Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,427
- Points
- 1,010
Actually, you have to be careful not to mix up three different concepts and infractions here.
The anti-drunk driving campaigns have gotten us used to the slogan "Don't drink and drive", but there are actually no laws against doing these two activities separately and even in that order, so long as:
1) Your blood alcohol levels remain below the legal limit in your province (infraction no. 1, which requires proof by way of a qualified tech using a certified machine under the criminal code, and carries its automatic consequences); and,
2) you are not impaired while driving. This impairment can be from any cause, not just alcohol, and is a second type of infraction. Absent a proof of large alcohol consumption or being above the legal limit (see above), this is more difficult to prove, and requires various impairment tests to be administered and noted by the L.E.O. That is also the reason why LEOs prefer to do these tests as a precursor to sending the driver to take a breathalyzer test, as it is simpler to prove in court and more difficult to beat by the driver. It is also why LEOs want some form of machine and "objective" limit of the same nature to be developed for marihuana before it becomes legal: much simpler than proving actual "impairment". However, impairment without any evidence on blood alcohol levels or even proof of alcohol consumption is an infraction and can be proven by other usual admissible forms of evidence - including ordinary witnesses (which LEOs are in law).
Finally, seldom mentioned these days, there is the third infraction of having alcohol bottles/cans open in the vehicle or being consumed while driving. This infraction does not require you to be impaired or above/below the legal limit of blood alcohol levels: it's simply an infraction to carry it and simple observation of the fact is sufficient -but it usually leads to a simple ticket/seizure on the spot of the beverage and a few demerit points/fine combination.
The thing with Lightguns report is that, the person having made it home, the only infraction that Lightguns could have testified to is the third one: drinking alcohol in the car. He does not know if the blood level is above/below the legal limit while driving - and the police cannot just show up at your house and ask you to "blow in the machine" - that's only for roadside. And unless he observed some seriously improper driving maneuvers by the driver, he can't really testify as to the fact that this driver was impaired.
The anti-drunk driving campaigns have gotten us used to the slogan "Don't drink and drive", but there are actually no laws against doing these two activities separately and even in that order, so long as:
1) Your blood alcohol levels remain below the legal limit in your province (infraction no. 1, which requires proof by way of a qualified tech using a certified machine under the criminal code, and carries its automatic consequences); and,
2) you are not impaired while driving. This impairment can be from any cause, not just alcohol, and is a second type of infraction. Absent a proof of large alcohol consumption or being above the legal limit (see above), this is more difficult to prove, and requires various impairment tests to be administered and noted by the L.E.O. That is also the reason why LEOs prefer to do these tests as a precursor to sending the driver to take a breathalyzer test, as it is simpler to prove in court and more difficult to beat by the driver. It is also why LEOs want some form of machine and "objective" limit of the same nature to be developed for marihuana before it becomes legal: much simpler than proving actual "impairment". However, impairment without any evidence on blood alcohol levels or even proof of alcohol consumption is an infraction and can be proven by other usual admissible forms of evidence - including ordinary witnesses (which LEOs are in law).
Finally, seldom mentioned these days, there is the third infraction of having alcohol bottles/cans open in the vehicle or being consumed while driving. This infraction does not require you to be impaired or above/below the legal limit of blood alcohol levels: it's simply an infraction to carry it and simple observation of the fact is sufficient -but it usually leads to a simple ticket/seizure on the spot of the beverage and a few demerit points/fine combination.
The thing with Lightguns report is that, the person having made it home, the only infraction that Lightguns could have testified to is the third one: drinking alcohol in the car. He does not know if the blood level is above/below the legal limit while driving - and the police cannot just show up at your house and ask you to "blow in the machine" - that's only for roadside. And unless he observed some seriously improper driving maneuvers by the driver, he can't really testify as to the fact that this driver was impaired.
