You knew it was only a matter of time - 0.05 discussion

[Conductor]

Has anyone heard of calling in a teammate for having some drinks after a practice or game? Or would anyone do this to a teammate?

 

[johnnybluenose]

Probably only if they played for BC United

 

[Regs]

Part of B.C.'s drunk-driving law violates Charter, judge rules - British Columbia - CBC News

 

[bergamascho]

So who's up for a piss-up and road rally tonight?

 

[WaterBreak]

The 0.05 law, combined with vernon having 3 taxi's, killed my sister's bar MoJo's.

 

[Chelsea4life]

So apparently from what i saw on the news hour, the automatic 90-day suspension is over (now allowed to go to court). This I 100% agree with seeing as they are being treated as criminals, get a criminal record, and pay up to $5,000 in fines (without a lawyer currently). Takes a little bit of power away from the Police force, but still not fixing the .05 rule which is absolutely absurd. I work at a restaurant, and we just had a female server receive a DUI for blowing .07.... Had 2 beers which I watched her drink at the end of my shift, she had these two over a 1 hr period, but did not really eat while working. Hit a road block, blew over. Now she has lost her car for 2 months, paying impound fees well over $2,000.... $1,200 fine, $1,000 for her course, and another bunch of cash to install some breathalizer in her car when she gets her license back...
Im sorry, but this is a girl who does not deserved to be punished! I think paying well up to $5,000 in fines and losing a license for 1 year is a bit much for 1 mistake. 3 months and small fines for a first time offender, fine! If you are a repeat offender, then you obviously have not learned your lesson and you have a problem. BUt for the people who are very day Joes who just happen to run into super cop, this penalty is far too harsh IMHO

 

[mtkb]

there was never any criminal record attached to the IRP's, just the fines and prohibitions... you can safetly assume the media is inaccurate, I dont think they even care how accurate they are as long as their headlines sell papers...

the 90 day prohibitions were always reviewable by an adjudicator with ICBC... my colleague does a fair number of them... sadly, the adjudicators often come up with logic such as "well you disputed the penalty... and only guilty people would do that... so you must be guilty"... which sends us off to Supreme Court for a judicial review of the adjudicators decision...

in other words, there were (expensive) review mechanisms available, just not within the bounds of the particular legislation. its the fact of having to look for a way to fight the cop's decision outside the bounds of the legislation that makes the 90 day (and fines) penalty unconsitutional.

happy to answer other questions about this, assuming the off-TTP topic nature of this doesnt bother Regs... I'm 9 years into a criminal defense practice...