If a Peace officer suspects a driver is affected or impaired by drugs, the most common charge issued is a 24 hour prohibition. If an officer issues you a Notice of 24 hour Prohibition for drugs the following occurs:
- You must surrender your driver’s license immediately
- The prohibition commences immediately upon service of the Notice and remains in effect for 24 hours.
- Your vehicle is impounded for 24 hours and you are responsible for paying all towing and storage costs prior to retrieving your vehicle.
A 24 hour prohibition for drugs is not a criminal charge. It is an administrative driving charge. However, it does go on your driving record and the consequences of receiving one of these can go beyond being unable to drive for a 24 hour period. It may result in your driving record being subject to a review from the Superintendent and a further lengthy prohibition under the Driver Improvement Program or a referral to the Responsible Driving Program.
Seeking a Review of 24-hour prohibition for drugs
Until recently, there was no administrative method through which to seek a review of a 24-hour prohibition for drugs. In 2018, a review process was put in place, if a driver is interested in using this dispute process, the review must be filed within 7 days, however it only presents the following two grounds for review:
- You were not the driver or did not have care or control of the vehicle
- The police officer failed to administer the prescribed physical coordination test when requested
In most circumstances, a driver will not fall under either of these grounds for review. It is rare that there is a question over who is the driver or whether they had care or control of the vehicle. It is also uncommon that the officer does not administer the prescribed physical coordination test in any event, but in particular when a driver requests one.
Challenging Prohibition on other grounds
Prior to the establishment of an administrative review procedure for a 24 hour prohibition. These prohibition disputes were taken directly to court through the process of Judicial Review. This option still remains and is often the only viable method through which to successfully challenge a 24 hour prohibition for drugs.
An officer is permitted to serve a 24 hour prohibition if there are reasonable grounds to believe a driver’s ability to drive is affected by a drug other than alcohol. At issue in these reviews is whether the officer who served the notice had the necessary reasonable and probable grounds.
The grounds of the officer are challenged on the standard of reasonableness. If a Judge determines that the decision is unreasonable and fails to display a decision making process on behalf of the officer which is justified, transparent, and intelligible. Then the prohibition must be set aside.
The advantage of Judicial Review in these cases is it allows us to challenge the decision making process the officer used directly in court. If the decision made by the officer to issue the prohibition was flawed you have the ability to fight it and should contact a lawyer today.
its not my intention to bring down their house of cards, but it never stops with these bureaucrats; they are never happy with the laws, they keep tightening the nose every year it seams with ridiculous legislation that prima facia appears to be unconstitutional for the most part, but of course the onus is placed on the accused/victim to spend years and thousands to take it to the top courts only to have a half dozen intervener’s interfering with the facts.
personally the ,08 was perfect, people could enjoy a drink after work or a dinner and still be legal, not have to live in fear if they see a cop, I went through several road blocks after having one or two without any concern or suspicial back in the day.
but something strikes me as odd on your page, you mention ICBC is a contract, in which they enforce the day lights out of you and me but has anyone stopped to challenge the legality of their contract…the rules of contract are simple and trule; consideration for both parties, open and full disclosure, entered into freely…i understand the driver’s licence is also a contract as well…wich I was not given full disclosure, not do I agree with them modifying the contract whenever it suites them!
forgive me, but somewhere I read there were “Principles of Fundamental Justice” that were the backbone of law, but to me it appears the government is above the law.