notice a party with lots of vehicles outside, they could do a few passes and if they see one of the vehicles leaving they could spot check them.

Perhaps this is already included in the reasonable grounds aspect of the law.

[EyeBrock]

Brenda, in the UK it was very easy and we even used the same machine. Here, it’s a political football and the lawyers make a lot of money out of it and the subsequent case law decisions have made the process unnecessarily complicated, hence ripe for ‘reasonable doubt’.

If you ever want to see our judicial system in action, pop along to your local court house and watch a few impaired trials. They are open to the public and anybody can sit it. I guarantee you will come out angry and disillusioned.

[martin14]

Thats also called entrapment Chumley.

Doesnt stop the cops here though.

[Brenda]

Gotta love the difference between Europe and North America...

[leewgrant]

Brenda Brenda:

It is YOUR OWN damned responsibility to NOT FUCKING DRINK AND DRIVE and everybody who comes up with an excuse is a fucking loser who does not deserve to drive AT ALL!

Anybody who drinks and drives is a loser IMO whether he blames it on someone else or not - total disregard for the lives of others.

Any solution (like the one being discussed here) will have its detractors.

I agree that there are practical problems in putting that element of responsibility on bar owners (like, proving guilt beyond "reasonable doubt") but that might not stop the politicians. There is talk in some provinces of putting some legal onus on casino operators not to allow problem gamblers in. And there has been talk of a similar onus on bar operators for years.

I know there have been several civil suits against bar owners and even householders who have held parties and "allowed" guests to drive away drunk. Don't know how many, if any, were successful.

[Chumley]

martin14 martin14:

Thats also called entrapment Chumley.

Doesnt stop the cops here though.

I thought entrapment was when you set somebody up to break the law
Like if the cops threw an all you can drink for 20$ party and then staked it out to catch drunk drivers.

[leewgrant]

Chumley Chumley:

I think maybe a "semi-random" system of sort could work.

If you are a cop cruising around the bar area at closing time and see a guy pull out from the bar who shows no signs of intoxication but is leaving an establishment that is there for the purpose of drinking and partying, to me that would be a reasonable random spot check.

Or if the police are cruising a neighbourhood and notice a party with lots of vehicles outside, they could do a few passes and if they see one of the vehicles leaving they could spot check them.

Perhaps this is already included in the reasonable grounds aspect of the law.

I think in some places they do that now. Go up to the guy as he gets in the car and smell him.

[Brenda]

Chumley Chumley:

martin14 martin14:

Thats also called entrapment Chumley.

Doesnt stop the cops here though.

I thought entrapment was when you set somebody up to break the law
Like if the cops threw an all you can drink for 20$ party and then staked it out to catch drunk drivers.

Then still, there is NO REASON to drive home when you are drunk. Get a cab, or a DD.

[Chumley]

Brenda Brenda:

Chumley Chumley:

martin14 martin14:

Thats also called entrapment Chumley.

Doesnt stop the cops here though.

I thought entrapment was when you set somebody up to break the law
Like if the cops threw an all you can drink for 20$ party and then staked it out to catch drunk drivers.

Then still, there is NO REASON to drive home when you are drunk. Get a cab, or a DD.

I definately agree.

[DrCaleb]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

If you ever want to see our judicial system in action, pop along to your local court house and watch a few impaired trials. They are open to the public and anybody can sit it. I guarantee you will come out angry and disillusioned.

+1 on that. Some of the attitude I have toward our justice system I witnessed while sitting in court waiting to (sucessfully) fight tickets.

Funniest exchange I ever heard:
Judge: "I sentence you to 2 years less a day . . "
Bad guy: "I can do two years standing on my head"
Judge "Then how about an extra year to get back on your feet."

[Scape]

herbie herbie:

If you had ONE beer and got behind the wheel you aren't provably impaired but there still exists a legal basis to do something if you seem to be in the eyes of a police officer.

What is the level of impairment for most drivers who end up in an accident? Since it varies from person to person there is no way to set a standard that will hold up in court. The only way to have any standard that is enforceable is a total ban. They already have this for military drivers for their 404's but this policy should be extended for all drivers. I just do not see a valid reason why a driver who drinks should drive at all when we still have people killed from it.

[leewgrant]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

If you ever want to see our judicial system in action, pop along to your local court house and watch a few impaired trials. They are open to the public and anybody can sit it. I guarantee you will come out angry and disillusioned.

+1 on that. Some of the attitude I have toward our justice system I witnessed while sitting in court waiting to (sucessfully) fight tickets.

Funniest exchange I ever heard:
Judge: "I sentence you to 2 years less a day . . "
Bad guy: "I can do two years standing on my head"
Judge "Then how about an extra year to get back on your feet."

This isn't drinking but I fought a ticket for allegedly going through a stop sign. At trial I objected because the cop wasn't there and all the crown had was hearsay evidence, the cop's report. The judge ignored me but let me off after the prosecutor and I ended up in a slanging match. Said the crown had failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. Of course a lot of my testimony was calling the prosecutor full of shit - telling him he wasn't there so he didn't know what happened.

[leewgrant]

Scape Scape:

herbie herbie:

If you had ONE beer and got behind the wheel you aren't provably impaired but there still exists a legal basis to do something if you seem to be in the eyes of a police officer.

What is the level of impairment for most drivers who end up in an accident? Since it varies from person to person there is no way to set a standard that will hold up in court. The only way to have any standard that is enforceable is a total ban. They already have this for military drivers for their 404's but this policy should be extended for all drivers. I just do not see a valid reason why a driver who drinks should drive at all when we still have people killed from it.

In some places there is zero alcohol tolerance for new drivers, perhaps up until they are 21. No doubt differs between jurisdictions.

[EyeBrock]

leewgrant leewgrant:

Chumley Chumley:

I think maybe a "semi-random" system of sort could work.

If you are a cop cruising around the bar area at closing time and see a guy pull out from the bar who shows no signs of intoxication but is leaving an establishment that is there for the purpose of drinking and partying, to me that would be a reasonable random spot check.

Or if the police are cruising a neighbourhood and notice a party with lots of vehicles outside, they could do a few passes and if they see one of the vehicles leaving they could spot check them.

Perhaps this is already included in the reasonable grounds aspect of the law.

I think in some places they do that now. Go up to the guy as he gets in the car and smell him.

If you could clearly smell alcohol on somebody getting into the drivers seat of a vehicle, having just come out of a bar, that would go someway towards gaining 'reasonable grounds' to believe that the subject was impaired by alcohol and in care and control of a vehicle, keys in the door, ignition etc.
You would need further and more obvious signs of impairment to arrest though.
In that scenario you would need definitely more, a question on consumption, slurring of speech, glassy eyes, continued odour of alcohol on the subjects breath etc.

The courts really want everything prior to an arrest so those saying that people are just plucked off the street for any old reason are not presenting a credible argument.