Tags: dui
07/25/08
Impaired Driving Law Amendments Call for Drug Testing
Link: http://blog.legalaction.ca/impaired-driving-law-amendments-call-for-drug-testing/#more-101
Facebook 
Del.icio.us 
Reddit 
Reddit 
Mister-Wong
MixxIndustry News Philip Alexiu
As the National Post reported last month, the federal government has finally set a new law in motion that will take aim at drivers on drugs, in an effort to curb impaired drivers under multiple substances. From the article:
OTTAWA - Drivers who get behind the wheel while high on drugs will face roadside testing and they could be ordered to surrender urine, blood or saliva samples at the police station under a controversial new law that takes effect one week from today.
Drivers who refuse to comply will be subject to a minimum $1,000 fine — the same penalty for refusing the breathalyzer.
The new measures, which grant police more power to administer drug tests, comes after Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) and other groups advocated for changes in Canada’s Criminal Code.
The new law may have spurred a contentious response however, as drug tests from blood and urine samples may reveal that illicit drugs have been taken, but cannot indicate that the user was impaired at the time of driving. What kind of charges can be laid in the light of such evidence may be an issue for intense debate in courtrooms across Ontario.
A police officer would have to propose drug tests after noticeable impairment and may even have to see the drug being taken by the driver to have a sound case against the accused. Car searches may also be subject to future controversy.
Beginning July 2, drivers suspected of being high will be required to perform physical tests at the side of the road, such as walking a straight line. If they fail, they will be sent to the police station for further testing by a trained “drug recognition expert” and then be forced to give blood, urine, or saliva samples if they flunk the second test as well.
Critics say the new law could cause more problems that it solves, particularly because there is no reliable scientific test to detect drug use. Also, while there is a measurable link between blood alcohol levels and driving ability, research is lacking to equate drug quantity and impairment.
Another potential problem in testing bodily fluids is that they can detect marijuana smoked several days or months earlier and the effect has worn off.
The laws’ impact on road safety will surely be under intense scrutiny in the coming weeks, as summer holidays and activities see drivers indulge in recreational drug and alcohol use. Finding clear evidence of impairment will be a challenge for police and may rely on the presentation of physical materials found at the scene to hold up in court.
Keep coming to Legal Action Blog to get more updates on this new law and feel free to leave your comments below. We are happy to answer your questions and concerns. Keep in mind that we will be screening all the comments before posting them, to check for confidentiality concerns.
07/15/08
Amendments to Ontario’s Impaired Driving Laws
Link: http://blog.legalaction.ca/amendments-to-ontario%e2%80%99s-impaired-driving-laws/#more-99
Industry News Elena Mindel
As of July 2, Ontario’s controversial amendments to its impaired driving laws went into effect. These amendments give more power to police officers administering road and bodily fluid tests, as well as circumventing some legal loopholes that charged drivers often use to beat convictions.
From the National Post:
The amendments will make it easier for police to obtain blood samples after serious automobile accidents in which alcohol is believed to be a factor and reduce the opportunities for defendants to use “evidence to the contrary” arguments to try to avoid a conviction.
“The legislation will make it more difficult for those who drink, drive and kill to escape liability,” said Robert Solomon, a law professor at the University of Western Ontario in London.
The ‘evidence to the contrary’ arguments are used by defense lawyers to contest seemingly objective findings of blood tests, breathalyzers, etc. A frequently used example is the ‘last drink’ defense where lawyers argue that the accused was over the .08 limit because they ‘chugged’ their last drink, giving it less time to absorb in their body before hitting the road.
Other arguments could also state that drivers were stopped for improper purpose, a violation for their Charter rights.
Advocates against impaired driving have widely criticized defense lawyers of using these arguments inappropriately and in many cases judges have accepted them. It now looks as if these critics are seeing the changes they want.
With the new amendments, an ‘evidence to the contrary’ argument can only go so far as to cite malfunctions in the police breathalyzer tests and must provide clear evidence that the driver was not over the limit.
The new legislation has not come without controversy, as many legal experts have challenged the changes.
This restriction was questioned by the Canadian Bar Association in a presentation to Parliament last summer. “It would be particularly difficult for an accused to raise a reasonable doubt based on instrument malfunction, given that the instrument is in the custody of the authorities,” said the legal organization. It called for a “mandatory protocol” to ensure the reliability of testing devices.
Whether the protocols can successfully ensure reliable testing is still up in the air. It is likely that these amendments will face constitutional challenges in the courts and may create greater backlog in Ontario’s justice system. At this point, it looks like defense lawyers will have to make more assured arguments if they want to ward off convictions in the future.
12/08/07
Near Drunk Driving Dilemma
Near Drunk Driving Dilemma
New changes to Drinking And Driving Laws?. Live at 5:30 CHCH News report on the 72 hour suspension
XML Feeds