| P_D |
Ok, you get pulled and you think you might blow over. the cop asks you to blow, you say no because feild test have be proven to false in some cases and u want a lawyer. So they take you downtown.
Can they make you blow in the feild or downtown if u ask for a lawer?
me and my friend have a bet on this one. I say yes he says no. |
|
|
| newaccorddriver |
| as far as i know, they cant force you to blow, but if you dont, they will assume your over the legal limit. |
|
|
| TrevorK |
The Alberta Administrative Licence Suspension (AALS) Program is tough legislation to keep impaired drivers off Alberta’s roads. Under the AALS program, the consequences are:
1. An automatic three-month suspension if you are charged with having a breath or blood sample over .08, or refusing a demand for a breath or blood sample; or
2. An automatic six-month suspension if your actions caused bodily harm or death.
Which basically means if you refuse to submit a sample, you are considered guilty.
Now, I'm not qualified to say whether refusing the sample will help your court case or not. But your suspension is still in effect during the appeal process, even if you refuse a sample. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
You lose the bet. They can't force you insofar as the letter of the law is concerned, but they're pretty persuasive.
If you refuse to blow, it hurts your case in that you look like you felt you had something to hide. If you blow and you're over, it hurts your case because they have evidence you were impaired.
If you refuse to blow it helped because you can argue you weren't but were just protecting constitutional rights. If you blow it helps because sometimes it's easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission.
My opinion is if you're borderline, don't drive. |
|
|
| lovinthespeed |
| but how can you tell wat border line is if you have never blowen on one before i would like to have one and just drink and figuar out wats safe and not i think it would be cool and neat to have one one a friend acts really drunk and you think there not you make them blow to really see |
|
|
| newaccorddriver |
quote:
Originally posted by lovinthespeed
but how can you tell wat border line is if you have never blowen on one before i would like to have one and just drink and figuar out wats safe and not i think it would be cool and neat to have one one a friend acts really drunk and you think there not you make them blow to really see
you need to use proper grammar man...
when it comes to drinking and driving, you gotta know whats border line on your own. and if you dont know, then dont drink and drive. |
|
|
| lovinthespeed |
| ooo i dont drink and drive not evan a little, sorry for grammer preparing for aerosmith if you know wat i mean |
|
|
| 86lx |
If I'm reading the Justice department of Canada's Criminal Code sections right.
Section 253(a) makes it a criminal offence to operate a motor vehicle, boat, aircraft, railway equipment not matter if in motion or not while impaired by drugs or alcohol
Section 253(b) specifies the 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood
Section 254(2) says that a peace officer may demand a breath sample when they suspect impaired opperation of a vehicle.
Section 254(5) says it is a criminal offence to refuse to comply with the demand of a peace officer's demand of a breath sample
here is a link to the Justice Department of Canada's webpage regarding the section of the criminal code of Canada and Motor Vehicles.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/280731.html |
|
|
| gerrycurl |
| What happens if you blow under the .8? Do they give you a 24hr suspension? |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by 86lx
If I'm reading the Justice department of Canada's Criminal Code sections right.
Section 253(a) makes it a criminal offence to operate a motor vehicle, boat, aircraft, railway equipment not matter if in motion or not while impaired by drugs or alcohol
Section 253(b) specifies the 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood
Section 254(2) says that a peace officer may demand a breath sample when they suspect impaired opperation of a vehicle.
Section 254(5) says it is a criminal offence to refuse to comply with the demand of a peace officer's demand of a breath sample
here is a link to the Justice Department of Canada's webpage regarding the section of the criminal code of Canada and Motor Vehicles.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/280731.html
That's what the last guy said too though. Your found guilty of a crime if you refuse, but you do have the right to refuse. It's just that you get to visit jail if you do. They can't force you to do it. |
|
|
| mwdguy |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
That's what the last guy said too though. Your found guilty of a crime if you refuse, but you do have the right to refuse. It's just that you get to visit jail if you do. They can't force you to do it.
So basically you are saying that in this matter we are guilty until proven innocent? |
|
|
| Tech2 |
| If I'm not mistaken there is, or soon may be, a mandatory minimum sentence for refusing a breath sample of 14 days. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by mwdguy
So basically you are saying that in this matter we are guilty until proven innocent?
No, what I'm saying is that you've been caught in the act commiting a crime...the crime of refusing a sample. You don't get charged with impaired driving, you get charged with refusing to provide a sample. They can't force you, but that doesn't mean it's not against the law.
Incidently, if you're charged with refusing to give a sample, you can go to court with that one too and fight it. That's your right. And if you don't like the answer you get, you can always go to the court of appeals and appeal the decision.
Having a citation issued is not a presumption of guilt. In most US States, when you're issued a ticket you have to sign and you're informed that it is not an "admission of guilt, merely a promise to appear in court". It's the same idea here. The officer isn't saying "this man is guilty of this offence" when they issue the ticket, they're saying "I believe this man may be in violation of the law". If you don't show up in court, you've basically plead guilty. Otherwise, you can show up in court and the prosecution will need to bear the burden of proof. That's why a speeding ticket is tossed if the cop doesn't show. You don't need to prove you didn't commit a crime if there's no one there to attempt to prove you did.
And incidently, there are many cases where presumption of innocence doesn't always hold. In case law, reverse onus may apply, in which the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. A prime example being Narcotics arrests. How do you know someone was going to traffic their drugs? A guy might have 20 lbs of weed on him, but who's to say he just doesn't smoke a LOT of weed? In that case, the accused carries the burden of proof that he didn't mean to sell it, though the crown still has the burden of proof that it was actually his.
Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows the government the right to limit one's rights. For example, why can't you run down the street calling black people niggers and saying you should just burn them all if you have the freedom of speech and expression? Because the government has limited your rights under section 1. They can do the same thing to section 11 and use section 1 to remove, suspend or limit that freedom to everyone or to specific persons.
EDIT: By the way, my comment about visiting jail was a joke, though jail time is possible for refusing to provide a sample. Don't forget though, people who are "suspected" of commiting dangerous offences go to jail before their trial. If you're charged with rape or murder as an example, you might get acquitted in court, but until your arraigned you'll sit in jail. |
|
|
| McFly |
quote:
Originally posted by gerrycurl
What happens if you blow under the .8? Do they give you a 24hr suspension?
you go on your way as if nothing happened.
you are under the legal limit:dunno: |
|
|
| Vive le Quebec |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
My opinion is if you're borderline, don't drive.
My opinion is if you drink, don't drive. Period.
As for refusing to blow, from what I can recall, there's a separate charge under the CC for failing to provide a sample, though I'm not particularly familiar. |
|
|
| Insomniac |
quote:
Originally posted by McFly
you go on your way as if nothing happened.
you are under the legal limit:dunno:
No, see Section 253(a) |
|
|
| gerrycurl |
quote:
Originally posted by gerrycurl
What happens if you blow under the .8? Do they give you a 24hr suspension?
|
|
|
| newaccorddriver |
quote:
Originally posted by McFly
you go on your way as if nothing happened.
you are under the legal limit:dunno:
i think anything between 0.04 and 0.08 is a 24 hour suspension. anything over 0.08 is considered driving intoxiciated. ive been told around 6 times already while sitting in the back of a cop car, but i keep forgetting the numbers. GDL is zero tolerance, so i think its an automatic suspension |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
From http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/heal...amp;nav01=27614
quote:
Drinking and Driving in Alberta
In 1990/91, 9% of drivers involved in injury collisions and 22% of drivers involved in fatal collisions had been drinking before the accident. During that same period, there were 3,084 people injured and 112 people killed in alcohol-related motor vehicle collisions in Alberta.
The legal limit for operating a motor vehicle in Alberta is a blood alcohol concentration of .08. However, even one drink slows reaction times and impairs coordination. (See section on "Blood Alcohol Concentration", above.) Police routinely issue 24-hour license suspensions for BACs of .05, and an impaired driving charge can result even if your BAC is under .08.
|
|
|
| Tech2 |
| Ya gotta love our lawmakers. Alcohol is identified in all kinds of driving accidents, violent behavior, and social expense. But what do we get new laws for? Street racing and driving while high. How messed up is that? |
|
|
| Insomniac |
quote:
Originally posted by Tech2
Ya gotta love our lawmakers. Alcohol is identified in all kinds of driving accidents, violent behavior, and social expense. But what do we get new laws for? Street racing and driving while high. How messed up is that?
What do you want? More laws against drinking? |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Tech2
Ya gotta love our lawmakers. Alcohol is identified in all kinds of driving accidents, violent behavior, and social expense. But what do we get new laws for? Street racing and driving while high. How messed up is that?
Yeah, 'cause driving while high isn't dangerous. :S Besides, what other law with regards to drinking would you like? Insomniac has a point. You CAN'T drink and drive...would you like them to be more strict? You can't.......think about booze, and drive? |
|
|
| Tech2 |
Of course driving high should be a crime, and so should street racing.
But I would like them to be more strict about the substance that causes so many problems. How about a zero tolerance drinking and driving law? How about considering alcohol an aggravating instead of a mitigating factor in sentencing for other crimes? |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Tech2
Of course driving high should be a crime, and so should street racing.
But I would like them to be more strict about the substance that causes so many problems. How about a zero tolerance drinking and driving law? How about considering alcohol an aggravating instead of a mitigating factor in sentencing for other crimes?
I've personally never seen alcohol as a mitigate anything. The problem with a zero-tolerance policy is that we're a democracy. While the government sometimes does things that are a little unpopular, it's still a representative of the people. And that would be political suicide. Merely proposing the law would ensure you never get elected at all. And while that may seem like a selfish approach for a politician to take, how can he claim to be representing the people if they disagree with what he does? |
|
|
| Tech2 |
Exactly right. The reason a huge number of alcohol problems are tolerated when like 10 incedences of street racing lead to ultra harsh jail sentences and crushed cars is simply because lots of us like to get drunk and fuck around. Sure it would be better if folks didn't get drunk and beat their wives and kill families while driving, but it's obviously not worth being able to have a couple of beers and drive home probably not over the legal limit.
It just irks me that we are so lax with alcohol when it is so dangerous compared to say, pot, which is so much less damaging to society. |
|
|
| TrevorK |
quote:
Originally posted by Tech2
It just irks me that we are so lax with alcohol when it is so dangerous compared to say, pot, which is so much less damaging to society.
I would say that the number of people driving home after a few drinks far exceeds the number of people driving high, which is probably why many have the notion that driving while high is better / safer than driving under the influence of alcohol. |
|
|
| Tech2 |
Which is not true. With pot you may still have good reaction time that you wouldn't when you are drunk, but you have serious attentional deficits. In other words, you could easily stop for the stop sign/turn off/little dog, but there is no guarantee you'd even see it.
Don't drive when messed up, drunk, high, taking cold medicine, talking on the phone, when you are too tired, whatever! |
|
|
| TurboEG6 |
quote:
Originally posted by Tech2
Don't drive when messed up, drunk, high, taking cold medicine, talking on the phone, when you are too tired, whatever!
Lol or if you don't understand any of that don't drive at all :thumbup: |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Tech2
Exactly right. The reason a huge number of alcohol problems are tolerated when like 10 incedences of street racing lead to ultra harsh jail sentences and crushed cars is simply because lots of us like to get drunk and fuck around. Sure it would be better if folks didn't get drunk and beat their wives and kill families while driving, but it's obviously not worth being able to have a couple of beers and drive home probably not over the legal limit.
It just irks me that we are so lax with alcohol when it is so dangerous compared to say, pot, which is so much less damaging to society.
In middle and up society, yes. pot does little damage. Go visit the the slums and you'll soon see how damaging pot really can be. Lives get ruined by pot as badly as heroine, or meth, it's just not as obvious and the percentage isn't as high, but it can do it.
Again, that's the power of a democracy. What the majority want goes. And to be honest, I wouldn't want it any other way. In fact, in my opinion, too many laws are made by lobbyists and corporations and would never pass in the court of public opinion and that should be changed. |
|
|
| stybscelica |
quote:
Originally posted by newaccorddriver
i think anything between 0.04 and 0.08 is a 24 hour suspension. anything over 0.08 is considered driving intoxiciated. ive been told around 6 times already while sitting in the back of a cop car, but i keep forgetting the numbers. GDL is zero tolerance, so i think its an automatic suspension
Lets try and put this Train back in the tracks a little.
You are stopped and provided a demand for the Roadside screening device. You refuse, you are charged for refusal, Different than impaired but has the same consequences.
You decide to blow into the approved Road side screening devices. currently in use in Alberta are the Intoxilizer 500D Road side screening device.
They are calibrated to give three possible readings as follow's
Number betweem 0.00 and 0.08 Pass your not impaired. You get your license back and you go home
Warn - means your reading is between 0.08 and 0.10. Your legally impaired but by the time you get to the station you will likely be under 0.08. You get a 24 hour suspension
Fail - any reading over 0.10 because 95% of people's ability to operate a motor vehicle safely is impaired with a blood alcohol of 0.08. Everyone's ability to operate a motor vehicle is impaired with a reading at 0.10 and above.
Now you fail the road side and are giving the Breath demand to provide samples of your breath for analysis by a intoxilyser technition. You refuse. Your charged with impaired and refusal. Because the roadside is the proof of impairment and refusal is a separate charge that carries the same penalty as being impaired.
You attend the police station and provide samples of your breath into the intoxilyzer 5000C
Your first reading is 0.11 and your second sample is 0.09. 24 hour suspension no charge but you may get to sleep it off.
both readings exceed 0.10 your charged with impaired and over 0.08.
hopefully this clears up any confusion. Refusal and Impaired driving are different charges that carry the same penalty.
Cheers |
|
|
| McFly |
quote:
Originally posted by newaccorddriver
i think anything between 0.04 and 0.08 is a 24 hour suspension. anything over 0.08 is considered driving intoxiciated. ive been told around 6 times already while sitting in the back of a cop car, but i keep forgetting the numbers. GDL is zero tolerance, so i think its an automatic suspension
and this is why i dont drink when i am driving haha.
i don't know the laws |
|
|
| Tech2 |
little off topic...
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
In middle and up society, yes. pot does little damage. Go visit the the slums and you'll soon see how damaging pot really can be. Lives get ruined by pot as badly as heroine, or meth, it's just not as obvious and the percentage isn't as high, but it can do it.
Do the lives get ruined because of pot, or do people smoke up because living in the slum sucks?
back on topic...
Did anyone find out about mandatory sentencing for refusing a breath sample? |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Tech2
little off topic...
Do the lives get ruined because of pot, or do people smoke up because living in the slum sucks?
back on topic...
Did anyone find out about mandatory sentencing for refusing a breath sample?
What do you mean mandatory sentencing?
Go to the slums and get to know the people and decide for yourself. People who like pot always seem to be able to find other excuses for the lives it's ruined until they see it firsthand. |
|
|
| stybscelica |
There is no Mandatory sentence however. The supreme court has made several rullings that judges must follow when sentencing for a refusal.
Minimum is one year driving prohibition with Interloc eligibility after three month's. Fines range from 500 to $1000 depending on circumstances and if it is a first offence.
Subsequent offences within 5 years will land you in jail.
Cheers |
|
|
| Tech2 |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
What do you mean mandatory sentencing?
Go to the slums and get to know the people and decide for yourself. People who like pot always seem to be able to find other excuses for the lives it's ruined until they see it firsthand.
Kind of the same thing for alcohol, hey? There's always an excuse for people who abuse it. But the laws are biased, and not based on research (beyond partnership for a drug free america BS).
Mandatory minimum sentencing for refusing to provide a breath sample: 14 days on second conviction, and 90 days on third or subsequent conviction.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/l...s/prb0553-e.pdf |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Tech2
Kind of the same thing for alcohol, hey? There's always an excuse for people who abuse it. But the laws are biased, and not based on research (beyond partnership for a drug free america BS).
Mandatory minimum sentencing for refusing to provide a breath sample: 14 days on second conviction, and 90 days on third or subsequent conviction.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/l...s/prb0553-e.pdf
Anyone who says alcohol doesn't ruin lives is a moron though. Very few people deny that. The marijuana community likes to ignore that same fact when applied to marijuana though. With responsible use it may have very few downfalls, just like alcohol, but let's face it, people aren't as responsible as they should be.
I see. You meant mandatory sentence for being over the federal limit of .08. I thought you meant under .08, but AFAIK there is no "mandatory" anything for that, just normal practice (24 hr suspension). |
|
|
| newaccorddriver |
quote:
Originally posted by McFly
and this is why i dont drink when i am driving haha.
i don't know the laws
i blew 0.00 every time, they just happen to catch me alot of the times when im leaving a bar. i think its better to blow a zero, then to have to explain why you left the bar so quickly. the first time i got pulled over for swirving alot while trying to avoid horrible potholes on the road kinda made me look like i was driving drunk though, so i can understand why they pulled me over |
|
|
| Tech2 |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
I see. You meant mandatory sentence for being over the federal limit of .08.
Actually I meant mandatory sentencing for failing to provide a breath sample.
Here's a couple things I came across:
quote:
There are in fact a number of separate offences in the Criminal Code that relate to impaired driving and the breathalyser process. The 3 major offences are:
1) "Over 80" - This refers to having more than the legal amount of alcohol in your blood as measured by a breath or blood test. The legal limit in Canada is 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.
2) "Impaired" - This refers to the operation of a motor vehicle while your ability to operate the vehicle is impaired by alcohol or a drug.
3) "Refuse Sample" - This refers to a refusal to comply with a demand by a peace officer to provide a breath or blood sample.
and
quote:
The purpose of most drinking and driving arrests is to obtain a breath sample from the person who was driving or had care and control of a motor vehicle. You will be asked to provide a breath sample into an approved instrument. You may only be asked to do this once you have fully exercised your rights to contact counsel. The choice to provide the breath sample is yours. But you must understand that a failure to provide a breath sample will also constitute an offence. The consequences of a conviction for failure to provide a breath sample are the same as a conviction for impaired driving or blowing “over 80". In most cases, it is easier to defend a case where a person has provided a breath sample that is over the legal limit than it is to defend a case where the person has refused to provide the sample.
Seems that failing to provide a breath sample is an offense, and that on second conviction you get a minimum of 14 days in jail. I dunno if this is for all provinces, if it's strictly enforced, or if it's up to date though. |
|
|
| eurotrailertras |
| Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you plan on drinking (or doing any other psychologically altering drugs for that matter) you should plan on not driving. It's quite cowardly and pathetic to refuse to blow to check your blood alcohol level when asked, it only emphisizes your image of guilt. The penalties for DUI don't seem to be stiff enough over here because people seem to keep doing it. |
|
|
| silvia s13 |
quote:
Originally posted by eurotrailertras
Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you plan on drinking (or doing any other psychologically altering drugs for that matter) you should plan on not driving. It's quite cowardly and pathetic to refuse to blow to check your blood alcohol level when asked, it only emphisizes your image of guilt. The penalties for DUI don't seem to be stiff enough over here because people seem to keep doing it.
I dont think the penalties are not stiff enough. Its just that many people have gotten away with it b4 and are willing to risk it again because they dont know the extent of the consiquences. Not many people know how shitty it can be to be convicted of a DUI or to try and fight one. |
|
|
| silvia s13 |
Just to add and clarify:
For a impared or refusal conviction:
A fine between the minimum $600, and $2000. However, the judge may also impose a jail sentence of up to 6 months with the fine or inplace of it. A minimum one-year driving prohibition; in some provinces (Quebec, Manitoba and ALBERTA), you can drive after 3 months if you install an alcohol ignition-interlock device. This device is not cheap to install and also has monthly fees that go along with it. (around $100). You must use it for 1 year for your first conviction. 3 years for second and permanently for more than 2 convictions.
If you have already been convicted of an impaired, "over 80", or refusal charge, and you are again charged, the Crown may tender a certificate to seek greater punishment. If you are given this notice, you will receive jail time if you are again convicted. Generally, for your second conviction within 10 years, you will receive imprisonment for a period not less than 14 days and 90 days for the third offence in 10 years.
If you are convicted, your fingureprints and photographs will be retained be the RCMP in Ottawa. And if you're ever pulled over again, your record may show up when police run a routine check.
A conviction also means you will have a criminal record which could hurt your employment and restrict your ability to travel.
Your motor vehicle incurance rates will skyrocket after a conviction.
TO ANSWER THE ORIGINAL QUESTION:
A charge of refuse to provide a suitable sample of breath ("refuse sample" for short) is laid after you fail or REFUSE without reasonable excuse to provide a breath sample either into a roadside screening device or a breathalyzer instrument. The roadside screening device test is administered to determine whether you are over the legal limit; if you register a fail on the device, you will be asked to undergo a breath test which measures the amount of alcohol in your blood.
Often a charge of Impaired Operation is laid along with a charge of Drive Over 80 or Refuse Sample.
If you refuse to comply with a valid demand for either a roadside screening test, a breathalyser, or a blood sample, you can be charged with refusal under section 254(5) of the Criminal Code. Having a "reasonable excuse" is a defence to this charge.
Generally, a "reasonable excuse" is anything which makes compliance with a demand either extremely difficult or likely to involve sudstainable risk to your health should you give the sample. Voluntary intoxication such that it is impossible for you to understand the demand is not a excuse.
Although it IS a defence to the charge on mens rea grounds.
If you are charged with anyone of these, I highly recomend getting a lawyer (pm me if you want a good one). Remember, you are innocent until proven guilty. |
|
|
|
