Toronto Escorts

Woman Loses Driver's Licence and has Car Impounded for Drinking in Backyard

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
12,518
2,368
113
Now this is scary!

Imagine a neighbour doesn't like you. They see you drinking in your backyard and make an anonymous call to the Cops. They show up and make you take a breathalyzer. You blow over 0.05% and bam, you lose your licence on the spot.

Talk about a stupid law and an abuse of power. I want to see a constitutional challenge on this. I'm all for getting drunk drivers off the road, but this is ridiculous.

VICTORIA — Lee Anne Lowrie was in a panic after receiving a phone call from the RCMP saying they had a personal issue to discuss with her.

“I thought something had happened to someone in my family.” she said.

It was Saturday, April 13, and the Nanaimo woman had travelled to Maple Ridge for a medical appointment. When the appointment was over, Lowrie and her boyfriend went to a local pub. Each had a drink and some appetizers.

They left the restaurant about 3:30 p.m. and drove to her sister’s home, arriving about 3:40 p.m., Lowrie said.

“They intended to spend the afternoon and evening at her sister’s house, so they had a few drinks when they got back there,” said Victoria lawyer Jennifer Teryn.

But just before 5:30 p.m., the RCMP called Lowrie. Lowrie gave police the address and at 6 p.m. five police officers were standing in her sister’s driveway.

The officers told Lowrie they had received an anonymous complaint that she had consumed “multiple alcoholic beverages” before getting into a pickup and driving away from the restaurant at 4:53 p.m.

Police pulled out an alcohol screening device and asked Lowrie to blow.

Lowrie told the officer her last sip of alcohol was two minutes earlier. The officers delayed the first test by 15 minutes. Lowrie failed.

Police towed her vehicle and gave her an immediate roadside prohibition, also known as an IRP. Her truck was impounded for 30 days and she lost her licence for 90 days. She faced a $500 fine and would have had to pay $930 for a responsible driving program and $250 to reinstate her driver’s licence.

Teryn, who has conducted more than 300 reviews of immediate roadside prohibitions, said police had no legal authority to make Lowrie blow into the screening device.

With managing partner Jerry Steele, Teryn has been fighting changes to Canada’s impaired driving laws that came into effect in December.

The new laws give police the power to demand a breath sample from any driver they lawfully stop. Previously, police had to have a reasonable suspicion a driver had alcohol in his or her body before demanding a roadside breath test.

Police can demand a test within two hours of a driver being on the road, even after someone has returned home and consumed alcohol.

Fortunately, Lowrie video-recorded her interaction with the officers, said Teryn.

In a report to the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, a police officer alleged Lowrie was slurring her words.

“Her speech is not slurred at all. The video shows that,” said Teryn.

The police report also said Lowrie did not make a second request to blow into the screening device, which Teryn said is not true.

“That’s a lie and we know it’s a lie because there’s video evidence to prove this,” said Teryn. “Lee very explicitly asks for a second test on the video.”

The police provided false evidence, she charged.

“They used the mandatory screening demand inappropriately. They were wrong to do it, but they believed they were lawfully entitled to do it,” said Teryn.

Lowrie hired Teryn, who got the IRP revoked.

“I was drinking at home. I didn’t do anything wrong. I’m totally innocent,” said Lowrie. “My rights were being challenged. At this point, we’re guilty until proven innocent. I felt intimidated, violated, and I’ve never had a problem with police. I’m a law-abiding, taxpaying citizen.”

Teryn has launched what’s likely to be the first constitutional challenge to changes in Canada’s impaired driving laws. Client Norma McLeod, a 76-year-old cancer survivor, has applied to the B.C. Supreme Court for a judicial review of an immediate roadside prohibition. She was hit with the suspension for failing to provide a proper sample, something impossible for her because of her medical condition.

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/nanaimo-woman-wins-legal-fight-over-police-allegations-of-drinking-and-driving
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
25,136
3,572
113
Welcome to the Department of Pre-crime

 

thumper18474

Well-known member
thats fucked up
so I come home from work..crack open a beer...and cops can come by within 2 hours..make me take a breathalizer and if I fail...impound my vehicle???
for what reason??
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
It was unwise for her to talk to police and, even worse, to give them the address of her location. Never talk to the police without representation, never volunteer information, always err on the side of caution when dealing with law enforcement.
 

Ginomore

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2011
932
316
63
It was unwise for her to talk to police and, even worse, to give them the address of her location. Never talk to the police without representation, never volunteer information, always err on the side of caution when dealing with law enforcement.

I agree with this but even if you refuse to speak to the police they can still demand a breath sample.
If you refuse they will arrest you anyway.
They can also lie in order to locate you.
 

rhuarc29

Well-known member
Apr 15, 2009
9,591
1,193
113
Yeah, I remember alarms being raised over this when the legislation first came into effect in December. I think it was assumed no cop in their right mind would abuse that authority. Well looky here!

Police can demand a test within two hours of a driver being on the road, even after someone has returned home and consumed alcohol.
What legislator in their right mind would pass such a resolution? Oh, that's right, one who is trying to buy votes.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
I agree with this but even if you refuse to speak to the police they can still demand a breath sample.
If you refuse they will arrest you anyway.
They can also lie in order to locate you.
She should have never put herself in this position. You get a phonecall from cops that they want to talk to you on any matter, set up an appointment at the police station during the business hours so you can come in with legal protection. Now, even if she wins(and she probably will), she'll be out at least 10k for nothing else than not being prudent. It's an idiotic law, but it's still a law and it can be used to abuse citizenry while in force.
 

rhuarc29

Well-known member
Apr 15, 2009
9,591
1,193
113
I agree with this but even if you refuse to speak to the police they can still demand a breath sample.
If you refuse they will arrest you anyway.
They can also lie in order to locate you.
Think of it this way. If she had refused to give a sample, and they unlawfully arrested her, she'd be off the hook. However, she gave the sample willingly, so even if they had no grounds to demand she give a sample, they technically didn't do anything wrong.
 

whiteshaft

Been Around
Mar 15, 2014
1,783
251
83
Room 38DD
Think of it this way. If she had refused to give a sample, and they unlawfully arrested her, she'd be off the hook. However, she gave the sample willingly, so even if they had no grounds to demand she give a sample, they technically didn't do anything wrong.
I hear ya! Laws are manipulated these days lol.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Now this is scary!

Imagine a neighbour doesn't like you. They see you drinking in your backyard and make an anonymous call to the Cops. They show up and make you take a breathalyzer. You blow over 0.05% and bam, you lose your licence on the spot.

Talk about a stupid law and an abuse of power. I want to see a constitutional challenge on this. I'm all for getting drunk drivers off the road, but this is ridiculous.
Not quite the story as reported: Someone at the bar where they'd been drinking was concerned enough to call the cops about a drinking driver. The driver had not returned to her home, she'd gone somewhere else and and continued drinking with plans to stay through the afternoon into the evening. Not surprisingly, no one is saying or — or reporting — how she planned to get to her home afterwards.

The stuff in the quoted story about a second test makes no sense as written, but perhaps there's a 'faint hope' clause in the law that might get someone off if their two results were wildly different. The lawyer clearly made the most of that. What the story doesn't say is that she's attacked the timeline. The Sun gives an account of it that's all over the map; it reads as very questionable, but perhaps that's the reporting. If not, she had another arrow in her quiver.

Interesting that neither the lawyer nor the driver disputed that she had driven after drinking, which the entire law is intended to put an end to, as much as any law can. Perhaps one of the technicalities got her off, but it's clear she's as guilty — and as dangerous — as any drinking driver can be.

OH Yeah, one more: Your title is an entire invention: Nothing in the article says or even implies that her Immediate Roadside Prohibition was for drinking in the backyard, or had anything to do with it.
 

Ginomore

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2011
932
316
63
Think of it this way. If she had refused to give a sample, and they unlawfully arrested her, she'd be off the hook. However, she gave the sample willingly, so even if they had no grounds to demand she give a sample, they technically didn't do anything wrong.

They can now lawfully arrest you for not giving a sample even if they have no probable cause.
Even if you are sober you cannot refuse.
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
25,136
3,572
113
Not quite the story as reported: Someone at the bar where they'd been drinking was concerned enough to call the cops about a drinking driver. The driver had not returned to her home, she'd gone somewhere else and and continued drinking with plans to stay through the afternoon into the evening. Not surprisingly, no one is saying or — or reporting — how she planned to get to her home afterwards.

The stuff in the quoted story about a second test makes no sense as written, but perhaps there's a 'faint hope' clause in the law that might get someone off if their two results were wildly different. The lawyer clearly made the most of that. What the story doesn't say is that she's attacked the timeline. The Sun gives an account of it that's all over the map; it reads as very questionable, but perhaps that's the reporting. If not, she had another arrow in her quiver.

Interesting that neither the lawyer nor the driver disputed that she had driven after drinking, which the entire law is intended to put an end to, as much as any law can. Perhaps one of the technicalities got her off, but it's clear she's as guilty — and as dangerous — as any drinking driver can be.

OH Yeah, one more: Your title is an entire invention: Nothing in the article says or even implies that the Immediate Roadside Prohibition was for drinking in the backyard, or had anything to do with it
You must not be following the news lately. Have a look at the new DUI law:

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-new-drunk-driving-law-causing-confusion
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
Not quite the story as reported: Someone at the bar where they'd been drinking was concerned enough to call the cops about a drinking driver. The driver had not returned to her home, she'd gone somewhere else and and continued drinking with plans to stay through the afternoon into the evening. Not surprisingly, no one is saying or — or reporting — how she planned to get to her home afterwards.

The stuff in the quoted story about a second test makes no sense as written, but perhaps there's a 'faint hope' clause in the law that might get someone off if their two results were wildly different. The lawyer clearly made the most of that. What the story doesn't say is that she's attacked the timeline. The Sun gives an account of it that's all over the map; it reads as very questionable, but perhaps that's the reporting. If not, she had another arrow in her quiver.

Interesting that neither the lawyer nor the driver disputed that she had driven after drinking, which the entire law is intended to put an end to, as much as any law can. Perhaps one of the technicalities got her off, but it's clear she's as guilty — and as dangerous — as any drinking driver can be.

OH Yeah, one more: Your title is an entire invention: Nothing in the article says or even implies that the Immediate Roadside Prohibition was for drinking in the backyard, or had anything to do with it.
"Each had a drink"- at the pub which doesn't necessities guilt. How she was planning to get home is immaterial. Maybe she was planning on staying over or taking a cab. Since she continued drinking at her destination, the "roadside" test result is a speculation in relation to her actual alcohol level while she was actually driving. Hence, the title is correct.
 

Darts

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2017
23,061
11,160
113
I heard about this incident a while back on Radio 640. I think OldJones version is closer to the truth. The bar was concerned and called the police. The police couldn't find her right away.

Anyway, this happened in B.C. which we all know is hard care lefty country so anything is possible.
 

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
12,518
2,368
113
Not quite the story as reported: Someone at the bar where they'd been drinking was concerned enough to call the cops about a drinking driver. The driver had not returned to her home, she'd gone somewhere else and and continued drinking with plans to stay through the afternoon into the evening. Not surprisingly, no one is saying or — or reporting — how she planned to get to her home afterwards.
She said she had one drink at the bar with food. Nothing illegal about that. Cops could've easily fact checked that by contacting the server at the restaurant. It was a Saturday and she said she was spending the evening at her sister's house. So she could've spent the night and returned home the next day. Certainly not a stretch considering she was almost 4 hours from home. Or perhaps her BF was the designated driver. Obviously if she'd been drinking all afternoon, she shouldn't be driving home. But that didn't happen.

The stuff in the quoted story about a second test makes no sense as written, but perhaps there's a 'faint hope' clause in the law that might get someone off if their two results were wildly different.
The lawyer clearly made the most of that. What the story doesn't say is that she's attacked the timeline. The Sun gives an account of it that's all over the map; it reads as very questionable, but perhaps that's the reporting. If not, she had another arrow in her quiver.
The timeline makes sense, with the exception of driving away from the restaurant at 4:53 p.m. Obviously a typo.

Interesting that neither the lawyer nor the driver disputed that she had driven after drinking, which the entire law is intended to put an end to, as much as any law can. Perhaps one of the technicalities got her off, but it's clear she's as guilty — and as dangerous — as any drinking driver can be.
It would matter if we had a zero-tolerance for drinking and driving, but we don't. So having one drink with food at a restaurant is fully within one's rights. We can have a debate about whether that's a wise thing to do, but under the current law, she did nothing wrong, assuming she had one drink.

If she had one drink and drove, she's guilty of nothing. If she had several drinks in the backyard two hours after driving, she's guilty of nothing. But clearly that's not the case here. This law is seriously flawed.

OH Yeah, one more: Your title is an entire invention: Nothing in the article says or even implies that the Immediate Roadside Prohibition was for drinking in the backyard, or had anything to do with it.
Woman Loses Driver's Licence and has Car Impounded after Drinking in Backyard.
Is that better?

If we're to take her word of the events, she in fact lost her licence and had her truck impounded for drinking in her sister's backyard.

I do find it interesting that you don't seem concerned that the officers lied about her slurred speech, or that she asked to provide a second sample. She certainly was smart to record the event.

I go back to my original concern. What's to stop someone from calling LE and say they saw you have a few drinks at a restaurant and drive home. You could've had pop for all they know. Then you go home, have a few drinks then there's a knock at the door. Welcome to prove your innocence!
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
12,518
2,368
113
I heard about this incident a while back on Radio 640. I think OldJones version is closer to the truth. The bar was concerned and called the police. The police couldn't find her right away.

Anyway, this happened in B.C. which we all know is hard care lefty country so anything is possible.
Do we know if it was a restaurant employee that called? It says it was an anonymous caller. Got a link?
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
22,447
1,325
113
You can thank Jody Wilson Reybould for this rediculous law. What a dumbass she was. Biggest mistake Trudeau made was not firing her earlier. Another affirmative action case study.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
She said she had one drink at the bar with food. Nothing illegal about that. Cops could've easily fact checked that by contacting the server at the restaurant. It was a Saturday and she said she was spending the evening at her sister's house. So she could've spent the night and returned home the next day. Certainly not a stretch considering she was almost 4 hours from home. Or perhaps her BF was the designated driver. Obviously if she'd been drinking all afternoon, she shouldn't be driving home. But that didn't happen.

The timeline makes sense, with the exception of driving away from the restaurant at 4:53 p.m. Obviously a typo.

It would matter if we had a zero-tolerance for drinking and driving, but we don't. So having one drink with food at a restaurant is fully within one's rights. We can have a debate about whether that's a wise thing to do, but under the current law, she did nothing wrong, assuming she had one drink.

If she had one drink and drove, she's guilty of nothing. If she had several drinks in the backyard two hours after driving, she's guilty of nothing. But clearly that's not the case here. This law is seriously flawed.

Woman Loses Driver's Licence and has Car Impounded after Drinking in Backyard.
Is that better?

If we're to take her word of the events, she in fact lost her licence and had her truck impounded for drinking in her sister's backyard.

I do find it interesting that you don't seem concerned that the officers lied about her slurred speech, or that she asked to provide a second sample. She certainly was smart to record the event.

I go back to my original concern. What's to stop someone from calling LE and say they saw you have a few drinks at a restaurant and drive home. You could've had pop for all they know. Then you go home, have a few drinks then there's a knock at the door. Welcome to prove your innocence!
Neither of us has heard the evidence, so it's pointless to argue it as if we had and were trying to play judge and jury. We know only what was reported in the Sun: She drank, then drove; the bar called the cops, because they were concerned about that. All the police actions resulted from that call. That their actions occurred after she drank in her sister's backyard is no more relevant than if they occurred after she changed her clothes or went to the bathroom. Your title specifically stated she had her car[sic] impounded for drinking in the backyard, your new version is much better — although it was a truck, and you know that. Too obvious, and properly spelled to be a typo. But 4:53 looked good too. Does no one read these posts but me?

If you want to discuss the unwisdom of this law feel free, I'm not too keen on it either, but the story doesn't illustrate the moral/ethical weaknesses you have raised (and the story doesn't say the lawyer raised them either)

In any case: Don't drink then drive and bars won't be calling the cops on you. If you have your first when you get home, you've got a swell defence. But you won't need one until the cops give the Crown proof you drove within the two hours prior, 'cause it's a drinking and driving law, not a boozin' in the backyard one.

-------
PS: The slurred speech issue and the second sample issue mattered to her lawyer because they got her off. But they have zero to do with this particular law and only drive home the lesson that police have to do better. Like the law itself, I'm happy to discuss that if you want.

Butt the incident unfolded pretty much as it should have.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts