CASE LAW - Bro v Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

BC Courts Coat of ArmsThe Honourable Mr. Justice Macaulay hears the constitutional argument against the current Immediate Roadside Prohibition laws in BC. He decides "... that the salutary effects of the IRP regime far outweigh the alleged deleterious effects. Any violation of s. 8 is, as a result, saved under s. 1. This allows the continued use of the IRP to deal with impaired drivers on our highways.

Link:

Read the Reasons for Judgment - Bro v Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

Comments

'Alleged deleterious effects' eh?

An interesting judgment, given the recent worrying news from the Mounties about the inaccuracy of the devices they're using to justify the instant penalties being handed out.

Shoot first, ask questions later?  

It's not the Devices

It's the users, unfortunately. These devices are more accurate than the old Borkenstein Breathalyzer model 900A which is what I started doing tests with way back when.

My personal experience with the new screening devices is that when they are properly calibrated and used they are accurate and effective.

Even those being tested contribute to the problem by playing games instead of providing samples. I can certainly understand not wanting to get into trouble but doing less than what you are supposed to can create its own issues.

If the high failure rate is due to the RCMP operators ...

... then how on earth can you justify the massive penalties they're empowered to inflict on those who they may have wrongly determined to be guilty?

I certainly wouldn't doubt your assertion that these devices are - potentially - quite accurate.  Very accurate, even, when maintained and calibrated by the police officers who are supposed to be doing this.

Heck, I don't doubt that their service weapons are also - potentially - quite accurate.  Very accurate, even, when maintained etc etc.

But when the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (and it's no coincidence that Steve Martin got removed from office after introducing this legislation; we can only hope that Suzanne Anton will be next to go) decided to try and take an end run around Federal Criminal Law - which seems to have worked just fine for the rest of this country, in terms of combating impaired driving - we have to think very hard, and very critically, about whether this is in fact good law.  There's no doubt in my mind that sooner or later, it all will be overturned in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Whether it be inaccurate devices, or inaccurate police officers using them, is irrelevant.

This is Outrageous

Driving at around 6:40pm, going out for dinner in the neighborhood,
cop runs out in the middle of the street, stops me dead in the left lane.
Tells me he can smell the alcohol on me and makes me pull into a parking lot for a breath sample.

Sample shows - 0.00 - Haven't drank any alcohol for months.

Cops lie - as how could the cop "smell" alcohol if I haven't touched it for months? Maybe from his own person.
Is that a reasonable search and seizure when all it takes is for the cop to say they "smell" alcohol on you - and you are automatically a subject to a criminal prosecution with-out constitutional protections and privileges.
 

Google Ads