The title I objected to plainly said her car was impounded for backyard drinking. I suspect you're trying to address the Sun's headline which said she got off. As far as I can make out from the poor reporting, that's because the BC Superintendant of Motor Vehicles refused to proceed. Not beccause a judge ruled on the law.
Much better. Your Sun (Toronto) link was just another driver-story, not the legal coverage you claimed.
You already said the car[sic] was not impounded for backyard drinking, and offered an accurate title "… impounded after backyard drinking". What happened since, that you're back to the original?
LOL......both articles come to essentially the same conclusion.
I conclude on my own, whatever any media may say. Just like you. You're welcome to move on anywhere anytime. It isn't a contest, no one's keeping you.
The fact remains, this law gives LE the ability to suspend your licence, impound your vehicle and leave you thousands out of pocket even though you didn't drink and drive, but had a few drinks after you got home. There's so much wrong with this law I don't even know where to begin.
Maybe someone should tell the Cops that!
The Charter says we have "the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure". 'Unwarranted' would be something different, like without a warrant. Since the law specifically says the police are authorized to search you by way of demanding a breath sample, for as much as two hours after you drove, I'd imagine a judge would say that counts as their 'warrant'.
Here's another section from your reference:
The fact remains, it's entirely possible she had but one drink with food over the course of an hour before she drove home. Had stopped her in her vehicle, there's no way she would've blown over 0.05. The problem is, they tested her after she had been home for a couple of hours, consuming alcohol in the back yard. And that's a big problem.
I agree with you, and no one did "assume she had several drinks at the bar and drove home with a BAC level above 0.05 based on the word of an anonymous caller". However, that call was all the officers needed to lawfully demand a breath sample from the woman in the news article. Not that it matters, but she herself admitted she had been drinking and that she drove. So both facts and law say the officers did right. No one assumed anything about her BAC either, they administered the test, took the measurement and laid a charge because it exceeded the permissible amount. Facts, not assumptions.
