an Mulgrew: Expanded B.C. roadside suspension policy expected to deal with drugged driving

gb123

Well-Known Member
Victoria is expected to amend the Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme to include drug impairment or to create a similar anti-drug-driving program as the country legalizes marijuana next year.

Victoria is expected to amend the Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme to include drug impairment or to create a similar anti-drug-driving program as the country legalizes marijuana next year.

A broader IRP regime would prevent drug-impaired-driving charges from clogging the courts and continue the made-in-B.C. approach of treating some offences as “regulatory” rather than “criminal.”

Such a move would forestall motorists from launching the kind of constitutional challenges predicted in the wake of proposed federal anti-drugged-driving amendments to the Criminal Code with their questionable tests for impairment.

“Drug impaireds will be almost impossible to successfully prosecute, so they want to go that way (via the IRP route),” Vancouver lawyer Paul Doroshenko said.

“If they start charging people (with drug-impaired driving) they will waste court time, exacerbate delays in other matters and never get a conviction. The proposed laws can’t survive a Charter challenge. I have been told by reliable sources that they were working on a scheme that resembles the IRP scheme. There will be an IRP scheme for drugs.”

Unlike in the rest of Canada, police in this province who suspect a driver is impaired by alcohol usually proceed under the protocols of the pioneering 2010 IRP scheme that do no engage the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

About 1,500 roadside prohibitions a month are issued, according to the government.

In discussions at the Supreme Court of Canada over clogged dockets and the need to free judicial resources, the program has been lauded for moving about 6,000 drunk-driving charges a year out of court and into an administrative tribunal. Other provinces are considering adopting the idea.

The controversial regime — which allows police to lift a motorist’s licence, impound their vehicle and expose them to substantial financial penalties — would eliminate the hurdles of criminal prosecution.

Recent Supreme Court decisions urging an end to the legal culture of complacency and calling for widespread legal reform to an end to court delays are a major motivator.


B.C.’s Immediate Roadside Prohibition program has been lauded for moving about 6,000 drunk-driving charges a year out of court and into an administrative tribunal. Ric Ernst / PNG Files
Doroshenko, whose firm Acumen Law Corporation has been on the vanguard of fighting IRP cases, said a 24-hour prohibition for drugged driving exists in the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act.

But there are no “approved” roadside drug-screening devices and those being considered only indicate a recent presence of drugs in someone’s system, not a level of impairment.

“Even high concentrations of THC (a psychotropic chemical in cannabis) in a person’s system may not necessarily mean they’re impaired, especially if the person is a heavy, regular user of marijuana,” Doroshenko pointed out.

“We still have not seen research that can establish a link between levels of THC inside someone’s body and the likelihood of them causing a collision. Until then, the results from any device that claims to measure a driver’s impairment by marijuana are questionable, at best.”

Earlier this month, the government released the results of a pilot project where police officers from across the country, including the VPD, tested two roadside devices between December and March.

“This report identified some serious issues with both the Securetec and Alere devices,” Doroshenko said.

“Officers raised concerns that both devices require police to spend nearly 10 minutes collecting samples and obtaining results. The results themselves also suggested that positive readings were more likely to occur when the device was operated in temperatures colder than what the manufacturer suggests. This happened a lot.”

Still, the only review mechanism for the existing roadside drug-impaired suspension is under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, i.e. an expensive appeal to a Supreme Court justice.

“Few people ever appealed despite the heavy stigma of having it on your driving record,” said Doroshenko. “We just started taking these seriously because we began to see them.”

In a recent case involving a Vancouver man stopped for suspected drugged driving last year, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Nigel Kent underscored the problems facing police and prosecutors.

Canada has robust standards for determining when police have “reasonable grounds to believe” and “reasonable grounds to suspect” drug impairment in drivers, he said.

Glassy eyes, slow driving and the odour of marijuana are not enough to establish a “reasonable probability,” he said in tossing out the 2016 prohibition as unreasonable.

Given the still undetermined political situation, a B.C. Public Safety & Solicitor General ministry spokesperson issued only a constrained comment: “The effect of cannabis decriminalization on road safety is part of the work of B.C.’s cross-ministry working group conducting research and policy analysis to inform the future development of the provincial regulatory framework.”
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
Glassy eyes and slow driving do not provide adequate proof of impairment. They might be trying to avoid legal challenges, but when they take away my liberty I have a constitutional right to my day in court. So does every other cannabis using driver out there...about 3/4 of the vehicles on the road in this province. The whole law will be challenged - again.
It's gonna be a shit-show boys and girls.
 
Top