 Breathalyzer Legal ChallengeLaw & Order | 207121 hits | Jun 02 1:27 pm | Posted by: Alta_redneck  A Red Deer lawyer has begun a lengthy legal challenge that could assist in the defence of people charged with drunk driving. Defence lawyer Kevin Sproule wants to take Central Alberta cases as far as the Supreme CourtCommentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
guh...there should be some charges in the legal system that are immune from constitutional argument. You drove drunk, you got caught, you were man enough to make the decision to drive after drinking, now be man enough to take the punishment handed down to you.
And if the test was faulty ?
Most people get arrested with 0.09 or 0.10. You are not drunk at that level. A faulty machine could ruin your life and you think he should just assume ?
People should realise that in an impaired case, it's the police case on trial, not the accused.
You get the legal system you deserve. And lots of wealthy lawyers.
Anytime someone challenges the RCMP equipment on a DUI or speeding violation, if they are still found guilty they should be forced (regardless of income) to pay the cost of their trial. If you want to challenge a DUI or speeding ticket you better be damn sure you were not over the limit or not speeding.
They are already charged in the fines for the court fees.
Anytime someone challenges the RCMP equipment on a DUI or speeding violation, if they are still found guilty they should be forced (regardless of income) to pay the cost of their trial. If you want to challenge a DUI or speeding ticket you better be damn sure you were not over the limit or not speeding.
They are already charged in the fines for the court fees.
I am pretty sure it cost more than $150 to have to go, recheck all the equipment and call in an expert witness.
guh...there should be some charges in the legal system that are immune from constitutional argument. You drove drunk, you got caught, you were man enough to make the decision to drive after drinking, now be man enough to take the punishment handed down to you.
And if the test was faulty ?
Most people get arrested with 0.09 or 0.10. You are not drunk at that level. A faulty machine could ruin your life and you think he should just assume ?
....the legal limit in Canada is .08, and a .05 gets you a warning and a 24 hour suspension, so people getting nailed with .09 and .10 are definitely impaired and deserve to get what the Criminal Justice System has in store for them.....which is barley sufficient IMO. Impaired driving is the number one criminal offence causing Death in Canada, there has been so much literature, lobbying, and hard facts regarding how dangerous driving under the influence is, I have absolutely no sympathy for people who drink and drive, and a ruined life is better than no life at all, and there is no one to blame but the person themselves.
guh...there should be some charges in the legal system that are immune from constitutional argument. You drove drunk, you got caught, you were man enough to make the decision to drive after drinking, now be man enough to take the punishment handed down to you.
And if the test was faulty ?
Most people get arrested with 0.09 or 0.10. You are not drunk at that level. A faulty machine could ruin your life and you think he should just assume ?
....the legal limit in Canada is .08, and a .05 gets you a warning and a 24 hour suspension, so people getting nailed with .09 and .10 are definitely impaired and deserve to get what the Criminal Justice System has in store for them.....which is barley sufficient IMO. Impaired driving is the number one criminal offence causing Death in Canada, there has been so much literature, lobbying, and hard facts regarding how dangerous driving under the influence is, I have absolutely no sympathy for people who drink and drive, and a ruined life is better than no life at all, and there is no one to blame but the person themselves.
It's 0.08 in Quebec, not 0.05. There's a difference between 3 beers (about 0.08) and 15 beers. If you say you are dangerous and impaired with 3 beers, I guess you should not drink at all because your organism is not strong enough to absorb alcohol.
What do ya think they're using scientific lab grade equipment like it's teevee? They're units worth a couple hundred bucks sampling exhaled breath which ain't all that accurate in the first place.
Go sit in a courtroom. Nobody EVER has a reading of .08 or .085 or .09
That's the law Proculation. It's not about how you hold your beer. Parliament made that law.
I totally understand. I'm just saying you are not DRUNK with 3 beers. You can be sure you are ok but you are actually at 0.09 or 0.10. That's quite fair to try to challenge the breathalizer so you can save your ass and your job.
The machines are so goddam inaccurate they'd never lay charges unless the reading was over .10
What do ya think they're using scientific lab grade equipment like it's teevee? They're units worth a couple hundred bucks sampling exhaled breath which ain't all that accurate in the first place.
Go sit in a courtroom. Nobody EVER has a reading of .08 or .085 or .09
The roadside screening device costs $8000. The intoxilizer costs about $30,000.
They are very accurate.
That's the law Proculation. It's not about how you hold your beer. Parliament made that law.
I totally understand. I'm just saying you are not DRUNK with 3 beers. You can be sure you are ok but you are actually at 0.09 or 0.10. That's quite fair to try to challenge the breathalizer so you can save your ass and your job.
Parliament agreed with accepted medical and scientific opinion that drivers with .08 and over were impaired enough to make it a criminal offence.
It's hardly fair to drive with that level of alcohol or over. Saving your ass after you have risked others lives by your selfish behaviour isn't really fair either.
It's just saving your ass.
That's the law Proculation. It's not about how you hold your beer. Parliament made that law.
I totally understand. I'm just saying you are not DRUNK with 3 beers. You can be sure you are ok but you are actually at 0.09 or 0.10. That's quite fair to try to challenge the breathalizer so you can save your ass and your job.
Parliament agreed with accepted medical and scientific opinion that drivers with .08 and over were impaired enough to make it a criminal offence.
It's hardly fair to drive with that level of alcohol or over. Saving your ass after you have risked others lives by your selfish behaviour isn't really fair either.
It's just saving your ass.
You don't risk lives @ 0.08. Stop that. People who create accidents while drunk are always 2 or 3 times over the limit. Between 0.08 and 0.10 or even 0.12 should only be a fine.