Strange thing here — the RCMP have issued a press release saying:
On November 30, 2011, the BC Supreme Court determined that for those who fail or refuse the roadside screening device, police could no longer issue an Immediate Roadside Prohibition (90-day driving ban) and that police could only issue an administrative driving prohibition, and/or proceed criminally.
Of course, anyone who has been paying attention to what has gone on in the Court would know that this is factually incorrect. The 90-day IRP for alleged refusal is still good law — the Court specifically indicated that in the December 23rd ruling. Noteworthy is that the RCMP have blamed the increase in DUIs over the Christmas season on people being confused about the law. Is it not the RCMP who are confused? (Note: they may change the press release once they read this blog.)
The Police position is confusing, and as we predicted, the entire IRP scheme is muddled badly now. By delaying things, many people will end up serving the entire prohibition before they even have a shot at a remedy.
As for impaired driving charges, we are still geared up and ready to defend them anywhere in British Columbia, and if you have an Administrative Driving Prohibition (ADP) do not wait to give us a call. You have only 7 days to file your Application for Review, and you should hire your lawyer long before the 7 days are up.
As for “Over .08” charges, some tips to remember:
The white sheet of paper that has your breath readings entitled “Certificate of Qualified Technician” (see: Certificate) is evidence and the one you were given by the Police may end up before the Court. Please preserve this paper in the condition it is now in. Do not write on it or set your coffee on it.
Do not assume that the readings are accurate. We have two of the big beige police breathalyzers (the BAC Datamaster) and reams of internal police documents showing some of the problems with them. Ironically, a great deal of BAC Datamaster material was included in the material we accumulated in our investigation of the ASDs. So our law office now has more material than ever to deal with breath-test results.
Similarly, if they say you refused a breath demand, our lawyers are in good shape right now to defend the charge. All of the defences afforded by the Charter of Rights are back in play, so you can challenge the manner in which the police dealt with you. And you have a fair opportunity at trial to question the evidence of the police.
Each January our firm receives a number of calls from people who delayed calling a lawyer when they got arrested for impaired driving because they wanted to make the call when everyone was back at work. Do not wait to call a criminal lawyer and do not rely on the RCMP for legal advice. There are deadlines that you must comply with to deal with the allegations. We are ready right now to deal with your 90-day ADP, impaired, over .08mg% or refusal charge.
Did yesterday’s post seem harsh?
We want our clients to know that there are going to be a number of significant problems coming in the future, and we do not want to sugar-coat it. If you read the look on the Premier’s face each time the topic is brought up, you can see that she is willing to spend a huge amount of taxpayer money and Government resources to deny you a remedy and to make you serve all of the punishment and pay all of the expenses of the IRP.
For the Liberals this is life and death. They cannot admit a mistake (see HST) and they cannot afford to bleed any more support to the Conservatives. It seems likely that Mr. Dix is rubbing his hands together.
So what we see is that each time there is a reasonable course to follow, the Government takes the angry/desperate course instead. It seems vindictive. Remember, they are fighting for their political future and as many have observed, politics in BC is a bloodsport.
This truly is a Red Alert. The Government is going to ask for the Court to order each case returned for a new hearing in June and July with slightly changed rules. They have an obvious interest in each 90-day IRP being upheld. This is why we have been reluctant to pull the trigger on a class-action suit.