Whats needed to be charged with impaired?

Breathalyser(sp?)Blood test, Sobriety test?

Any info or links would be appreciated!

That is pretty vague question....can you be more specific?

I have gotten 2 drunks off the road during the last 2 day shifts....very unusual.

Can you charge someone with just your observation, all over the road

the odor of booze in the vechicle,breath,a wobbley pop walk!

Or does some test need to be done before a charge can be laid?

BelSlySTi wrote:

Or does some test need to be done before a charge can be laid?

OF course! but "all over the road the odor of booze in the vechicle,breath,a wobbley pop walk!" all lead to the test... (Breathalyzer, lest you refuse, then the blood test, which you cannot refuse)

racer wrote:

BelSlySTi wrote:

Or does some test need to be done before a charge can be laid?

OF course! but "all over the road the odor of booze in the vechicle,breath,a wobbley pop walk!" all lead to the test... (Breathalyzer, lest you refuse, then the blood test, which you cannot refuse)

On that scenario...arrest for impaired driving.

If the person refuses the breath test....arrest refusal to compy with a breath demand. Carry same penalty as impaired.

****************************************************

so there are a few sections that someone can be charged with: (or combination of some of these)

- Impaired Driving

- Drive over 80mgs of alcohol in 100ml of blood

- Refuse to provide sample of breath into Approved screening device (roadside)

- Refuse to provide sample of breath into Breathalyzer/Intoxilyzer (office)

Impaired driving requires a combination of driving observations: weaving, erratic driving, etc, and and physical observations: alcoholic odor, dilated pupils, slurred speech, etc.

Over 80 doesn't require proof of impairment, just proof of alcohol concentration. But there has to be suspicion of alcohol to demand the test in the first place. A roadside test "fail" is not sufficient proof to convict for over 80. It leads to arrest and a further demand for "an approved instrument" test. At which point you have a right to legal counsel. Just ask Maggie Trudeau who got off a drunk driving charge.

Refusal to provide a sample can be combined with an impaired driving charge. But double jeopardy prevents an impaired driving charge being combined with an over 80 for the same incident.

ticketcombat wrote:

Impaired driving requires a combination of driving observations: weaving, erratic driving, etc, and and physical observations: alcoholic odor, dilated pupils, slurred speech, etc.

Over 80 doesn't require proof of impairment, just proof of alcohol concentration. But there has to be suspicion of alcohol to demand the test in the first place. A roadside test "fail" is not sufficient proof to convict for over 80. It leads to arrest and a further demand for "an approved instrument" test. At which point you have a right to legal counsel. Just ask Maggie Trudeau who got off a drunk driving charge.

Refusal to provide a sample can be combined with an impaired driving charge. But double jeopardy prevents an impaired driving charge being combined with an over 80 for the same incident.

I have to say that is one of the best explanations I have heard about an Impaired Driving charge.

A+ post!

ticketcombat wrote:

Impaired driving requires a combination of driving observations: weaving, erratic driving, etc, and and physical observations: alcoholic odor, dilated pupils, slurred speech, etc.

Just like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsPRVEHDT2s

ticketcombat wrote:

But double jeopardy prevents an impaired driving charge being combined with an over 80 for the same incident.

That does not make sense. The charges of impaired driving and driving over 80mgs is laid all the time for the same incident. 2 different offences.

One being incapacitated motor skills and the other is level of alcohol over the legal limit.

Please explain or point me to some case law so I can be up to speed, thanks, Bear

Does someone with a G2 in Ontario get their license suspended if they have any alcohol at all? or is it just a ticket if they are below the legal limit (0.08?) or is there a lower limit and a ticket? points off license?

simply_greek29 wrote:

Does someone with a G2 in Ontario get their license suspended if they have any alcohol at all? or is it just a ticket if they are below the legal limit (0.08?) or is there a lower limit and a ticket? points off license?

Yes it would be suspended for any amount alcohol!

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/ ... .9.4.shtml

hwybear wrote:

ticketcombat wrote:

But double jeopardy prevents an impaired driving charge being combined with an over 80 for the same incident.

That does not make sense. The charges of impaired driving and driving over 80mgs is laid all the time for the same incident. 2 different offences.

One being incapacitated motor skills and the other is level of alcohol over the legal limit.

Please explain or point me to some case law so I can be up to speed, thanks, Bear

Bear, my apologies, I did not know further posts were made on this thread until today. I've got to get a better system to monitor them!

Section 11(h) of the Charter:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again;

Section 11(h) applies only in circumstances where the two offences with which the accused is charged are the same. The word "offence" in s.11(h) means conduct prohibited by law on pain of punishment. Section 11(h) applies only if the offences involved are identical, in that they contain the same elements and constitute one and the same offence arising out of the same set of circumstances.

Here's an excellent discussion by the federal digest on the topic.

I also suggest reading R. v. Stellato, 1993 which deals with questions of impairment. In that judgement they quote R. v. Winlaw (1988) where Salhany states:

Indeed it is significant to note that s. [253](a) makes it an offence to operate a motor vehicle while one's ability to operate the vehicle "is impaired by alcohol or a drug." The section does not require that there be a "marked impairment" or any other degree of impairment. Impairment is impairment and any kind of impairment, even slight is enough to constitute the offence.

Basically s. 253 of the Criminal code deals with impairment as the inability to operate the vehicle OR having over 80. It's the same charge.

Something I've long wondered about -- do we in Ontario make people suspected of impaired driving do the same physical tests that we see on COPS on TV from the Excited States? I don't think I'm likely to fall under suspicion any time soon if I don't drink, but I do drive, and ... you never know! If I were told right now to get off my chair, tip my head back, close my eyes and stand unsupported on one foot for 30 seconds while holding the other foot 6 inches off the floor, I'd probably fail. And I'm not sure I could pass some of the other tests, either. Just wondering.

Proper1 wrote:

Something I've long wondered about -- do we in Ontario make people suspected of impaired driving do the same physical tests that we see on COPS on TV from the Excited States? I don't think I'm likely to fall under suspicion any time soon if I don't drink, but I do drive, and ... you never know! If I were told right now to get off my chair, tip my head back, close my eyes and stand unsupported on one foot for 30 seconds while holding the other foot 6 inches off the floor, I'd probably fail. And I'm not sure I could pass some of the other tests, either. Just wondering.

Only this test.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxizlKbqbqo

Well, I can't dance like that guy but I can't recite the alphabet backwards either, so I guess I'm drunk right now!