unconstitutional drunk driving law

[MiG]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/30 ... itutional/

"Supreme Court Justice Jon Sigurdson has declared part of the province’s tough new impaired driving law unconstitutional for turning police into a roadside judge, jury and executioner."

“The ARP legislation infringes section 8 of the Charter insofar as it concerns the prohibition, penalty and costs arising from the screening device registering a “fail” reading over 0.08,” he said. “This infringement is not a reasonable limit which is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”


Called it.

viewtopic.php?p=158600#p158600

This won't stand up to a court challenge, as there is no due process.  You have no way to defend against the charge. 

The first time they pull this on a lawyer, the law will be overturned.

[bthedog]

So does this mean the laws are reverting back to how they used to be...if you blow under 0.08 you are free to go...and if you blow over 0.08 you have a DUI situation?

[eccentric]

The article says the decision isn't binding, so it seems nothing will happen here...

[MiG]

The article says the decision isn't binding, so it seems nothing will happen here...

Reading the thread from when the law was introduced, I see you were defending the law, despite there not being any due process.

You're misreading the article linked above. It says the ruling isn't binding on other provinces' similar laws. Because it's a BC Supreme Court ruling.

Certainly binding on BC, though. So you're wrong.

[eccentric]

Okay, my mistake. Is there a reason for the tone of disrespect?

[MiG]

Okay, my mistake. Is there a reason for the tone of disrespect?

What? Saying you're wrong is a tone of disrespect?

Well, it certainly wasn't intended that way. Would you rather I not point out that you misread the article?

[hitest]

Is there a reason for the tone of disrespect?

I see nothing disrespectful in MiG's reply. Is there a reason you are over-sensitive?

[Dave]

All I can say about this law is: it's not the first time this government did something unconstitutional. But who's counting?

[herbie_popnecker]

Damn that Constitution, eh?
Haha I called it too, so did anyone with a vague notion of what civil rights are (which doesn't include the BC Liberals).

They can still nail you under the warning section of the law. Shirley Bond says if you blow over .08 it's off to the cop shop for old fashioned justice. As it should be.

Whoops, I didn't mean that to mean fall down the backstairs or handed over to a mob or something. I mean blow into a proper machine and get a criminal charge!

[eccentric]

Okay, my mistake. Is there a reason for the tone of disrespect?

What? Saying you're wrong is a tone of disrespect?

Well, it certainly wasn't intended that way. Would you rather I not point out that you misread the article?

And what purpose did pointing out the old thread to me serve? I didn't reference it at all, and none of my posts in the old thread contradict what I said in this thread. Incudentally, i have to correct you as i didn't argue in support of the law, but against drunk driving at any level... Which I still stand behind.

Perhaps I confused your bluntness for rudeness, but if that's just how you speak to people on a daily basis you should change that, because I think more people than just me would read your post above with a less than polite tone.

[Hoser]

Perhaps I confused your bluntness for rudeness, but if that's just how you speak to people on a daily basis you should change that, because I think more people than just me would read your post above with a less than polite tone.

I didn't think there was anything wrong with MiGs post. It seemed like an appropriate response.

[PLA]

And what purpose did pointing out the old thread to me serve? I didn't reference it at all, and none of my posts in the old thread contradict what I said in this thread. Incudentally, i have to correct you as i didn't argue in support of the law, but against drunk driving at any level... Which I still stand behind.

Perhaps I confused your bluntness for rudeness, but if that's just how you speak to people on a daily basis you should change that, because I think more people than just me would read your post above with a less than polite tone.

[MiG]

And what purpose did pointing out the old thread to me serve?

No, I did. In the first post. Even linked to it. Then you replied and said that nothing was going to change. Then I said you were wrong, and you got really defensive over it

If you think my response was rude, and you thought that the article said that nothing was going to change, then I think perhaps you need to take more time to read carefully. I don't want to speculate about how you react to people on a daily basis, though. Because despite what you inferred, I wasn't being personal. I didn't make a roundabout insult like you did.

I was pointing out that you were wrong.

I didn't reference it at all, and none of my posts in the old thread contradict what I said in this thread. Incudentally, i have to correct you as i didn't argue in support of the law, but against drunk driving at any level... Which I still stand behind.

"maybe some cops will abuse this new legislation to make things hard for people."

"I'm not worried."

Sounds like you were ok with no due process to me. Not being worried that cops could abuse the legislation? Sounds good.

Perhaps I confused your bluntness for rudeness, but if that's just how you speak to people on a daily basis you should change that, because I think more people than just me would read your post above with a less than polite tone.

Perhaps you have to read more carefully. Then you wouldn't jump to conclusions so quickly.

[bubbasteve735]

From what the studies have been saying, drunk driving has gone down quite a bit since the law was introduced. Well, deaths caused by drunk driving have gone down. It kinda saddens me, that people have to be threatened with losing their license on the spot, to stop messing around like that. I honestly don't understand how anyone can even consider getting into their car after having a drink. But I don't think police officers should be given that kind of power. That's almost like Martial law. And Martial law scares me just a teensy bit. We do have rights, it's just unfortunate people take advantage of those rights to the point where these strict rules need to be thought up and enforced.

[jesus]

45 deaths is a blip.