Rick Vaive gets of Impaired Driving Charges

[coyo]

I know it doesn't make sense and I THINK it comes down to the fact that it's a scientific process that results in the evidence to charge and in that while some officers are qualified to operate the instrument and read the results, they aren't scientists therefore the 2 hour presumption is more to negate having to have a scientist review EVERY case prior to trial.

so again, in light of this information, it begs the question: how was it that he got off?

@ coyo: but what is the rationale for the 2 hour cut off?

I can understand how if the measurement was below .08 at the 2 or 3 hour mark after the stop, then it would be questionable whether the BAC was ever over .08

but can't one reasonably conclude that if a person had a BAC of over .08 at 2 or 3 hours after the stop, they were likely over that level at the moment they were stopped (if a couple hours had gone by since the last consumed drink)?

[Rob MacLennan]

I know it doesn't make sense and I THINK it comes down to the fact that it's a scientific process that results in the evidence to charge and in that while some officers are qualified to operate the instrument and read the results, they aren't scientists therefore the 2 hour presumption is more to negate having to have a scientist review EVERY case prior to trial.

I'm thinking that the three hour limit, as stated in the current Criminal Code, was previously a two hour limit. I base this assumption on the contents of this judgment, where 254 (3) is quoted. It also states the rationale for the limit and states a couple of interpretations.

http://scc.lexum.org/en/1992/1992scr...2scr2-663.html

[Poser]

march 3rd 2012.

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...shColumbiaHome

Liquor industry funding drunk driving appeals

The B.C. liquor industry is partly funding the legal appeals of some suspected drunk drivers who are trying to get their licences back, CTV News has learned.
Last November, a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled that the immediate 90-day driving bans issued under the province's tough new impaired driving bans were unconstitutional. The ruling was the result of a challenge from drivers who said their Charter rights were violated when their licences were taken away.
The Alliance of Beverage Licensees of B.C. backed that challenge, and is now helping to pay the legal fees of some accused drunk drivers who lost their licences under the impugned law and are petitioning to get them back.
"It has offended individuals' Charter rights, and so we're before the courts supporting some individuals who have been charged," the alliance's Matt MacNeil told CTV News.
"This is not about the right to drink and drive. This really is about people's individual rights."
B.C.'s bar and pub industry has complained about the new law since it came into effect in September 2010, arguing that it has gutted their business.
"In rural B.C., it's absolutely been devastating. The response we get from members is anywhere from 30 to 50 per cent their sales are down," MacNeil said.
He added that the way the government presented the strict law to the public gave people mistaken ideas.
"We're concerned about the perception that you can't come and have a glass of wine at the end of your business day," he said.
But families of drunk-driving victims see the industry's involvement in the court challenges in a different light.
Markita Kaulius, whose 22-year-old daughter Kassandra was killed by a suspected drunk driver last year, said she's appalled.
"I'm saddened, I'm angry. To me, that's such a conflict of interest," Kaulius said.
The industry's legal endeavours aren't finished yet, though. The alliance is also challenging penalties for drivers who refuse to submit to breathalyzer tests and plans to go after the consequences for drivers who blow in the "warning" range.
"We think it should go back to the way the law was in the past," MacNeil said.
The government will be introducing new legislation this spring that it says will give drivers more of chance to challenge breathalyzer results.

[invictus43]

I mean, the guy's dead guilty..how he wrangled getting off is just trial nonsense. I hope he feels good about himself.

[OpenGambit]

I have no rationale legal explaination, therefore I will just leave well enough alone...

[coyo]

I didn't read the article but can definitively state the both 2 and 3 hour limits exist.

I'm thinking that the three hour limit, as stated in the current Criminal Code, was previously a two hour limit. I base this assumption on the contents of this judgment, where 254 (3) is quoted. It also states the rationale for the limit and states a couple of interpretations.

http://scc.lexum.org/en/1992/1992scr...2scr2-663.html

[Rob MacLennan]

I didn't read the article but can definitively state the both 2 and 3 hour limits exist.

You should read the article then because where the current Criminal Code quote states three hours, the Supreme Court judgment states 2 hours for the exact same quoted section. If Vaive was charged when the Code said 2 hours, it would still be applicable in his case.

[coyo]

You should read the article then because where the current Criminal Code quote states three hours, the Supreme Court judgment states 2 hours for the exact same quoted section. If Vaive was charged when the Code said 2 hours, it would still be applicable in his case.

I read it. The article speaks to both the time limit to make the demand AND the time allowed for the presumption in law as to the admissibility of the test results. In the article BOTH are 2 hours but the article is from 1992. I can't say when the time limit to make a breath demand was changed but can say that it is now 3 hours for the demand, but still 2 for the presumption.

[coyo]

I'll read it tonight, but the 2 timings exist and haven't changed for years.

You should read the article then because where the current Criminal Code quote states three hours, the Supreme Court judgment states 2 hours for the exact same quoted section. If Vaive was charged when the Code said 2 hours, it would still be applicable in his case.

[coyo]

You cannot opt for blood, only the arresting officer can decide to go by way of a blood demand and only for reasons such as injury, pain, etc...

Well..I suppose if you're on the way down..you can try to delay as long as possible to hope your number goes lower..I think you can deny the breathalyzer and go straight for the blood test..but that would probably take some time to administer..so you might have better luck there as well.