It’s hard to believe what the police rely on as symptoms of drunk driving. Of course some driving behaviour, such as weaving across lane lines, is an obvious indication that something may be wrong. Still, with increased regularity clients report to us that they were pulled over for driving too correctly. Should the police pull you over because you don’t have symptoms of drunk driving?
We’ve noticed a significant increase in people contacting us after having been pulled over for specious reasons. Often what happens is the driver is stopped by the police, the officer purports to have seen some driving behaviour that they claim as one of the symptoms of drunk driving, the driver is forced to blow into an ASD roadside and blows 000. This all takes place as the officer berates the driver, wrongly accuses them of poor driving and detains them unlawfully.
You may have noticed that something is wrong here. Most of the symptoms of drunk driving that they teach the police lack an objective component.
Of course there are driving behaviours that are reasonably considered as symptoms of drunk driving. Taken on their own there may be justification to pull a vehicle over for further investigation. Certainly, however, none of the symptoms of drunk driving are sufficient to conclude much of anything without further investigation.
What they teach the police
These are the symptoms of drunk driving that the police are trained to be on the lookout for:
Wide turning – During a turn, the distance between the turning vehicle and the typical center of the turn is greater than normal.
Turning abruptly or illegally – Turning with excessive speed; turning sharply from the wrong lane; making a U illegally; turning from outside a designated turn lane.
Straddling the line – Vehicle is moving straight ahead with the center lane line between the left-hand and right-hand wheels.
Driver is too focused – Tightly gripping the steering wheel and has their eyes fixed ahead. They may have their face really close to the windshield.
Driver is barely focused – Driver is slouching in the seat or appears to be falling asleep.
Almost striking something – Vehicle almost strikes a stationary object or another moving vehicle.
Drifting – Vehicle drifts across the lane marker into another lane, then the driver makes a correction and the vehicle drifts back across the lane marker.
Weaving – Vehicle alternately moves toward one side of the roadway and then the other, creating a zig-zag course.
Swerving – Vehicle makes an abrupt turn away from a generally straight course. This is assumed to be a correction step.
Driving not on roadway – Vehicle driving at the edge of the road, on the shoulder, off the road entirely, straight through turn-only lanes or on a sidewalk.
Driving slowly – Vehicle is driving at a speed that is below the speed limit.
Driving fast and stopping fast – Acceleration or deceleration that is significantly more rapid than that required by the traffic.
Stopping for no reason – Vehicle stops in the traffic lane, but the stop is not caused by traffic conditions, traffic signals, an emergency situation, etc.
Stopping inappropriately – The vehicle stops in a crosswalk; far short of an intersection; on a walkway; across lanes; for a green traffic signal; or for a flashing yellow traffic signal.
Braking erratically – Driver brakes unnecessarily, rides the brakes, or brakes in a jerky manner.
Following too closely – Vehicle is following another vehicle while not maintaining the legal minimum separation.
Tires on the line – Either set of tires is consistently on the line.
Driving into oncoming traffic or crossing traffic – Driving in the opposing lane; backing into traffic; failing to yield the right-of-way; driving the wrong way on a one-way street.
Slow response to traffic lights – The driver remains stopped at the intersection for an abnormally long period of time after the traffic signal has turned green.
Signalling inconsistent with driving – Failing to signal a turn or lane change; signalling opposite to the turn or lane change executed; signalling constantly with no accompanying driving action (symptom of age); and driving with four-way hazard flashers on.
Headlights off – Vehicle driven with both headlights off during a time when the use of headlights is required.
You may have noticed that something is wrong here. Most of the symptoms of drunk driving that they teach the police lack an objective component. In other words, most of the symptoms from this list are broad enough that the police can either make it up or categorize some generally normal behaviour as falling within these definitions.
The video often tells the story
In some criminal impaired driving cases we obtain video from the police cruiser. We are so often surprised when we watch it. Typically, the horrible driving behaviour described in the police particulars is either non-existent in the video, or equally consistent with a sober driver. We have been told that the reluctance of the police to accept in-car video and personal video cameras is because they don’t want to be questioned and the conviction rate would drop. In other words, they don’t want innocent people to be acquitted. How ridiculous is that?
“Alternative” Symptoms of Drunk Driving
Police in BC have been given a free run in certain respects because of the IRP scheme. They don’t need to worry about being questioned about their behaviour at the roadside because with IRPs they are never cross examined. If they lie, they won’t be caught. This is bad for our justice system.
So one consequence of the IRP scheme is that the police appear to be behaving badly, at least in the sense that we now hear of really bad behaviour much more often these days particularly in drunk driving investigations. Another consequence is that now often people report to us that the police were relying on some “alternative” symptoms of drunk driving.
We live in a pluralist society. Let’s all embrace “alternativeness” or some such thing.
What alternative symptoms are now in use in BC? One client reported to us that the police told him that they pulled him over in his mechanics truck because he was driving the speed limit. We got the police report. The officer said in her report that driving the speed limit was a symptom of drunk driving.
How the hell is proper lawful driving a symptom of drunk driving? Isn’t the point to identify people who are unsafe to drive?
That fellow refused to blow into the ASD which seems abundantly reasonable under the circumstances.
I’m sorry… What was that?
Another driver reported to us that the cop told him he was pulled over for signalling his lane change when no other cars were on the bridge. Okay. Um, what’s the problem with that? The driver was told that it was a symptom of a person trying to hide that they were a drunk driver.
If you claim that you don’t have a drinking problem, then you must be in denial. It’s that type of reasoning.
Lucky for that driver, the ASD reading was 000. What would have happened if it was a defective device? IRP of 90 days most likely.
Then there was our client who was pulled over because he was wearing a Canucks jersey. The cop actually said in the report that he pulled him over because he was wearing a Canucks jersey! The officer said he noticed no physical symptoms, there was no odour of liquor, no admission of consumption and none of the traditional symptoms of drunk driving.
Poor schmuck. We’re Canucks fans but we need to advise you to leave your jersey at home. Just another free bit of smart legal advice from Acumen Law!
More “Alternative” Symptoms
As I was writing this I received an email from another poor schmuck. He was pulled over, according to the officer, for driving too consistently a consistent relative distance from the line. It sounds like it was about a 30 minute ordeal. After he blew 000 they kept him there and insulted him for a while, looked through his car hoping to find some grounds for some other police consequences. He was clean so they had to let him go.
What if he was on his way to the airport? Granny might have found her way home in any event.
How often does something like this now take place in BC? It’s impossible to know.
Can you sue?
Sure. If you’re strip searched as part of an unlawful detention you might get as much as $5000. Maybe a few dollars more. The Courts in BC haven’t been generous when the police behave badly. For the 30 minutes lost at the roadside, humiliation etc. you might be looking at something like $1000. Do you think a $1000 judgment would change police behaviour? Do you think it’s worthwhile to sue for $1000 (or less)?
Nope.
The IRP scheme has the unpleasant consequence of condoning and thereby encouraging bad police behaviour. Why would anyone have expected anything different?