Being forced to prove your innocence is very disconcerting ...
I did not realize that having a drink of Whisky (not enough to feel it) and then blowing into a breathalyzer within 15 minutes can result in a fail.
Nor did I realize that the rules have been changed so much that an apeal is now submitted in writing to the very same body that considers you guilty in the first place (Superintendant of Motor Vehicles) This office has been given the powers of Judge, Jury, AND Executioner under these new rules.
A Quote from a TYEE newspaper Article doesn't exactly mesh with my circumstances but shows the "totalitarian" attitude prevalent in BC Liberal Politics.
https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/05/05/Paul-Doroshenko-Suing-BC-Liberals/
How Paul Doroshenko Went from Boosting BC Liberals to Suing Them
After pitching in on three campaigns, lawyer hates what he sees on TV. A Tyee interview.
"I sort of find Rich Coleman reprehensible. I shouldn't say 'sort of.' I can barely stand him. I was at the premier's dinner and I was talking to him [about a new law enforcement policy]. I think he was solicitor general at the time, and I was talking to him about the fact they were starting to give people long driving prohibitions on the basis of multiple 24-hour driving prohibitions. And you can't adjudicate a 24-hour driving prohibition if it's issued to you for drugs. So what happens is people the police don't like, the police will pull them over if they think that they're a drug dealer but don't have evidence. They'll issue a 24-hour driving prohibition for driving while affected by a drug. And the only way you can review it is by going to B.C. Supreme Court. You get two of those 24-hour prohibitions, and the superintendent of motor vehicles could pull your license for six months. [Doroshenko's law practice includes defending clients against DUI charges.]
"I said to Coleman, 'This is going to be a Charter violation. Somebody's going to bring a Charter challenge.' He said, 'I'm gonna write a fucking law so I can get around the Charter. We're gonna make this so it can withstand any Charter challenge.' I was really surprised that he sort of turned on me so quickly. That he would speak to me like that at the premier's dinner. I came to the conclusion at that point that he is a bully and had some disdain for the Charter.
Back to my case ...
Even though in my case I was breathalyzed within minutes of my sip of whiskey and the Police report was changed the next morning to appear like 14 minutes (not the legally mandated 15, no less) had elapsed as opposed to the correct 7 minutes in the original report.
The police report also accused me of several things with negative conotations ...
"slow to answer police questions"
Of course I was ... I have a 30 year perfect driving record and was nervous of saying the wrong thing, so took time to consider my answers.
" I thought he was going to drive right up onto the curb as he pulled over"
untrue ...I crossed 2 lanes and signalled properly for each lane change and was parallel to the curb 8-12 inches away when I came to a stop.
Sarah Leamon of Acumen Law - http://vancouvercriminallaw.com/criminal-lawyers-vancouver-richmond-surrey-victoria/sarah-leamon/
advised me the following morning; that based on my testimony, I should have an easy win.
Things turned out to be not so easy. Due to the conflict of interest with the Superintendant being the "fox guarding the henhouse" , my appeal was denied and I was
1. headed for a ($1000) "Responsible Driver Program" (run by a "Private Health Corporation donors to the Liberal Party BTW
2. breathalyzer installation into the vehicle ($2000) ish
3. "mandatory" 30 day impoundment $1100 (again paid to a private corporation) even though I had no drivers' license as they had taken it. Essentially this was accusing me of intending to drive while suspended.
4. Suspended from driving for 90 Days. The appeal process burned up all 90 days so I didn't get to drive until the 2nd appeal was filed.
Sarah Leamon advised me to challenge a second time based on some Supreme Court rulings and she was absolutely right.
I went on to "prove my innocence" as opposed to them having to prove my guilt.
Read this again .... I was "forced" to prove my innocence on my own dime.
I am in no way saying that being impaired while driving is ok, but I am saying that you can be "not impaired" and still register a fail on these machines if the proper procedures are not followed.
Sarah Leamon was very good to a "poor boy from New Brunswick" by doing her best to not run up her bill. In trade for the reasonable price there were a couple times where I called and felt I was being rushed ... but considering that I was getting a good deal for Sarahs' time and expertise, I can't complain.
I am happy with Sarah Leamons' expertise and efforts to reveal the truth in my case, and would recommend her to anyone seeking justice for themselves or others.
L.
Surrey BC
Canada read more