Impaired Driving

[Malibook]

It does not take much to fail a breath test and it does not mean the person is wasted.

There are people who can't handle one drink and there are numerous drivers who are far more dangerous with no drinks.

Like I said, a hell of a lot of people would fail a breath test without even knowing it and the vast majority of them are fine drivers.

I think every place that sells alcohol must have a free breathalyzer so that people know if they are considered legally impaired or not.

 

[Malibook]

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.
Just my 2 cents..

That is a great idea.
Let's just get rid of all these expensive courts.
If the cops charge someone, they must be guilty so just throw the book at them.

 

[lickrolaine]

the right lawyer and around 10 grand and the case will be thrown out.If you think 10 grand is a lot,weigh it agains insurance,the initial fine if found guilty,and time in jail and 10 grand looks good.To the die-hards that want to throw the book at this guy,how many high profile people charged with this have ever been convicted?There was the one case where that (politically connected) Russian guy(drunk)killed a pedestrian and never stood trial,I think in Ottawa,he was whisked out of the country for awhile though.

 

[Tragically_Glib]

Wow, what happened, my head is spinning.

This is one of the most ridiculous threads I've ever read.

This is amazing! This is the most ridiculous response I've ever read and it’s in one of the most ridiculous threads you ever read. It’s beyond belief, the odds are surely incalculable.

The only advice to the individual in question is get a lawyer.

Take a little break from your crusade and read her question, she simply wanted to know - “if anyone has had a successful defense against impaired driving.”

You displayed the "Wisdom of Solomon" with your advice to “get a lawyer”. That answer never occurred to me for many reasons, the main one being “SHE DIDN’T ASK US IF HER FRIEND SHOULD GET A F$#ING LAWYER!

don't listen to the anecdotal urban legends being regurgitated on this board.

My account is accurate, I know, I was there. More details can be made available if there is any interest.

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.

Thank you for spotting our reckless commentary, and for, the well deserved spanking you gave us all.
The people that, in your words were “talking about time limits, the Charter, and all sorts of garbage” were providing information that relates to the question posed.

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.

Oh, forgive me for referencing a case that may have been of interest to a person that “is wondering if anyone has had a successful defense against the impaired driving”. I used an example that is easily verifiable to avoid being accused of “regurgitating, anecdotal urban legends”, I hate when that happens!

(and as far as I know, her case is under appeal).

Nope, done deal, she beat it. I’m surprised that you would utter such garbage without any understanding of the facts.

We have been given virtually no information about this incident, other than that someone was charged with impaired driving.

We were given all of the information necessary to answer her question. Here it is again just for you: “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.”

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.

Where do you get the effrontery to toss accusations like that around. You are clearly insane.

 

[james t kirk]

He's entitled to due process of law.

After that, lock him up and throw away the key.

 

[DudleyDoRight]

....
Where do you get the effrontery to toss accusations like that around. You are clearly insane.

Uh...good posting, my man. Too bad you're so glib.

 

[thompo69]

Well, I will apologize for my sanctimonious attitude in my original reply. I will pass it off to the time of night, and the issue at hand. Having lost a friend to a drunk driver, I get more than a little touchy on the subject.

First, to bring it back to the original question, "has anyone mounted a succesful defense to an impaired driving charge" (I am paraphrasing), the answer is obviously "yes." Now, in hindsight, I may have read some of the other responses a little quickly, but what I was reacting to so harshly was I read them as a series of "here's how to beat the charges" messages which got under my skin, as they are obviously related to a very specific set of circumstances. This was my point -- the anecdotal evidence isn't particularly helpful as each case is unique. But, as was so helpfully pointed out to me, the original poster wasn't looking for specific strategy for the case at hand.

Now, on to the two specific issues that came up as rebuttals. First, the time limits. I will not doubt that someone may have been succesful in defending against a DWI due to the length of time between breathalyzer and blood test. That is obviously a factor. My contention was with the absolute nature of the time limit. While two hours may have been the case for you at the time (15 years ago as you point out), the criminal law and jurisprudence has evolved since then, as has the technology for measuring blood alcohol. The particular circumstances would have to be evaluated, but I accept your broader point that time delays are an important factor to consider and evaluate.

As for Maggie Trudeau, again, my point was that she had a particular set of circumstances that allowed her to use a Charter argument, and her positive ruling had a lot to do with the officer having changed his story. I will, however, point out that I am apparently not the only one who believes the case is under appeal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Trudeau

While the inital article cited indicated that there was no indication that the Crown would appeal, this is quite normal with complex cases (which Charter issues are), and the decision would not be made until some time after.

 

[Tragically_Glib]

Awsome post thompo69

Thanks for clearing up the misunderstandings and correcting me on the Maggie issue.

Well, I will apologize for my sanctimonious attitude in my original reply. I will pass it off to the time of night, and the issue at hand. Having lost a friend to a drunk driver, I get more than a little touchy on the subject.

First, to bring it back to the original question, "has anyone mounted a succesful defense to an impaired driving charge" (I am paraphrasing), the answer is obviously "yes." Now, in hindsight, I may have read some of the other responses a little quickly, but what I was reacting to so harshly was I read them as a series of "here's how to beat the charges" messages which got under my skin, as they are obviously related to a very specific set of circumstances. This was my point -- the anecdotal evidence isn't particularly helpful as each case is unique. But, as was so helpfully pointed out to me, the original poster wasn't looking for specific strategy for the case at hand.

Now, on to the two specific issues that came up as rebuttals. First, the time limits. I will not doubt that someone may have been succesful in defending against a DWI due to the length of time between breathalyzer and blood test. That is obviously a factor. My contention was with the absolute nature of the time limit. While two hours may have been the case for you at the time (15 years ago as you point out), the criminal law and jurisprudence has evolved since then, as has the technology for measuring blood alcohol. The particular circumstances would have to be evaluated, but I accept your broader point that time delays are an important factor to consider and evaluate.

As for Maggie Trudeau, again, my point was that she had a particular set of circumstances that allowed her to use a Charter argument, and her positive ruling had a lot to do with the officer having changed his story. I will, however, point out that I am apparently not the only one who believes the case is under appeal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Trudeau

While the inital article cited indicated that there was no indication that the Crown would appeal, this is quite normal with complex cases (which Charter issues are), and the decision would not be made until some time after.

 

[MarkII]

All this talk about how to beat a drunk driving charge.

The original poster didn't indicate if this was the first charge...get my drift.

I'm in recovery right now ( 18 months) and there is an ashole that keeps going on about how he's facing jail time in Quebec for drunk driving...his third charge. Boo fuckin hoo! I feel no sympathy what so ever.

I may have drank..but never ever behind the wheel. Thats one thing I would not ever do. I ttc'd to the sports bar and cabbed it home every time with no exception.

This aspect of a good lawyer and 10G's gets you off...it just means someone has to die before that persons license is pulled for good. Sad but true.

Yes there are different rules for the rich...but car versus human...human loses. Doesn't matter how much money you have.

M2

 

[Papi Chulo]

I think every place that sells alcohol must have a free breathalyzer so that people know if they are considered legally impaired or not.

Legally impaired??.. don't you mean so that people can see if they may have a blood alcohol level higher than the legal limit?.. as a person's ability to drive can be impaired by many things other than alcohol (lack of sleep, emotion, prescriptions, narcotics)

 

[Malibook]

Legally impaired??.. don't you mean so that people can see if they may have a blood alcohol level higher than the legal limit?.. as a person's ability to drive can be impaired by many things other than alcohol (lack of sleep, emotion, prescriptions, narcotics)

Yes, that is what I mean.

I meant to imply that legally impaired does not necessarily mean a person's driving ability is impaired.

Some people seem to assume that to fail a breathalyzer one needs to be hammered drunk.

 

[lickrolaine]

I think every place that sells alcohol must have a free breathalyzer so that people know if they are considered legally impaired or not.

M.A.D.D are the biggest group in disagreance with that statement.They are totally against the sale of any device like that and say that it promotes drinking and driving.Go figure.

 

[Papi Chulo]

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....

If your friend likes to drink & drive, maybe he should have been living in BC, where it would not affect his insurance rates unless he had a claim (hit someone / something.)