Whose Rights are More Important?

A British Columbia Supreme Court judge has ruled that the roadside spot check program the province has been running for the past year is unconstitutional, because it violates Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms by not (if I've got this right...) allowing an alleged perp proper opportunity to defend himself or to appeal the case.

Justice Jon Sigurdson said, "Although I am fully satisfied of the importance of the objective of reducing harms [sic] caused by impaired driving...the impugned legislation infringes the rights of individuals to be free from unreasonable search and seizure."

"Fully satisfied" about the 'harms' caused by drunk driving?

Apparently he's not quite satisfied enough.

What about the rights of the rest of us to be free from being run into and injured or killed by drunk drivers?

While Justice Sigurdson's ruling is binding only in British Columbia, various legal experts believe other provinces which have similar legislation (such as Ontario now or Alberta soon) will face similar challenges.

The B.C. legislation, among other things, allows police officers to issue immediate licence suspensions, impound cars on the spot, and issue heavy fines.

Sound familiar?

You bet. Ontario cops can do that now for doing 50 over the limit.

That law was challenged on Charter provisions and was found to be constitutional.

I argued against that decision, but decry this one.

The difference?

There isn't a lick of evidence that exceeding the speed limit by ANY amount is per se dangerous.

But nobody - not even Justice Sigurdson - argues that driving drunk isn't dangerous. Apart from failure to wear a seat belt, it is probably the single most dangerous driving behaviour there is.

B.C. officials say the now-illegal program was instrumental in reducing drunk driving deaths this year by 40 percent compared to the average of the previous five years.

So, statistically, people are going to die because of Justice Sigurdson's ruling.

Way to go, Judge.

Representatives of the drinking establishment business welcomed the ruling because they said the spot check program had reduced their business.

Well, boo hoo.

Bar profits versus dead citizens?

Give me a break.

All laws restrict our rights and freedoms to some degree. It is up to Supreme Court judges to determine how far the laws should go.

In my view, Justice Sigurdson got this one wrong.

Dead wrong.

In the longer term, the B.C. government may appeal.

In the shorter term, it will re-design the provisions of the spot check procedure to comply with Justice Sigurdson's misguided view of this situation.

They better.

The safety of your friends and relatives (and complete strangers) in that province and possibly elsewhere in Canada depends on it.

 

Comments

[DriveSmartBC]

I disagree with you. How is an excessively speeding driver any less dangerous than an impaired driver on that same highway? If they were all alone, they would only present a risk to themselves. However, we all share the highways and other people do stupid things. There are also other things that we have no control over such as wild animals.

[Claude Dusseault]

All I want to say Is if I get a speeding or seatbelt ticket I have the opportunity to go to court and defend myself. Why should it be different with a MVA .05 provincial drinking and driving act. All I would like is you are in Canada and if you get charge with any laws have the opportunity to defend yourself. As far as I know in Canada you are innocent until proven guilty. Why should a constable on the side of a road be your judge and juryand jury. We are not in a communist country where people don't have a say.

[Ken Chevis]

Sad commentary about rights. Not the rights of alcohol-fueled morons who deal death and destruction, but law-abiding citizens who have the right to drive our Nation's highway and roads without fear. The alcohol industry has held sway in this country for far too long. This idiot in Vancouver has set back MADD progress by about

[Brian]

Jim, I have to call you on this one. The issue lies in the suspension and impoundment, not the spot check itself. To that end, like you said about cops impounding your vehcile for driving 50 over, is there any proof that arresting the person, but not suspending their license is any any less safe? Or are there any cases of a person's vehicle being impounded for DD, but then they go and drive another vehicle?

[Natalie Hartford]

I absolutely agree! Justice Sigurdson got this one wrong.
Dead wrong.

This is the exact same argument they use to NOT implement Random Breath testing in Canada. An initiative that shows it would not only save HUNDREDS of lives every single year but would also save our country MILLIONS of dollars.

My arguement to the Charter Infringment is this:
Driving in Canada is a PRIVILEDGE - not a right! Therefore the protection of innocent, law abiding citizens comes before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. PERIOD!

This isn't like unlawful search and seizure - no one driving around with a car load of illegal cigarettes is a danger to killing other drivers. Impaired drivers are. They MURDER over 1200 innocent people a year - it's the highest cause of criminal death in Canada.

Something must be done! And these laws were one small step in that direction. We've taken one giant leap back.

It's a sad, shameful day in our country!

To read more about my story and my thoughts (I had an interesting email with the Minister of Justice that might peak your interest), you can visit my blog at http://nataliehartford.com and click on the Impaired Driving - Our Story page.

[Scott Kennie]

I always find it amazing - people that have not been affected by drunk driving continue to defend it as a social faux-pas and "a protection of RIGHTS and FREEDOMS". These people need to realise the numbers of impaired drivers we are talking about....it would scare you into not driving.

People have the RIGHT and FREEDOM to know that everything is being done to protect them on the roads. If you are not impaired, you have nothing to worry about - you won't receive a 90 day suspension.

Ask any family (like mine) that has had a loved one voilently murdered by an impaired driver the question: "what's a bigger infraction on your RIGHTS and FREEDOMS - having a 90 day driving ban or being ripped to pieces by the truck driven by an impaired driver that crossed the centre line?"

I believe my RIGHT to live outweighs someone's PRIVILEDGE to drive!

[DJL]

By all means, stop the drunken moron from endangering others. But the Police have no right to seize private property as punishment for a crime until the accused has been found guilty by a Judge. It's not the spot checks I have problems with (although I don't really like them, they feel like the camel's nose under the tent flap), it's the fact that the Police are now acting like Judges and the accused are being found guilty and punished before they've had their day in court.

In Canada the Police arrest, the Crown Attorneys prosecutes, and Judges determine fate. And until the accused pleads guilty or is found guilty in a fair court they don't get punished. If the Police are allowed to deny the rightful owner access to their own vehicle beyond the point where the immediate public safety is an issue then the Police are meting out punishment without due process and are violating the rights of the accused.

If BC wants to modify their laws so that a automotive vehicle can be seized if the driver is found guilty of drunk driving I don't have a problem with that. But before the car is seized, even temporarily, the alleged moron has to have their day in court and they have to be found guilty by a Judge; not a Police Officer.

[Mark]

I wonder how many dead victims of drunk drivers had a chance to defend themselves without a judge present.

[RX7heaven]

Drunk driving kills 4 Canadians and 1 B.C. resident each week on average. Repeat offenders should lose their driving privileges and more education is obviously warranted. We have also lost almost 200 people in Afganistan fighting for our rights and freedoms so we have to avoid giving frontline police too much power like they have in less democratic countries. I agree that some speed alone doesn't kill but going 40kph over can get your car impounded in B.C.

[Larry]

'There isn't a lick of evidence that exceeding the speed limit by ANY amount is per se dangerous'

Aside from differences in individual drivers' skill levels, isn't that connected to the speed that is determined, for better or for worse, for a particular road or situation (curve, hill, etc.)? I mean, if you considered it safe for yourself to drive a particular stretch at 100 km/h at most, you wouldn't expect yourself to be able to react and be in control to the same extent if you found yourself doing 120 there instead, right?