VPD union don't agree with new laws

General Law Enforcement discussion which does not fit into other channels. Post your thoughts and feelings about anything you want (LE related), or just vent those fumes about whatever is on your chest.
User avatar
BROVO26
Regular Member
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:57 pm
Location: Home sweet home
Contact:

VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby BROVO26 » Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:58 am

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - The president of the Vancouver Police Union says BC's new drunk driving rules may not be targeting the right people.

Union boss Tom Stamatakis tells the Province newspaper officers are spending too much of their time dealing with drivers who have had just one or two drinks with dinner instead of the chronic offenders.

He says the new rules mean police have to decide a person's guilt or innocence instead of the courts.

Charles is a cab driver who says the penalties are just too harsh. "It's not doing any better for us. A lot of restaurant people are complaining as well. It just doesn't make common sense... when they take people's car away."

Later today, Solicitor General Mike de Jong will announce the latest ticketing numbers, ever since the tougher laws were introduced in BC one month ago.

Well what do you guys think?
It's not if you win or lose, but how you place the blame.

User avatar
John014
Seasoned Member
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:45 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby John014 » Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:43 am

I think it is a great tool.
NOT A P.O, so not in the know for targetting, but I have yet to see more police concentrating on finding ASD "warns". From an outsider perspective I still see the police doing what they always do, look for criminals, but now they have more of a deterrent for the idiots who get tipsy and drive.
Just my .02

EDIT* WTF is the cab driver complaining about, this must be great for business.
If you choose Law Enforcement you LOSE the right to be unfit.

Police Officer

User avatar
sportyspice
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby sportyspice » Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:31 pm

What a moron. 1 or 2 drinks with dinner isn't going to put you over .05 unless they were REALLY big drinks. If we're conducting a roadblock and someone tells me they had a drink or two with dinner, I look for indicia of impairment. If there's none, I send them on their way. No different than before, and certainly there's no "targeting" of people who have had a couple of drinks with dinner.

As for it taking longer... that's a VPD thing. A "fail" under the old system meant arresting for Impaired (crim. code), and unless it was a refusal you'd be off the road for hours. Under the new system, a "fail" can result in an Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) - unless the driver shows gross indicia of impairment, in which case you still go criminal code. Takes about 30 minutes to complete/fax the paperwork for an IRP. So saves a lot of time, right? Except, the VPD is notorious for NEVER charging anyone with actual impaired driving (CC). Under the old system, for a roadside fail, they would just issue a 24-hour suspension which takes about 15 minutes, so yeah for them it takes longer... but for those of us who actually CHARGE drunk drivers - the new penalties are a godsend on busy nights.

As far as Police deciding a person's guilt or innocence... whatever. The ASD is a pretty foolproof little device, and the driver gets a second blow if he's not satisfied with the first result. And there's a dispute process that can be followed if they want to dispute it. So all this "police as judge and jury" is just smoke.

That being said... I've heard there's already been a constitutional challenge launched over the new penalties. Undoubtedly by a group of lawyers, who have just seen their revenues take a serious dip. (No offence, PPSC. :D)

Since the new penalties came in, I've done one Crim Code impaired charge because the driver was absolutely shittered, and one IRP (and I was surprised the driver blew a "fail", because other than strong smell there wasn't much in the way of indicia). Having the choice was awesome.
"On the whole, human beings want to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time."

User avatar
sportyspice
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby sportyspice » Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:30 am

So today the VPD union is backpedalling and saying that comments were taken out of context and misconstrued. Which, frankly, I wouldn't doubt. Blood-sucking media.
"On the whole, human beings want to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time."

PPSC Lawyer
Rookie Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 4:31 pm
Location: North of 60
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby PPSC Lawyer » Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:47 pm

sportyspice wrote:As far as Police deciding a person's guilt or innocence... whatever. The ASD is a pretty foolproof little device, and the driver gets a second blow if he's not satisfied with the first result.


Wow - missed this before.

The driver is not legally entitled to a second blow, and as a practical matter it's a terrible idea for police to offer it.
No longer with PPSC, but still 100% Crown Prosecutor.

PPSC Lawyer
Rookie Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 4:31 pm
Location: North of 60
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby PPSC Lawyer » Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:12 pm

IrishCanadian wrote:
PPSC Lawyer wrote:
sportyspice wrote:As far as Police deciding a person's guilt or innocence... whatever. The ASD is a pretty foolproof little device, and the driver gets a second blow if he's not satisfied with the first result.


Wow - missed this before.

The driver is not legally entitled to a second blow, and as a practical matter it's a terrible idea for police to offer it.


I thought there was a provision in law.. at least in Ontario HTA for second ASD roadside.


Could be - I'm not familiar with the Ontario HTA.

But under the Criminal Code, they're not entitled to a second blow. Remember it's only a screening test - if the ASD makes a mistake the approved instrument will give the correct result.
No longer with PPSC, but still 100% Crown Prosecutor.

User avatar
mostlyharmless
Regular Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:30 am
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby mostlyharmless » Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:30 pm

PPSC Lawyer wrote:Could be - I'm not familiar with the Ontario HTA.

But under the Criminal Code, they're not entitled to a second blow. Remember it's only a screening test - if the ASD makes a mistake the approved instrument will give the correct result.


It's not a problem, since it's under the MVA not CC. If a driver gets a second blow, the second result stands and you proceed with MVA consequences.
"You didn't think we give pretty women tickets? You're right, we don't."

User avatar
Canadian Blue
King Poobah
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 2:37 pm
Location: Northeast Saskatchewan
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby Canadian Blue » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:51 pm

They should have stuck with the 0.08 limit.

I'm sympathetic to the whole idea of getting tough on drunk drivers (any repeat offenders really), what I'm not sympathetic to is attempts by an organization to waste police resources combatting social drinking instead of drunk drivers. So far most of the impaired's I've dealt with come from people who already have lengthy CR's and always blow over 0.1. I don't see how lowering the limit to 0.05 will do anything to help deal with those drunk drivers who have never really cared about the law in the first place and will still drive even if their licence is suspended.

User avatar
Punisher-One
Poobah Overlord
Posts: 3772
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:59 am
Location: Redacted
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby Punisher-One » Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:59 pm

Canadian Blue wrote:They should have stuck with the 0.08 limit.

I'm sympathetic to the whole idea of getting tough on drunk drivers (any repeat offenders really), what I'm not sympathetic to is attempts by an organization to waste police resources combatting social drinking instead of drunk drivers. So far most of the impaired's I've dealt with come from people who already have lengthy CR's and always blow over 0.1. I don't see how lowering the limit to 0.05 will do anything to help deal with those drunk drivers who have never really cared about the law in the first place and will still drive even if their licence is suspended.


There was a senate study done to support the fact that you are just as impaired at .05 as you are at .08.

User avatar
SupahDuck
King Poobah
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:44 pm
Location: Kingston, Ontario

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby SupahDuck » Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:08 pm

Force Recon wrote:
Canadian Blue wrote:They should have stuck with the 0.08 limit.

I'm sympathetic to the whole idea of getting tough on drunk drivers (any repeat offenders really), what I'm not sympathetic to is attempts by an organization to waste police resources combatting social drinking instead of drunk drivers. So far most of the impaired's I've dealt with come from people who already have lengthy CR's and always blow over 0.1. I don't see how lowering the limit to 0.05 will do anything to help deal with those drunk drivers who have never really cared about the law in the first place and will still drive even if their licence is suspended.


There was a senate study done to support the fact that you are just as impaired at .05 as you are at .08.


Most of those senators are permanently over .08 anyways, so they're most definitely experts on the subject matter. :mrgreen:
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future.

"The key problem is those people who take it personal. Never take shit personal in the enforcement business." - Toonces, Blueline Super-Ultra-Mega Poobah

User avatar
SPC
Lord of the Poobahs
Posts: 1176
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:10 pm
Location: British Columbia
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby SPC » Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:32 pm

PPSC Lawyer wrote:
sportyspice wrote:As far as Police deciding a person's guilt or innocence... whatever. The ASD is a pretty foolproof little device, and the driver gets a second blow if he's not satisfied with the first result.


Wow - missed this before.

The driver is not legally entitled to a second blow, and as a practical matter it's a terrible idea for police to offer it.


If you have decided to go the CC impaired route, everything is the same; however, if you decide to utilize the IRP, there are provisions that you must offer a second ASD test, and the second test rules. This can be both good and/or bad, ie: if the guy is a high warn (90-99), and his BAC is going up, the second ASD might result in a fail, which would be a 90 day prohib, instead of a 3 day prohib, conversely, if he's a low fail, or low warn, the second test may result in lesser, or no sanctions.
"When we act on behalf of others, we have no moral authority to forgive on their behalf, to allow evil for the sake of tolerance, or to turn the cheek of anyone but ourselves."

User avatar
SPC
Lord of the Poobahs
Posts: 1176
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:10 pm
Location: British Columbia
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby SPC » Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:34 pm

Canadian Blue wrote:They should have stuck with the 0.08 limit.

I'm sympathetic to the whole idea of getting tough on drunk drivers (any repeat offenders really), what I'm not sympathetic to is attempts by an organization to waste police resources combatting social drinking instead of drunk drivers. So far most of the impaired's I've dealt with come from people who already have lengthy CR's and always blow over 0.1. I don't see how lowering the limit to 0.05 will do anything to help deal with those drunk drivers who have never really cared about the law in the first place and will still drive even if their licence is suspended.


The limit hasn't changed, it's still 80 mg%, and you still need 100mg% to reach a fail on the ASD. Also, contrary to media reports, the level in BC for a "WARN" reading, hasn't changed, it's still 50mg%, just the penalties have changed.
"When we act on behalf of others, we have no moral authority to forgive on their behalf, to allow evil for the sake of tolerance, or to turn the cheek of anyone but ourselves."

User avatar
mostlyharmless
Regular Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:30 am
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby mostlyharmless » Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:45 pm

Canadian Blue wrote:They should have stuck with the 0.08 limit.

I'm sympathetic to the whole idea of getting tough on drunk drivers (any repeat offenders really), what I'm not sympathetic to is attempts by an organization to waste police resources combatting social drinking instead of drunk drivers. So far most of the impaired's I've dealt with come from people who already have lengthy CR's and always blow over 0.1. I don't see how lowering the limit to 0.05 will do anything to help deal with those drunk drivers who have never really cared about the law in the first place and will still drive even if their licence is suspended.

Waste police resources? Just because you blow under .08 does not make it OK to pile your family in the car and go on a road trip. The law says you are not OK to drive at or above .05; it becomes criminal at .08. Anyone on the road at .05 has had more than 2 drinks with dinner. The limit wasn't lowered to .05 in BC it's always been .05+ to get a 24 hour suspension. The new rules just up the fine and consequences.

It's no different in application than speeding. It's against the law and there is a consequence - a fine. At a certain point, given circumstances, it can become a criminal code driving charge. We still enforce both.
"You didn't think we give pretty women tickets? You're right, we don't."

PPSC Lawyer
Rookie Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 4:31 pm
Location: North of 60
Contact:

Re: VPD union don't agree with new laws

Postby PPSC Lawyer » Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:24 pm

mostlyharmless wrote:Waste police resources? Just because you blow under .08 does not make it OK to pile your family in the car and go on a road trip. The law says you are not OK to drive at or above .05; it becomes criminal at .08. Anyone on the road at .05 has had more than 2 drinks with dinner.


I have to disagree with that. With lower body weight, two drinks over a short period of time will put you over 50mg.

Hell, at a course several years back we were encouraged to have a drink over lunch. I had two pints, and blew 56. Man that made for a long afternoon though back in class...
No longer with PPSC, but still 100% Crown Prosecutor.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SemrushBot and 2 guests