Skyway bridge crash: Judge cites charter, rules out breath tests

[FAST]

Sounds like a lawyer wannabe,...

Ok, genius, we're going to do this slowly so you can follow.... Why would the judge need arguments from the Defence if the judge had already not been convinced by the Crown that the Crown's evidence should be admitted?

Think about it. Strain a little. Reach a conclusion. Report back with a post in this thread. And if I'm still interested, I'll have some fun picking apart the rest of your post.

1st, I acknowledge that I have an obvious advantage in this "debate", with some one has to start and continue their reply with childish insults.

Be that as it may,...lets assume the drunk was unconscious when he was transported to the hospitable,...and keeping in mind my 1st sentence,...a person cannot do a breathalyzer test when they are unconscious.

Or,...had a tube taped down the drunks throat,...leaving the blood test to confirm the driver was in fact,...drunk.

And a little refresher for ya,...how in hell would "a unreasonable search or seizure",...apply to a breathalyzer, or blood test taken, after the drunk was admitted to the hospitable.

Ever hear of "extenuating circumstances",...boy lawyer,...???

FAST

 

[mandrill]

1st, I acknowledge that I have an obvious advantage in this "debate", with some one has to start and continue their reply with childish insults.

Be that as it may,...lets assume the drunk was unconscious when he was transported to the hospitable,...and keeping in mind my 1st sentence,...a person cannot do a breathalyzer test when they are unconscious.

Or,...had a tube taped down the drunks throat,...leaving the blood test to confirm the driver was in fact,...drunk.

And a little refresher for ya,...how in hell would "a unreasonable search or seizure",...apply to a breathalyzer, or blood test taken, after the drunk was admitted to the hospitable.

Ever hear of "extenuating circumstances",...boy lawyer,...???

FAST

And on that note, I will exit the thread. The fact that I am a lawyer and practise criminal law clearly doesn't erase your "obvious advantage".

Another useful exercise in completely wasting my time on TERB.

 

[Malibook]

A breath test within 15 minutes of the last drink is considered an improper procedure as residual alcohol on the breath can affect the accuracy of the test.

If someone is given the test 4 or 5 hours later, that is better for them as their level is continually going down and gives them a better chance of passing.
In this sense the 3 hour limit doesn`t make sense to me.
I suppose the issue is that people have the right to continue on their way in a reasonable amount of time unless a charge is being made.
However, in this case, idiot was not going to be free to continue on his way so I do believe that the circumstances are not irrelevant.

What about the cops waiting for someone to shit out swallowed drugs?
Is there a time limit to that bowel movement too?

 

[basketcase]

This is bull shit,...just another example of judges supporting their brothers, by creating more work lawyers.
...

If the regulation says the tests must be done within 3 hours and the cops forgot to get it done in time, I don't think there is a basis to include it.

Now from a rational side the tests showing so high a result after that long really says something (but rationality and law aren't synonymous).

 

[Ridgeman08]

Thanks Oagre...

For perfectly illustrating my earlier point!

It's about the system as a whole being more important than the result of any one specific case. If the police can evade the rules - rules which they know about - then soon there are no rules and we live in a society wherein the police have no accountability. Therefore, society accepts that the guilty may go free from time to time in order to ensure that the rights of society as a whole do not become compromised. You may not like that, but every judge sitting in every Western democracy understands, accepts and applies this reasoning.

No amount of arguing will convince me or any other free thinking individual, that the "right thing to do" is to let this guy off ANY charges or wrong doing. You, like all individuals poisoned by the Law Society, ONLY see life through your legal beagle spectacles. Put them away (if that is even possible at this point), and you will see the facts as they REALLY are:

• This idiot through his obviously flawed decision making skills is responsible for his actions and should be reprimanded accordingly.
• The cops handling the case made mistakes (in the eyes of the "law" which may or may not be right, but that is not the point), so they should be reprimanded accordingly, via a separate and mutually exclusive case.
• The judge was quite possibly right in the "legal" sense to rule the breath test inadmissible, but was morally corrupt in doing so.

Why is it, in our legal system, we do not make allowances for situations like this? Why should obviously guilty criminals go free if the cops make mistakes? Whose brilliant idea was it to reward the morally corrupt "bad" guy if the "good" guy makes a technical error???? WHO says we cant reprimand BOTH???!!!

(Don't bother answering that rhetorical question, I already know the answer!)

And that is just one of the many things wrong with our `legal` system!

 

[nottyboi]

There are a host of other charges including criminal negligence, so he will not get off scott free, but you cannot rely on 5 hour old data to prosecute a DUI charge and have any accurate data on how drunk the guy was at the time of the accident. That is based on scientific study and many previous court rulings. So there it is.

For perfectly illustrating my earlier point!



No amount of arguing will convince me or any other free thinking individual, that the "right thing to do" is to let this guy off ANY charges or wrong doing. You, like all individuals poisoned by the Law Society, ONLY see life through your legal beagle spectacles. Put them away (if that is even possible at this point), and you will see the facts as they REALLY are:

• This idiot through his obviously flawed decision making skills is responsible for his actions and should be reprimanded accordingly.
• The cops handling the case made mistakes (in the eyes of the "law" which may or may not be right, but that is not the point), so they should be reprimanded accordingly, via a separate and mutually exclusive case.
• The judge was quite possibly right in the "legal" sense to rule the breath test inadmissible, but was morally corrupt in doing so.

Why is it, in our legal system, we do not make allowances for situations like this? Why should obviously guilty criminals go free if the cops make mistakes? Whose brilliant idea was it to reward the morally corrupt "bad" guy if the "good" guy makes a technical error???? WHO says we cant reprimand BOTH???!!!

(Don't bother answering that rhetorical question, I already know the answer!)

And that is just one of the many things wrong with our `legal` system!

 

[SkyRider]

(but rationality and law aren't synonymous).

Its no wonder criminals love the Charter.

 

[GameBoy27]

There are a host of other charges including criminal negligence, so he will not get off scott free, but you cannot rely on 5 hour old data to prosecute a DUI charge and have any accurate data on how drunk the guy was at the time of the accident. That is based on scientific study and many previous court rulings. So there it is.

Exactly! While there's a very good chance the guy was shitfaced at the time of the crash, the judge was 100% correct in his ruling. The cops f'd up in this case, not the judge.

The bigger issue is if you have judges allowing instances where the cops failed to follow procedures (i.e. the law) in order to make an arrest which could lead to a conviction.

Its no wonder criminals love the Charter.

You mean when the cops don't follow the Charter.

Now imagine for a second what it would be like if cops were allowed to do whatever they want. No thank you!

 

[Bud Plug]

There are a host of other charges including criminal negligence, so he will not get off scott free, but you cannot rely on 5 hour old data to prosecute a DUI charge and have any accurate data on how drunk the guy was at the time of the accident. That is based on scientific study and many previous court rulings. So there it is.

I'd love to read a scientific study that says that blood alcohol levels, in the absence of continued alcohol consumption while waiting to be tested, can increase from the level at the time of the incident if a sample is not taken within 3 hours. Will you be providing a link for such a study?

The 3 hour limit seems clearly designed to avoid the inaccuracy of inferring blood alcohol level at the time of the incident from alcohol levels below the legal limit tested after the incident. I can only assume that these correlations become unreliable the more time has elapsed since the incident. However, if the accused tests over the legal limit even hours following the incident, with no opportunity to consume alcohol in the meantime, it's hard to understand why you can't reasonably conclude that their blood alcohol level was even higher at the time of the incident. Is the theory that, if the driver was actually drinking while driving (itself an offence), the alcohol may not have entered their bloodstream until after the accident, so technically they weren't impaired at the time of the accident?

Very difficult to see why admitting this evidence would "bring the administration of justice into disrepute", even granted the incompetence of the police.

 

[GameBoy27]

I'd love to read a scientific study that says that blood alcohol levels, in the absence of continued alcohol consumption while waiting to be tested, can increase from the level at the time of the incident if a sample is not taken within 3 hours. Will you be providing a link for such a study?

The 3 hour limit seems clearly designed to avoid the inaccuracy of inferring blood alcohol level at the time of the incident from alcohol levels below the legal limit tested after the incident. I can only assume that these correlations become unreliable the more time has elapsed since the incident. However, if the accused tests over the legal limit even hours following the incident, with no opportunity to consume alcohol in the meantime, it's hard to understand why you can't reasonably conclude that their blood alcohol level was even higher at the time of the incident. Is the theory that, if the driver was actually drinking while driving (itself an offence), the alcohol may not have entered their bloodstream until after the accident, so technically they weren't impaired at the time of the accident?

Very difficult to see why admitting this evidence would "bring the administration of justice into disrepute", even granted the incompetence of the police.

Everyone knows he was over the limit at the time of the crash. That's not the point. The law states that a breath sample must be obtained within a 3 hour time period. The cops failed to follow the law. The judge has no option but to exclude the evidence. The 3 hour time limit is in part to protect the public from having cops detain you for as long as they want.. Trust me, without this law asshole cops would certainly abuse their powers.

Nobody's happy the guy will walk on the impaired and over 80 charges, but don't blame the judge.

Stop letting your emotions get in the way of what is a simple case of the cops didn't follow procedures. Like it or not!

 

[Bud Plug]

Everyone knows he was over the limit at the time of the crash. That's not the point. The law states that a breath sample must be obtained within a 3 hour time period. The cops failed to follow the law. The judge has no option but to exclude the evidence. The 3 hour time limit is in part to protect the public from having cops detain you for as long as they want.. Trust me, without this law asshole cops would certainly abuse their powers.

Nobody's happy the guy will walk on the impaired and over 80 charges, but don't blame the judge.

Stop letting your emotions get in the way of what is a simple case of the cops didn't follow procedures. Like it or not!

Gameboy, you've missed my point, probably because you aren't familiar with the phrase I used. Courts are allowed to admit evidence, even evidence which was obtained illegally, if to do so "would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute". That's the legal standard for admitting the evidence that the crown sought to introduce in this case.

 

[FAST]

Everyone knows he was over the limit at the time of the crash. That's not the point. The law states that a breath sample must be obtained within a 3 hour time period. The cops failed to follow the law. The judge has no option but to exclude the evidence. The 3 hour time limit is in part to protect the public from having cops detain you for as long as they want.. Trust me, without this law asshole cops would certainly abuse their powers.
Nobody's happy the guy will walk on the impaired and over 80 charges, but don't blame the judge.

Stop letting your emotions get in the way of what is a simple case of the cops didn't follow procedures. Like it or not!

So in other words, all a drunk has to do is fake a medical emergency,...and the threat to society is free as a bird,...to repeat.

Let me know if you don't comprehend.

Plus,...the "cops detaining" issue,... is NOT what the idiot judge based his decision on,...and has NOTHING to do with the law the idiot judge quoted.

FAST

 

[Barca]

How can there be no allowance for "reasonable" flexibility? So a single minute after the 3 hours it allows criminals off the hook??? Mind-blowing.

 

[GameBoy27]

Gameboy, you've missed my point, probably because you aren't familiar with the phrase I used. Courts are allowed to admit evidence, even evidence which was obtained illegally, if to do so "would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute". That's the legal standard for admitting the evidence that the crown sought to introduce in this case.

1. The crown submitted evidence that showed dump truck driver Sukhvinder Rai registered nearly three times the legal limit of alcohol in his blood.

2. The evidence was ruled inadmissible because it was obtained too long after the crash.

3. With the breath test results no longer being accepted as evidence, the court heard there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on the impaired charges, leading the judge to acquit on the two charges.

 

[GameBoy27]

So in other words, all a drunk has to do is fake a medical emergency,...and the threat to society is free as a bird,...to repeat.

That trick has been tried before. If you fake a medical emergency and the cops suspect you've been drinking (and unable to provide a breath sample) they will take a blood sample so you're done.

Let me know if you don't comprehend.

Plus,...the "cops detaining" issue,... is NOT what the idiot judge based his decision on,...and has NOTHING to do with the law the idiot judge quoted.

FAST

The law is black and white. Exceed the 3 hour limit and there's little chance the evidence will be admissible. Exceed it by 2 hours and it will certainly be dismissed due to no reasonable prospect of conviction.

How can there be no allowance for "reasonable" flexibility? So a single minute after the 3 hours it allows criminals off the hook??? Mind-blowing.

We're talking 120 minutes after the fact, not 1.

 

[FAST]

A make work system,...nothing more

That trick has been tried before. If you fake a medical emergency and the cops suspect you've been drinking (and unable to provide a breath sample) they will take a blood sample so you're done.

So our judges don't have a problem with cops making a judgement on medical decision as to whether or not a drunk is faking,...then administer a blood test,...???

But a judge has a problem making a judgment on a late breathalyzer test,...!!!

I'm sorry,...I don't understand,...but as has been said here numerous times,...our "legal" system is not a justice system.

And all of the of legal game playing by the perpetrators, in the legal system,...repeatedly confirm this.

FAST

 

[Ridgeman08]

I'm beginning to think you are a lawyer too Gameboy... you certainly spew BS like one that has been spoon fed bull shit by the law society for an extended period of time.

If this guy gets off, it's a complete travesty, and proves the system is broken beyond repair.

Lawyers profession= scourge of society.

 

[GameBoy27]

So our judges don't have a problem with cops making a judgement on medical decision as to whether or not a drunk is faking,...then administer a blood test,...???

No, a judge wouldn't have a problem if police requested a blood sample be taken from a person involved in a collision, who was suspected of being under the influence and unable to provide a breath sample. This happens all the time when someone is taken to hospital by ambulance. This would fall within the law and therefore be admissible as evidence. Now if they waited 5 hours, I suspect a judge would also rule the evidence as inadmissible.

But a judge has a problem making a judgment on a late breathalyzer test,...!!!

Like I said, law is black and white on that one. There was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

I'm sorry,...I don't understand,...but as has been said here numerous times,...our "legal" system is not a justice system.

And all of the of legal game playing by the perpetrators, in the legal system,...repeatedly confirm this.

I'm with you on that one. The guy was drunk and got away it. Let's be thankful he didn't kill anyone. The cops should be fired for incompetence.

 

[GameBoy27]

I'm beginning to think you are a lawyer too Gameboy... you certainly spew BS like one that has been spoon fed bull shit by the law society for an extended period of time.

If this guy gets off, it's a complete travesty, and proves the system is broken beyond repair.

Lawyers profession= scourge of society.

No, I'm not a lawyer. One doesn't need to be to understand why this guy got off on the impaired and over 80 charges. Your beef shouldn't be with the law or judge in this case. It should be with the cops who didn't follow procedure. Seriously, cop 101 is you have 3 hours to give a suspected impaired driver a breathalyzer. There isn't a cop out there who doesn't know this, and beyond that time limit the evidence will be tossed.

 

[GameBoy27]

wait, i need to imagine this? you mean there are actually repercussions for cops when they don't follow the law?

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/01/25/jury-returns-in-murder-trial-for-const-james-forcillo-charged-in-shooting-death-of-sammy-yatim.html

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/01/28/toronto-police-officers-charged-with-obstruction-of-justice-perjury.html