First off no it is not me...but a male friend of mine got picked up for impaired driving and is wondering if anyone has had a successful defense against the impaired driving. PM me if you want....
Impaired Driving
- Thread starter Certainly Not
- Start date
drlove said:
I'm not so sure. The way the laws are in Ontario with the soft headed judges, if your "friend" is a member of any of the various visible minority groups he might try claiming he was forced to drink to try and forget the horrible oppression his people suffered at the hands of the white man 300 years ago.
There is no jail term if it the first offence. If you try to beat it in court you will need a lot of money as lawyers with any success in getting people off are very expensive. IN the neibourhood of 8-10,000 dollars. It all depends on the facts at the time of the arrest. What they admitted to and said to police will have a lot to do with having any chance to beat it. If your friend was drunk and driving it is best to swallow the bullet cause your license is gone from the moment of the charge and if you lose in court after months amnd months of trying to beat you still will be without a license for a minimum of one year after court case is finalized.kitaa said:
I disagree. No need to swallow the bullet. Biting it is enough.clearwaterjim said:
Seriously, though, if he was impaired he deserves whatever he gets and nobody should offer advice as to how he can get off. Do you want another drunk driver on the street potentially doing damage or worse to a loved one? If he gets punished maybe he won't do it again.
Try telling that to the numerous people who have fought and won or the lawyers who specialize in these cases.drlove said:
There are several possible defences.
One very good defence is that a breath test administered within 15 minutes of the last drink is considered an improper procedure.
Residual alcohol on one's breath can easily give a false reading.
Even if you happen to fail the tests at the station, you would not have even been at the station but for this improper procedure.
This is a violation of your rights.
Another potential violation is if they try to pressure you into taking the tests before you have spoken to your lawyer or Duty counsel.
Once they process you and you tell them that you wish to talk to a lawyer, they must leave you alone unless they are simply checking on your well being.
Any other conversations prior to you speaking to DC can be construed as undue coersion.
Even if you subsequently agree to the tests (actually, this is probably a good idea) the argument can be made that first of all, unless they are checking on your well being, they have no business even talking to you, and also you were not fully aware of your rights and so there is no way that you could have unequivocally waived them.
They must get you in touch with Duty counsel within a reasonable amount of time (I think it is 2 hours).
Most important is that you need a very good lawyer who specializes in these cases.
Highly preferably a local one who is familiar with the judges, prosecutors, and maybe even the cops.
Careless Driving plea bargains are quite common especially if they know your talented lawyer.
As Clearwaterjim stated, proper lawyers are not cheap.
I have no sympathy for those who cause damage and injuries but if every person who left every bar, rink, golf course, etc. was pulled over and tested, a hell of a lot would fail (including numerous cops).
I would not crucify someone just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time especially if the cops are targetting a particular establishment and singling out individuals without cause for a fishing expedition.
I would not crucify someone just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time especially if the cops are targetting a particular establishment and singling out individuals without cause for a fishing expedition.
Good advice Malibook. I beat it twice when I was a dumb kid, back in my teens and early twenties. I've since learned my lesson and have never done it again. The first time I used a family friend laywer who accepted legal aid as a favour. The breathalyzer on the road doesn't count and the cops have two hours to give you the real test at the station. Mine was two hours and two minutes so the case was dismissed.
The second time, I was pulling out of the parking lot of a popular bar and the cops were waiting for people. I faked blowing into the roadside test and kept coughing. On the fourth try, the cop told me he was going charge me for "refusing to take a breathalyzer" and I faked it and coughed again he subsequently charged me for this. I got a doctors note because I just so happned to have a bad cough the week before, but I spent a lot of money on the best D&D lawyer in Toronto, who also later got two of my friends off of D&D charges. My second case never even made it to trial, because I had no criminal record, the doctors note and my lawyer was friends with the judge and cop.
I'm not trying to give advice on how to beat it, but it can be done.
The second time, I was pulling out of the parking lot of a popular bar and the cops were waiting for people. I faked blowing into the roadside test and kept coughing. On the fourth try, the cop told me he was going charge me for "refusing to take a breathalyzer" and I faked it and coughed again he subsequently charged me for this. I got a doctors note because I just so happned to have a bad cough the week before, but I spent a lot of money on the best D&D lawyer in Toronto, who also later got two of my friends off of D&D charges. My second case never even made it to trial, because I had no criminal record, the doctors note and my lawyer was friends with the judge and cop.
I'm not trying to give advice on how to beat it, but it can be done.
To those of you who say "...if he was impaired he deserves it..." or some variant thereof, I say pshaw! The penalties for drunk driving in this country are out of proportion to the crime in the vast majority of cases (the result of a very vocal pressure group and the selective manipulation of statistics by the same people). Speeding, if you care to know, kills more than drunk driving...but I digress (purely to enrage the masses)... In the final analysis, being charged does NOT mean he is guilty, and he still has the right to defend himself if he desires, your desires for frontier justice notwithstanding.
Your friend can and should fight. I have personally beaten such a charge twice (oh horrors! quick - lock me up and throw away the key) using two very different - both quite accurate and true for those of you who are about to pounce upon my obvious scofflaw nature - defences. There are many defences, and your friend should avail himself of all of them. He will need to retain a lawyer or paralegal, however, since much of the heavy lifting in crafting a defence is best done by someone with some experience in the matter.
Your friend can and should fight. I have personally beaten such a charge twice (oh horrors! quick - lock me up and throw away the key) using two very different - both quite accurate and true for those of you who are about to pounce upon my obvious scofflaw nature - defences. There are many defences, and your friend should avail himself of all of them. He will need to retain a lawyer or paralegal, however, since much of the heavy lifting in crafting a defence is best done by someone with some experience in the matter.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Ignored
Most Cops operate as if the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms didn’t exist. I think they view the Charter as an unreasonable intrusion on their authority that can be neutralize with a few deceptive entries in their report.
The outstanding post from Malibook prompted me to share the following, it illustrates what a good lawyer can accomplish.
The lawyer “a friend of mine” (AFOM) used to defend him in an impaired charge is a former prosecutor that is married to an active prosecutor. His status allows him to “discuss” things with certain people behind the scenes and more importantly influence the trial dates. Having a flexible judge and understanding prosecutor when you go to trial is an advantage few lawyers can offer. This lawyer told AFOM he would get very little notice before the trial so be ready. Well, AFOM got a call at 9:00 one morning instructing him to be at a location by 10:30. He showed up and it was over in 10 minutes, the charges were dropped by the prosecutor in light of Charter violations AFOM’s lawyer pointed out, well, that helped
It is important you understand your rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that law enforcement personnel routinely disregard them aware they broke the law.
BTW: The architect of the Charter, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, would be happy to know his ex-wife used it to beat non-other than an impaired driving charge.
Read all about it: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051122/trudeau_case_051122/20051122?hub=Canada
Most Cops operate as if the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms didn’t exist. I think they view the Charter as an unreasonable intrusion on their authority that can be neutralize with a few deceptive entries in their report.
The outstanding post from Malibook prompted me to share the following, it illustrates what a good lawyer can accomplish.
The lawyer “a friend of mine” (AFOM) used to defend him in an impaired charge is a former prosecutor that is married to an active prosecutor. His status allows him to “discuss” things with certain people behind the scenes and more importantly influence the trial dates. Having a flexible judge and understanding prosecutor when you go to trial is an advantage few lawyers can offer. This lawyer told AFOM he would get very little notice before the trial so be ready. Well, AFOM got a call at 9:00 one morning instructing him to be at a location by 10:30. He showed up and it was over in 10 minutes, the charges were dropped by the prosecutor in light of Charter violations AFOM’s lawyer pointed out, well, that helped
It is important you understand your rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that law enforcement personnel routinely disregard them aware they broke the law.
BTW: The architect of the Charter, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, would be happy to know his ex-wife used it to beat non-other than an impaired driving charge.
Read all about it: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051122/trudeau_case_051122/20051122?hub=Canada
This is one of the most ridiculous threads I've ever read. The only advice to the individual in question is get a lawyer -- don't listen to the anecdotal urban legends being regurgitated on this board. People talking about time limits, the Charter, and all sorts of garbage without any context or understanding of the facts. Each case is unique and will be evaluated by a judge on its merits. Just because Maggie Trudeau managed to pull off a Charter challenge in her particular circumstances doesn't mean everyone can play the same game (and as far as I know, her case is under appeal). We have been given virtually no information about this incident, other than that someone was charged with impaired driving.
I also have to say I'm rather disturbed about the flippant attitude a lot of people seem to have towards impaired driving. I just hope the next time you decide to get tanked and drive yourself home, you only end up getting yourself killed.
I also have to say I'm rather disturbed about the flippant attitude a lot of people seem to have towards impaired driving. I just hope the next time you decide to get tanked and drive yourself home, you only end up getting yourself killed.
Which ones are the "anecdotal urban legends" that you discuss? I don't claim to be a lawyer, but having been charged twice and receiving extensive legal advice gives me some experience on the topic. The "garbage time limits" you mention are legal facts and if proven, not open to judicial interpretation, at least as explained to me by my lawyer and also by the judge when rendering his verdict at the time (about 15 years ago). Maybe some of the criminal lawyers here can shed some more light on the topic. And, thanks for your helpful contribution to the thread to "get a lawyer".thompo69 said:
He was caught D and D, there is no defense...you commit the crime, and you pay for it. Fucks like that should have the key thrown at them. I know, I was almost killed by a drunk driver. The first breathaliizer he blew 0.318, and the second 0.324. Apparently most individuals go into an alcohol induced coma at 0.30. Just my 2 cents...
