Most people have a sense that DUI enforcement policy isn’t merely focused on public safety. People assume that it’s political in some manner or another because, generally speaking, the public has become cynical, suspicious of government, politics and the police.
Much of the public suspicion we see is not justified, and we say that because we’ve been doing this for decades, and we are deeply involved in it on a day-to-day basis.
Still, After years of defending impaired driving cases in British Columbia, certain patterns are clear to us. Some are deeply unsettling. They are not always readily apparent to the public. Occasionally they veer into the realm of being illegal. Together they raise serious questions about how DUI enforcement actually works in this province.
When DUI enforcement becomes political
This week, it was reported that a Surrey City Councillor contacted the Chief of the Surrey Police Service to complain about impaired driving enforcement near a golf club linked to that councillor. The allegation was that the police were being pressured to reduce enforcement in that specific area. If true, this is a significant concern. Police enforcement is supposed to be independent. It is not supposed to bend based on who is politically connected, which businesses complain or which neighbourhoods have influence.
There was some indication that the Chief of Police was receptive to this inquiry. That seems unlikely to us, but businesses often find DUI enforcement out front as a deterrent to people visiting their business. The connection of the City Councillor to the golf club obviously raises the specter of political interference in DUI enforcement. The fact of the matter is many people drink at golf clubs, and those people who are impaired pose a risk to the rest of us on the road.
Impaired driving enforcement should never be negotiated behind closed doors. If this story turns out to be true, the legitimacy of the system is undermined.
Awards, quotas, and the distortion of investigations
Another unsettling feature of DUI enforcement in British Columbia is the Alexa award. Police officers receive this award when they reach certain thresholds for impaired driving enforcement, including IRPs, ADPs, and criminal code arrests. In practice, this has consequences. Police are motivated to get awards. Receiving the awards can lead to greater opportunities for advancement, promotion, and status in the community.
We regularly see situations where one officer initiates an impaired driving investigation then calls in another officer to take over. Sometimes the second officer has yet to reach their numbers required for an award. Sometimes the original officer steps back and only assists. Sometimes the second officer simply prepares the report so their name is on it to ensure they get the award.
On paper, the file shows a single investigating officer. In reality, that officer may only have a small connection to the investigation.
In IRP and ADP cases, the tribunal only receives the evidence of the named officer. Although police are not restricted to simply submitting a narrative from one officer, in practice they only submit a police report from one officer to ensure they’re less likely to be caught in a lie. The involvement of other officers is often apparent, however, and sometimes the client has information about it or the timing reveals that the police were detaining the individual and delaying the process for another officer to arrive. Typically, we see the timing adjusted to try to obfuscate any delays.
This is not a harmless administrative shortcut. Such delays in roadside breath testing almost always accompany a Charter violation. It’s also a distortion of the process. It forces officers to shade the truth to preserve a narrative that fits the paperwork. It’s officers teaching each other that the truth doesn’t matter, but the award does. When enforcement is driven by awards rather than accuracy, the reliability of the entire system is impugned.
Fishing outside private liquor stores
Many find it disturbing that police in BC position themselves outside of private liquor stores and pull over drivers who attend private liquor stores as they leave. This almost never happens with government liquor stores. It is a chronic pattern with the exception of Vancouver and certain officers are known to go fishing in the liquor store parking lot.
It is noteworthy that it never happens outside of government liquor stores. Yes, some people attend private liquor stores after drinking. The same is true of government liquor stores. Yet enforcement overwhelmingly targets one and not the other. People are stopped within moments of purchasing alcohol. Some cannot provide breath samples due to medical or physical limitations. Some had a drink just before entering the store and do not want to explain that roadside. Some end up facing refusals that carry severe consequences.
What makes this particularly unsettling is the mindset that appears to accompany it. The stop takes on a hunting quality. The driver is no longer a citizen to be assessed; they become a likely catch, and that framing matters. It shapes how discretion is exercised and judgment is applied.
Like the example of the golf club above, it poses a difficulty for the business owners. People don’t want to be stopped and scrutinized even if they’ve had nothing to drink, and so it discourages people from going to private liquor stores knowing that this is what they will face.
Who wants to be stopped by a police officer and subject to a mandatory breath demand when you’ve done nothing wrong? And the reason that you’re being tested? Because you went to a private liquor store.
Now you will note that the liquor store managers are not city councillors and don’t think that it’s their place to phone the police to ask them to stop enforcing outside of their liquor store.
Why this matters
Impaired driving enforcement carries enormous consequences. Immediate roadside prohibitions and criminal charges constrain someone’s license, their job, and their ability to function in daily life. When enforcement is political, reward-driven, or selectively targeted, public confidence is eroded.
DUI enforcement does not need to be creepy to be effective. It simply needs to be applied without political interference, without incentives and applied equally across the board.
If you are facing an impaired driving prohibition or charge in British Columbia, it’s critical to have a lawyer who understands how these cases actually unfold, not just how they are supposed to. At Acumen Law, we deal with these issues every day. Give us a call, send us a text, or an email, and we can help you with your driving matter.