|
|
|
Clarification of "forthwith"
- Thread starter OpenGambit
- Start date
Weatherbee
Member
Summarized: "even when you're drunk out of your mind, you still have the right to fail the roadside screening device within 17 minutes"
OK, that's just slightly insane.
These judges in Ontario or maybe canada are so biased towards people who break the law it's bizarre. My friends wife is a crown prosecutor and she can't believe the stuff they let people off the hook for. But no one speaks up as the judge will make their life miserable.
They have to keep in mind that the ACCUSED's rights must be defended. Some of the recent stuff I've heard does give me mental whiplash though. I should sue.
OpenGambit
Banned
I actually see this as the key point. Who cares about that guy
“The law in relation to roadside detention has got to be strictly construed,” he says. “Police interfere with the liberty of hundreds of thousands of people on a yearly basis, so if they can’t get it right, then the violations are going to occur many thousands of times, which is not something we should tolerate.
If all of those people were allowed to be held for 17 or 18 minutes routinely, then we’d be living in a very different society.”
“The law in relation to roadside detention has got to be strictly construed,” he says. “Police interfere with the liberty of hundreds of thousands of people on a yearly basis, so if they can’t get it right, then the violations are going to occur many thousands of times, which is not something we should tolerate.
If all of those people were allowed to be held for 17 or 18 minutes routinely, then we’d be living in a very different society.”
It's a bit of a conflation of issues, no? It would only become an issue if they made every person blow, which they don't. I'm as much a civil liberties guy as the next, but reality has to enter into it also.
Perhaps it's something that should have been considered when MADD was pushing the RIDE agenda, in the first place?
OpenGambit
Banned
I don't think so, because charter analysis involves considering the interests of society. The Charter is there for everyone, not just the accused. I don't think its unreasonable to assume that thousands of people are asked to blow. What if they make you wait for 45 mins and you pass? what a waste of time that is.
At that point you aren't "the accused."
Where's the reasonable limit? To me, 17 minutes would be fairly reasonable. 45 minutes isn't. Case by case basis? The accused, in this case, was asked to wait 10 minutes longer than the trial judge felt could be mechanically justified, but more than simple mechanics are involved.
OpenGambit
Banned
Well thats what I mean right? its not just about the accused its about everyone. Charter rights arise far far before you become then "accused.
What is going to happen with this decision is that cops will actually have the breathlyzer in the car, instead of having to call people in.
If impaired driving was really so important they should have all had one by now anyway.
What is going to happen with this decision is that cops will actually have the breathlyzer in the car, instead of having to call people in.
If impaired driving was really so important they should have all had one by now anyway.
Well then there goes another cost, for people to get up in arms about, and another bunch of devices that will need constant calibration. Intoxilyzers are a limited resource.
OpenGambit
Banned
That guy was specifically on traffic detail that day. Maybe at least those guys should have it no?
I think that would be a reasonable accommodation.
It seems a bit ridiculous anyway. If a cop found himself in this situation he could now say something along the lines of "In order to not violate your charter rights, I am not going to proceed with the breathalyzer test" at the, say, 15 minute mark. Then, if you drive away, he pulls you over again.
That would almost certainly be thrown out.
I thought about that. Maybe you need to have some other officer pull you over the second time. It seems that if you are impaired, and the officer lets you drive away, he could then be held liable for any accident/injury, so they probably wouldn't do it anyway.
OpenGambit
Banned
no that wouldn't happen. they would just violate your charter right and then let the prosecutor drop it later.
Weatherbee
Member
More commonly known as the Ways and Means Act.
|
|
|
|
|