My girlfriend passed the breathalyzer, they still towed her car.

[Mar]

I'm wondering about the legalities of how this was handled, not how she can get out of it.

My girlfriend was on her way to my place after sobering up from some wine and on the way got into a minor fender bender, rearending another car. No visible damage, no airbags, very minor. The other driver flipped a lid and called the cops saying she was drunk and cops came out to inspect the scene and give my girlfriend the breathalyzer.

Here's where it gets complicated, the cop gave her the breathalyzer and after she passed, he swapped out the unit for another one and had her blow and pass again. He got upset with her saying she was somehow manipulating the device to pass because he was so sure she was intoxicated, she ended up blowing 7 times into 3 different devices and passed every single time. Regardless of this, they towed her car, sent her home and charged her $125 to get her car out of impound after it was there for 2 days. She's also not allowed to drive for more than 3 weeks while she waits for her court date where they determine if she'll get a fine or lose her license for even longer.

WTF? Is this legal? She passed all tests, was not administered a field sobriety test (touch your nose and stuff) and they didn't take her blood. Can the cop simply decide he thinks she's wasted and take the car? The cop also took her license so she has no physical identification for three weeks.

[GQBalla]

i believe if the cop deems your intoxicated even though you pass the breathalyzer you can still be slapped with a dui.

im not 100 percent sure though...

[JfuckinC]

Did she get a 24 hour suspension??

[beyond_ban]

Non GDL? So she was legally allowed to have up to a .08 BAP? Hmmm... Small girls can still be deemed as "unfit" to drive, even if they are passing the test. Weird situation, douchey cop.

[Thaco]

Originally posted by JfuckinC
Did she get a 24 hour suspension?? i thought the op made it pretty clear that the cop took her license on the spot and she has no chance of getting ti back til court in 3 weeks.


reading>you

[JfuckinC]

Originally posted by Thaco
i thought the op made it pretty clear that the cop took her license on the spot and she has no chance of getting ti back til court in 3 weeks.


reading>you

lol i got a problem with skimming.. even in books.. my bad!
Sounds like bullshit though :thumbsdow

[V6-BoI]

Originally posted by GQBalla
i believe if the cop deems your intoxicated even though you pass the breathalyzer you can still be slapped with a dui.

im not 100 percent sure though...

I think they are allowed to tow your car if they think you are a "threat" on the road because they think you are intoxicated, but passed the breathalyzer. But I don't think they can slap you with a DUI though.

[DayGlow]

There is no on the spot suspensions outside of a 24 hour. Did she receive any paperwork on this? There is no spot suspensions preceding court dates outside of the Alberta one if you are charged with an impaired. That is a 3 month suspension, but it comes in effect after I forget how many days, unless she is already suspended, then it's immediate. I'd have her make some inquirers with the area that the guy that 'suspended' her works.

Either this is a massive misunderstanding or something isn't right here. Did she receive any paperwork with the officers name? If not does she know if it was a zone unit or traffic (traffic wear red jackets that are different from other officers). From there she can contact that office to try to get this sorted out.

[Spoons]

Plain and simple, unless you are fine to drive the WHOLE night, go ahead. If she sobered up from being drunk, that's a little sketchy.

From what I know it should have been just a 24 hour suspension. He probably was rough on her because she got into an accident. Sounds like there might be more to this story...

Thing is she was drinking and she got into an accident. If I was a police officer, I would look down on that pretty roughly, like come on... I'm not sure if I can really look at this from any other angle. DUI. And it was a rear-end...

[LadyLuck]

Thats exactly what happened to my sister, almost down to the very last detail, except she had one glass of champagne and rear ended another car for not paying attention by fucking around on her ipod!!!

The cop made her take the breathalyzer in the back of the cop car 9 times, and it read nothing, then he wanted to charge her with refusal but never let her take a real test at the office.

She is going to court in Feb for "refusal"

[bubbley]

You need to talk to a lawyer for sure

[spike98]

She will be charged. It will be tossed out because she passed the breathalyzer several times. She wasnt arrested nor was blood taken to confirm. Talk to a laywer. Hell even a public defender will due in this case.

[DayGlow]

Oh yeah, is she GDL? If so then if she had any alcohol in her system then she recieves a 1 month suspension. She should have recieved paperwork as such. No court date in the end. After the month she can reapply to have her license reinstated.

If she has a court date it would be a for a ticket she recieved at the scene, not the GDL suspension.

[DayGlow]

Originally posted by LadyLuck
Thats exactly what happened to my sister, almost down to the very last detail, except she had one glass of champagne and rear ended another car for not paying attention by fucking around on her ipod!!!

The cop made her take the breathalyzer in the back of the cop car 9 times, and it read nothing, then he wanted to charge her with refusal but never let her take a real test at the office.

She is going to court in Feb for "refusal"

refusal on a roadside is a criminal charge. If someone is charged with that then they don't take the next step to a breathalyzer.

In court the crown will have to prove that the roadside was in good working order and that your sister refused to blow properly. A refusal isn't charged on a zero reading. For the zero reading a proper blow is needed, the refusal means that the cops involved are alleging that she didn't properly blow.

[Super_Geo]

Come on... as sketchy as the cop was, your sister:

1) Rear ended someone... and
2) Somehow her actions tipped off the other driver that she had been drinking.
3) The cop believed that from her conduct that she was drunk.

Why would the other driver think she was drunk? She was obviously not acting sober, otherwise the other guy wouldn't have known shit.

The cop went overboard on what he did, but your sister didn't exactly put the odds in her favor.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by Mar
I'm wondering about the legalities of how this was handled, not how she can get out of it.

My girlfriend was on her way to my place after sobering up from some wine and on the way got into a minor fender bender, rearending another car. No visible damage, no airbags, very minor. The other driver flipped a lid and called the cops saying she was drunk and cops came out to inspect the scene and give my girlfriend the breathalyzer.

Here's where it gets complicated, the cop gave her the breathalyzer and after she passed, he swapped out the unit for another one and had her blow and pass again. He got upset with her saying she was somehow manipulating the device to pass because he was so sure she was intoxicated, she ended up blowing 7 times into 3 different devices and passed every single time. Regardless of this, they towed her car, sent her home and charged her $125 to get her car out of impound after it was there for 2 days. She's also not allowed to drive for more than 3 weeks while she waits for her court date where they determine if she'll get a fine or lose her license for even longer.

WTF? Is this legal? She passed all tests, was not administered a field sobriety test (touch your nose and stuff) and they didn't take her blood. Can the cop simply decide he thinks she's wasted and take the car? The cop also took her license so she has no physical identification for three weeks.

Before I even attempt to answer your questions here, were you at scene or is this information your girlfriend gave you? None of this adds up, and I'm not necessarily satisfied that the whole story is being told here.

[Isaiah]

Originally posted by Mar

My girlfriend

Originally posted by Super_Geo
your sister...

Wait a minute...the girlfriend is the sister? It's all starting to come together.

[project240]

Originally posted by Super_Geo
Come on... as sketchy as the cop was, your sister:

1) Rear ended someone... and
2) Somehow her actions tipped off the other driver that she had been drinking.
3) The cop believed that from her conduct that she was drunk.

Why would the other driver think she was drunk? She was obviously not acting sober, otherwise the other guy wouldn't have known shit.

The cop went overboard on what he did, but your sister didn't exactly put the odds in her favor.


I think it was his gf, not sister... doesn't matter.

Fact is she passed a breathalyzer test several times... Isn't that like someone getting arrested for stealing because they are wearing a new jacket and look suspect?

**This is assuming the OP has actually posted all the details**

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by spike98
She will be charged. It will be tossed out because she passed the breathalyzer several times. She wasnt arrested nor was blood taken to confirm. Talk to a laywer. Hell even a public defender will due in this case.

What are you talking about? :facepalm:

[Sharpie]

Originally posted by DayGlow
Oh yeah, is she GDL? If so then if she had any alcohol in her system then she recieves a 1 month suspension. She should have recieved paperwork as such. No court date in the end. After the month she can reapply to have her license reinstated.

If she has a court date it would be a for a ticket she recieved at the scene, not the GDL suspension.
My buddy has gotten 2 dui's under gdl and he didnt get any paperwork nor did he have to get his licence reinstated.... this was by rcmp if that makes a difference:dunno:

[DayGlow]

Your license status stays as suspended until you get it reinstated. Has he physically got a license since he was charged? If he was charged he would have got a stack of paper which includes the GDL suspension.

[Aleks]

The fact the other driver suspected she was drunk is a big clue. Why would she do that if it was a minor accident with no damage?

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by Super_Geo

2) Somehow her actions tipped off the other driver that she had been drinking.



Originally posted by Aleks
The fact the other driver suspected she was drunk is a big clue. Why would she do that if it was a minor accident with no damage?

This.

I worked Auto claims for 2 years and heard some pretty fucked up stories. But I never heard of anybody flipping the lid on somebody being drunk unless there was obvious signs.

Mar, Tell your GF to tell the REAL story, not the WOMANS story ;) nothing adds up.

[dexlargo]

When they took her license, did they issue her a temporary license?

Ask to see the paperwork she received and report back as to what it all says.

I agree that the story doesn't make sense - she's probably changed/added to the story so that she thinks it makes her look better. Get the truth.

[Kloubek]

...just to get it out of the way: Pics of said girlfriend, or it didn't happen.

:)

Seriously - she might have been under the limit, but she could very well be one of those girls who can't hold her liquor well. If the cop was so insistant on getting a reading, plus the guy who she hit insisted she was drunk, it is pretty obvious she was outwardly acting drunk. And if she is ACTING drunk, you can rest assured that it didn't help her reflexes any when getting into this situation.

What most people don't realize is that the cop has the right to charge and/or tow the car even if she is under the limit. She could still be considered impared, and unfit to drive. Clearly, that is what the officer felt.

Douchy? A little - but on the other hand, he got what he considered to be a danger off the road.

At the end of the day, even if she was under the limit, it's clear she should not have been driving. I'm sure she realizes she should not have been driving, but did it anyway. And as such, it is difficult to have any sympathy for her.

[Xtrema]

Come on guys, you all know that questioning your GF = no poon for weeks.

You just have to take Mar's words as they were given.

:rofl:

[Super_Geo]

Originally posted by project240



I think it was his gf, not sister... doesn't matter.

Fact is she passed a breathalyzer test several times... Isn't that like someone getting arrested for stealing because they are wearing a new jacket and look suspect?

**This is assuming the OP has actually posted all the details**

Shit, my bad... girlfriend, not sister...

Anyway, from the way the story sounds the cop was completely in the right. If she was acting bone sober I cannot imagine any reason why the other driver would call the cops on an insignificant rear-ender... or why the cop would go through all that trouble of giving her breathalizer after breathalizer.

Come on... put the pieces together... she is a lightweight and although she was under the legal limit she was drunk and shouldn't have been on the road.

[Super_Geo]

Originally posted by Xtrema
Come on guys, you all know that questioning your GF = no poon for weeks.

You just have to take Mar's words as they were given.

:rofl:

This would normally be true, but Mar is now in a powerful negotiating position. I think road head for driving her around should do :rofl:

[JfuckinC]

Originally posted by Sharpie

My buddy has gotten 2 dui's under gdl and he didnt get any paperwork nor did he have to get his licence reinstated.... this was by rcmp if that makes a difference:dunno:

Do i know you? Hahaha, they arent DUI's they're bullshit.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by Sharpie

My buddy has gotten 2 dui's under gdl and he didnt get any paperwork nor did he have to get his licence reinstated.... this was by rcmp if that makes a difference:dunno:

Those aren't DUIs, those are GDL zero-tolerance suspensions. It isn't a criminal charge and it's a simple license suspension.

[DayGlow]

I have no idea if an administrative suspension ( ie GDL ) you need to reinstate your license, but I have dealt with people that were suspended from a DUI conviction and even though they were well past their 1 year driving ban they were still listed as suspended because they never go it reinstated.

[dannie]

^ You have to reinstate after an admin susp. The audit control number on the back of the licence has to change in order for MOVES to lift the suspension.

[luxor]

Originally posted by Mar


My girlfriend was on her way to my place after sobering up from some wine

She's also not allowed to drive for more than 3 weeks while she waits for her court date where they determine if she'll get a fine or lose her license for even longer.

she has no physical identification for three weeks

:bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit:

You need to get this story right first. You obviously don't know any of the details. Getting and 24 Hr suspension or charged with DUI doesn't proceed like that. Especially those three weeks parts you heard.

Yes, it is totally legal for the Police to tow her car just like that. Even if you seem unfit to drive, alcohol or not, you can still get your car towed. Glad they towed it.

[JustGo]

There are so many holes in the story, it's hard to provide a sufficient answer. Also, your girlfriend didn't take any 'breathalyzer' tests. She blew into a roadside screening device. A breathalyzer is a big ass machine in the office. At any rate, your girl obviously hadn't sobered up enough to drive and she's lucky she didn't hit a pedestrian. This is another one of those battles that will make you look like an ass for fighting. 'I was drunk, then sobered up a bit, then drove home and crashed. I want to be reimbursed for my tow bill.' Doesn't work that way.

[Grogador]

Did she blow zero or A or F?

...facial?

[seadog]

So whats the point of a breathalyzer then? If a cop can just arbitrarily say "I don't like that answer so I'm gonna ignore it and pretend you failed anyway". So despite quantitative evidence to the contrary, a cop can just ignore it and proceed? Does speeding work that way? Your speedometer and the radar say you're under the limit, but the cop 'felt' you looked like you were going over so tough shit? Seems far too subjective to hold up in court.

Not to defend drunk driving, but its equally shitty to operate within the laws and still get hit with this.

And as for the person she hit thinking she was drunk, some people are just busybodies like that. A roommate once called the cops on a truck that passed in front of our house, because in a passing she thought she saw him drinking a beer, despite his driving being fine, and it was like 1pm on a Wednesday.

[Mibz]

Not all impaired drivers are drunk.

[Type_B]

Cops will so whatever it takes to tow and store your car in the impound it's basically a money making scheme for the city of Calgary. I'm talking from poor excuses I get from police officers .

[Mibz]

Originally posted by Type_B
Cops will so whatever it takes to tow and store your car in the impound it's basically a money making scheme for the city of Calgary. I'm talking from poor excuses I get from police officers . Or they'll do whatever they can to keep dangerous drivers off the road.

You know, either or.

[DayGlow]

Originally posted by Type_B
Cops will so whatever it takes to tow and store your car in the impound it's basically a money making scheme for the city of Calgary. I'm talking from poor excuses I get from police officers .

what poor excuses have you got?

[msommers]

Originally posted by seadog
So whats the point of a breathalyzer then? If a cop can just arbitrarily say "I don't like that answer so I'm gonna ignore it and pretend you failed anyway". So despite quantitative evidence to the contrary, a cop can just ignore it and proceed? Does speeding work that way? Your speedometer and the radar say you're under the limit, but the cop 'felt' you looked like you were going over so tough shit? Seems far too subjective to hold up in court.

Not to defend drunk driving, but its equally shitty to operate within the laws and still get hit with this.

And as for the person she hit thinking she was drunk, some people are just busybodies like that. A roommate once called the cops on a truck that passed in front of our house, because in a passing she thought she saw him drinking a beer, despite his driving being fine, and it was like 1pm on a Wednesday.

You cannot compare speeding and drinking drink. There is a tolerance allowed when getting speeders, but there are may more variables to take into account to decipher if a person is impaired or not. It includes more than checking the numbers on a device.

[Spoons]

Originally posted by seadog
So whats the point of a breathalyzer then? If a cop can just arbitrarily say "I don't like that answer so I'm gonna ignore it and pretend you failed anyway". So despite quantitative evidence to the contrary, a cop can just ignore it and proceed? Does speeding work that way? Your speedometer and the radar say you're under the limit, but the cop 'felt' you looked like you were going over so tough shit? Seems far too subjective to hold up in court.

Not to defend drunk driving, but its equally shitty to operate within the laws and still get hit with this.

And as for the person she hit thinking she was drunk, some people are just busybodies like that. A roommate once called the cops on a truck that passed in front of our house, because in a passing she thought she saw him drinking a beer, despite his driving being fine, and it was like 1pm on a Wednesday.

Breathalyzers are not that accurate. It is like saying that something can not be done because Mythbusters proved it wrong. Breathalyzers actually CAN NOT be used as evidence in court unless backed up with a blood/urine test. The cop was doing his job, and properly. I would have been quick with your girlfriend too, I hate drunk drivers, especially dealing with them after they just got into an accident.

When I was a computer tech, if I did everything that the computer was telling me to do, I would have been out of a job so fast. You have to use your feeling and observations. Your BAC could be under, but if you don't hold your liquor, you obviously shouldn't be driving. If you saw someone stumbling around, slurring their words but blew under, would you let them keep driving? Fuck no. The other driver wasn't being a busybody, he was doing what every other driver would be doing. He just got rear-ended by some drunk bitch, I'd be fucking pissed.

Absolutely no sympathy. This was 100% avoidable. EVEN lets say the cop was actually a douche bag and everything is in favour, she still could of prevented this by taking a cab.

[Type_B]

Originally posted by Mibz
Or they'll do whatever they can to keep dangerous drivers off the road.

You know, either or.

it's not being a dangerous driver. I got mine towed while driving to the registries to get my registration renewed considering i was a day late I should have got off with a warning.

[Type_B]

I'm trying to say I guess is that there is no symphaty for good drivers. I explained why I was late in the nicest terms but he didn't have the time

[Disoblige]

^^

I think you're the one with the poor excuse.. You drove knowing your circumstance so you took the risk. You got unlucky. You could have used many other alternatives to renew.

[JustGo]

Originally posted by Type_B


it's not being a dangerous driver. I got mine towed while driving to the registries to get my registration renewed considering i was a day late I should have got off with a warning. I guess that's why the registries send you a reminder a month ahead. Or they give you those handy stickers for your plate that remind you daily when your reg expires. One day late is crappy to tow it, but i see no issues giving you a ticket.

[luxor]

Originally posted by Type_B
I should have got off with a warning.

:facepalm:

[FraserB]

Originally posted by DayGlow


what poor excuses have you got?

Probably public safety and violations covered by the TSA

[spikerS]

Originally posted by msommers


You cannot compare speeding and drinking drink. There is a tolerance allowed when getting speeders, but there are may more variables to take into account to decipher if a person is impaired or not. It includes more than checking the numbers on a device.

I dont know about you guys, I hate people that are drinking drinks.

[scat19]

Where's mar at? Maybe they broke up over this. :dunno:

[mr2mike]

Use it as an excuse to have her stay over.

I read this and it sounds like everyone on here drinks only water, goes to church every week and does nothing even close to crossing into a grey area.

Ya, I'll admit, I've "sobered up" over the course of a few hours on an all night bender. Driven home at 8am and got lucky, you could say. I know many if not all of you have.

It's hard to factor in wine with a meal. Sometimes it effects you other times you're fine.

Something doesn't sound right if she was not drunk. Maybe she said something that gave signs of guilt. Some people are jerks and call cops for every little thing.

[Mar]

Ha, sorry guys, I was internet-less last night.

Okay so for the story, there's no holes, I didn't leave anything out, ask any questions you might deem appropriate. She was pretty frazzled from an argument, that's why I left. I got to wash her car today and take pictures of the front to show her insurance company there's zero damage to her car. No sure why an adjuster is not doing it but I'm not going to argue.

No, she's not GDL, she's 30 and has been driving for....well......much before she actually had a license.

She still didn't get her license back even though the car's in her driveway now, as far as she knows she won't get it back for at least 3 weeks when they go to court and then they'll decide if they keep it for even longer. She's talking to a lawyer on Friday to deal with it all.

I'm not saying the cop was right or wrong, simply trying to find out for myself. I wasn't there, I left her place and she left right behind me....though I didn't realize it. I made it to my place, she didn't.

[DayGlow]

Originally posted by Spoons


Breathalyzers are not that accurate. It is like saying that something can not be done because Mythbusters proved it wrong. Breathalyzers actually CAN NOT be used as evidence in court unless backed up with a blood/urine test. The cop was doing his job, and properly. I would have been quick with your girlfriend too, I hate drunk drivers, especially dealing with them after they just got into an accident.

to clarrify a roadside screening device is not admissable in court as a sole piece of evidence to an accurate reading of blood alcohol level. It can be used to form the grounds to arrest someone for impaired driving, or so that a person has been drinking for an administrative suspension. A breathalyzer, which is a big machine in a police station or Check Stop bus is considered by the courts as an accurate measure of blood alcohol levels and can be used as evidence. There is no need to draw blood after a successful breathalyzer reading.

[zieg]

So no field test, she blew a pass on the brethalyzers, so basically the cop has no actual evidence that she was drunk, just a hunch? The case will be thrown out and the cop given dirty looks.

[snoop101]

So if dhe lost her license for 3 weeks and goes to court and they says shes not guilty does anything happen money wise? She still needs to pay her lawyer. Another words she has to pay for a lawyer, got with out driving for 3 weeks and if she is found not guilty she gets nothing in return from the officers mistake. Im not defending the woman, but it just seems like a lot to go through for some one who got stuck with a cop that woke up on the wrong side of bed.

[Mar]

Oh snap, so now she tells me.
The official reason her car was towed was for impaired, that's what they wrote down. But the reason she's going to court is for refusal because the cop was convinced she was doing something to make herself pass.

So ya, I'm driving her to work for 3 weeks.

[G-Suede]

Originally posted by Mar
...the cop was convinced she was doing something to make herself pass.

:facepalm:

[LadyLuck]

Originally posted by Mar
Oh snap, so now she tells me.
The official reason her car was towed was for impaired, that's what they wrote down. But the reason she's going to court is for refusal because the cop was convinced she was doing something to make herself pass.

So ya, I'm driving her to work for 3 weeks.

when is her court date? my sister is going to court for the same thing and Im curious how its going to pan out

[snoop101]

The sad part is that the cop will get a slap on the wrist for this. Us tax payers have to pay for a cop who thinks hes high on life. I know theres a lot of good cops out there, but some like this cost us tax payers more then we should because they think they have this god like feature.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Mar
Oh snap, so now she tells me.
The official reason her car was towed was for impaired, that's what they wrote down. But the reason she's going to court is for refusal because the cop was convinced she was doing something to make herself pass.

So ya, I'm driving her to work for 3 weeks.

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure (as Phil, and Dayglow said), she can only get a 24 hours suspension.

If the police are charging her with obstruction, that has nothing to do with her license, and she should be able to get it back right now.

[DayGlow]

Was she charged with refusal? It is a criminal charge, not a ticket. If so was she give An aministrative suspension? ( it would be 3 months total, and she would have a 21 day temp license as part of the form )

it still isn't adding up.

[Aleks]

What I am getting out of it is she never actually refused a sample but the cop was convinced she was "cheating" and charged her with refusing?

:nut: :nut:

[Mar]

Originally posted by DayGlow
Was she charged with refusal? It is a criminal charge, not a ticket. If so was she give An aministrative suspension? ( it would be 3 months total, and she would have a 21 day temp license as part of the form )

it still isn't adding up.
Yes, it was refusal, though I don't know how he can argue she was refusing anything. How do I know if there was an administrative suspension?

[DayGlow]

If she was charged then part of the paperwork would be the suspension. It also serves as her temp license.

[Mar]

Originally posted by DayGlow
If she was charged then part of the paperwork would be the suspension. It also serves as her temp license. Thanks man, I appreciate having cops on the board. So I know she's just going to hand me a mess of papers and not know anything about them, what am I looking for and is there a number I can call to get the specifics? It would really help if she has a temporary license and can drive.

[Feruk]

I'm anti drinking and driving, but this is just crazy. All the evidence the cop has indicated she was NOT over the limit, and yet on his hunch she gets charged with it? I could maybe see dangerous driving as she hit another car (help me out if I'm wrong here), but a DUI? In cases like this, if the cop can present no evidence, she should be allowed to accuse him of harassment. This is equivalent to charging some random black dude for theft as he's the only black guy within a block right after the robbery. Straight silly.

[snoop101]

She hit the back of a car and caused no damage. So obviously she wasent going to fast. I cant see her getting charged for dangerous driving as fender benders happen every day. could she not have given the other drive her contact info and just left. As long as she gives the info she cant be charged with leaving the scene. All insurance cares about is that both parties got the info. Im sure she had to wait atleast 20-30 for a cop to show up. I guess by having the other driver flip out on the phone it actually made the cops come, because in BC the cops wont come for a fender bender.

[dexlargo]

Here's my guess as to what actually happened:

The officer suspected that she had alcohol in her body, so he demanded that she provide a sample into the roadside screening device.

She tries to blow into it, but doesn't follow instructions and doesn't do it properly - the officer receives not a passing result, but no result, because not enough of a sample was received. The officer asks her to try again, and again and again, and changes the blow tube on the device a couple of times, maybe even demonstrates to her how to do it, but she still doesn't blow long enough, or at all, and the machine doesn't give a result. he then charges her with failing to provide a sample into the roadside device, tows her car, seizes her license, issues her the papers for the 3 month license suspension to start 3 weeks later, gives her a temporary license (same form according to Dayglow) that she can use until the start of her 3 month suspension, and that's it. I bet there's no charge of impaired driving - just the failure to provide a sample.

Run that by your girlfriend and see if that might be what happened.

[DayGlow]

Originally posted by Mar
Thanks man, I appreciate having cops on the board. So I know she's just going to hand me a mess of papers and not know anything about them, what am I looking for and is there a number I can call to get the specifics? It would really help if she has a temporary license and can drive.

It will be called 'Alberta Administrative Licence Suspension' (AALS)

read it carefully as it will outline that after 24 hours of the time written on the form you have a 21 day temp licence before the 3 month suspension commences. The form becomes your temp licence. There also will be info on how to appeal it as well.

Once the suspension starts, even if it's under appeal, if she's caught driving she will recieve a court summons and the vehicle she is driving, no matter who the owner is, will be siezed for 30 days.

I know she us going through a tough situation and she may want to seek council as refusal carries the same weight and penalties in court as impaired driving.

[snoop101]

Originally posted by dexlargo
Here's my guess as to what actually happened:

The officer suspected that she had alcohol in her body, so he demanded that she provide a sample into the roadside screening device.

She tries to blow into it, but doesn't follow instructions and doesn't do it properly - the officer receives not a passing result, but no result, because not enough of a sample was received. The officer asks her to try again, and again and again, and changes the blow tube on the device a couple of times, maybe even demonstrates to her how to do it, but she still doesn't blow long enough, or at all, and the machine doesn't give a result. he then charges her with failing to provide a sample into the roadside device, tows her car, seizes her license, issues her the papers for the 3 month license suspension to start 3 weeks later, gives her a temporary license (same form according to Dayglow) that she can use until the start of her 3 month suspension, and that's it. I bet there's no charge of impaired driving - just the failure to provide a sample.

Run that by your girlfriend and see if that might be what happened.

Sounds like MAR has more issues if his girlfriend is having trouble blowing.



(sorry I had to say it. Im suprised no one else has said it.)

[Clever]

Originally posted by snoop101


Sounds like MAR has more issues if his girlfriend is having trouble blowing.



(sorry I had to say it. Im suprised no one else has said it.)


Bazinga!

[Kg810]

Originally posted by snoop101


Sounds like MAR has more issues if his girlfriend is having trouble blowing.



(sorry I had to say it. Im suprised no one else has said it.)

lol :rofl:

[signature7]

Originally posted by Clever



Bazinga!

Love big bang theory!

On a serious note though. Seek legal advice or consultation, it still seems strange as to what happened exactly. Does she remember her actual readings?

[Mar]

Originally posted by signature7


Love big bang theory!

On a serious note though. Seek legal advice or consultation, it still seems strange as to what happened exactly. Does she remember her actual readings? She tells me now that the first test passed but the other 6 were simply inconclusive. They didn't give a pass nor a fail. How does that change things?

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by Mar
She tells me now that the first test passed but the other 6 were simply inconclusive. They didn't give a pass nor a fail. How does that change things?

Your first post says that among 3 different devices, she passed every time. Now she is telling you that she passed the first but the other 6 were inconclusive. I know you want to believe her and I would want to if I were in your position, and based on your comments you think this cop was cheating and fishing for something. You asked for an explanation and here is what I see based on your first post, and subsequent posts, and my experiences. Please don't knock me for saying this, but I think your girlfriend is being less than forthcoming on this matter and here's why:

If she passed the first test she wouldn't be subjected to a second test, and that would have been that. Also, if she passed the first test and WAS subjected to 6 more they would not have come up inconclusive. A pass is a pass - you can't defeat the roadside with tricks and cunning. Therefore you can't ask someone to blow again, it doesn't work that way. If an officer does that, it's recorded on the software for the roadside and his notes will reflect it. Anything subsequent to the first "pass" will be considered unlawful and the whole case will be tossed. Not only that, but it's a very serious breach of section 8 Charter rights that the courts come down very hard on cops for.

Based on my experiences she didn't blow properly the first time OR there was a device malfunction, therefore the swap out to ensure it wasn't the latter. Then to give her the benefit of the doubt it may have again been switched (which there is no legal obligation to do) and it again didn't work. Wait until you see the officer's notes on this, but that is my best guess.

Now the big reason why I believe she is hedging on this: The roadside we use is a very simple device, displaying either the BAC from 0-49 mg%, an A (warn) for 50-99 mg%, or F (fail) for 100-whatever mg%. It beeps twice when the subject isn't blowing hard enough to ensure the airflow sensor has enough air being blown into it, and it will stop. There is no "inconclusive" result, no pass/fail, etc. I think she was unable to blow hard enough because a) she was too impaired (even then, very rare) b) she was messing around. The amount of air the instrument requires is the equivalent to that of a child blowing fairly hard (scientific data has shown this) - so I'm doubting she was physically unable to do it.

What this officer did was not only legal, but far beyond what he is legally obligated to do and in fact did it FOR her benefit. He tried to get her out of the refusal, and her part in this can't be minimized. I hate to say it but I think she is deliberately withholding information or she isn't quite recalling how the situation went down. You can't keep putting someone on a roadside because of a hunch or to find something ("the reason she's going to court is for refusal because the cop was convinced she was doing something to make herself pass.") - that doesn't count as a refusal, and no cop would testify to that.

Just my humble opinion, and you are welcome to ask me any more questions about this if you want.

[FraserB]

OP; seeing as this is a pretty unique case, would you be amenable to letting us know the outcome once she has appeared in court?

[Mar]

Originally posted by phil98z24
Just my humble opinion, and you are welcome to ask me any more questions about this if you want. Completely possible. I'll ask her specifically if she saw a passing number or if the cop told her it passed. I remember the only time I've done a roadside test the cop and I stared at the machine until 0.0 came up on it and I was able to see it. I wanted to play the machine like a flute while blowing into it but didn't think he'd find that very funny.

Originally posted by FraserB
OP; seeing as this is a pretty unique case, would you be amenable to letting us know the outcome once she has appeared in court?
I've been around the forums for 5 years, I should still be here for a while. I'll post any outcome that happens.

[g-m]

awesome q&a by the police on this forum. Props

[Mar]

So she met with the lawyer today and they tried to jack her for $9000 for the case. She's looking to spend $2000 - $3000 for council, can anyone recommend someone that would do this for her? I tried to convince her to save her money, it's a bullshit charge, but she wants representation.

[gatorade]

Originally posted by Mar
So she met with the lawyer today and they tried to jack her for $9000 for the case. She's looking to spend $2000 - $3000 for council, can anyone recommend someone that would do this for her? I tried to convince her to save her money, it's a bullshit charge, but she wants representation.

unlikely, I know half a dozen people who have had similiar charges and none of them paid less than 8gs, there is no way she is going to find representation for that low unless she hires Lionel Hutz

[Spoons]

Originally posted by Mar
it's a bullshit charge.

A forum of users is telling you otherwise.

Tell your girlfriend to have fun spending $9000 for utterly no reason. I've got a nice student loan, I'll represent her for $5000, make it seem like I'm doing something if it makes her feel better.

[TomcoPDR]

Originally posted by gatorade

unless she hires Lionel Hutz

Yes, I thought he did a pretty nice job on the case of People vs. Freddy Quimby. a 1994 physical assault case over Chowder/Chow-dah pronunciation conflict.

[gatorade]

Originally posted by TomcoPDR


Yes, I thought he did a pretty nice job on the case of People vs. Freddy Quimby. a 1994 physical assault case over Chowder/Chow-dah pronunciation conflict.

yes and if he doesn't win your case in 30 minutes you get a free pizza

[dexlargo]

For a quoted rate of $9000, I'm assuming she consulted one of the experienced, well known impaired driving lawyers. She could try talking to a newer, less experienced lawyer and seeing what they will charge her - it would probably be a little less.

Another option is to see Student Legal Assistance at the University of Calgary. Those are student lawyers. If your girlfriend falls into their income guidelines they would only charge 30 or 50 bucks total.

But don't think that either of these options would be as good as a $9000 lawyer. Sometimes you do get what you pay for.

[Weapon_R]

Mar,

Someone in my office will probably review your case for under $2k (review disclosure and advise you on your next course of action) and maybe another 3-5k if you want to proceed to trial. It will be an experienced lawyer with more than 5 years experience. PM if interested.

Spending 9k on a DUI charge should net a pretty good lawyer. If your facts are correct, you shouldn't need someone that experienced.

[scat19]

Just get out of your car with a belt, and show the cop who's boss. :rofl:

[Mar]

Update.

So the cops on this forum were correct, she had a 24 hour suspension followed by a 21 day temporary license, then suspended again until her court date.

Reading it up online I see first time offenses are not punishable by jail time but can get a $1000 fine and 1 year suspension in most cases.

So I'm wondering if she doesn't seek council and goes to court without a lawyer to plead guilty, what's the worst that can happen? the $1000 fine and suspension? Is that it? Could there be something else that could surprise her in court? I'm basically wondering if she should get a lawyer or if it would be a complete waste of money. They want close to $9000 to go through the court process with her.

[phil98z24]

I had an impaired from last year where the accused pled guilty, and she got the fine and a 1 year driving prohibition. That's the first time I've ever had this happen in one of my cases, so take that for what you will. I have no idea if that's the norm.

[LadyLuck]

Originally posted by Mar
So I'm wondering if she doesn't seek council and goes to court without a lawyer to plead guilty, what's the worst that can happen? the $1000 fine and suspension? Is that it?

Just out of curiosity, I heard that there is a criminal record that goes along with that, and stays with you for a while, can anyone confirm that?

[dexlargo]

^You might say that it stays with you for a while. It stays with you forever unless you apply for and receive a pardon.

For a first offence, the minimum is a $1000 fine and a 1 year prohibition. If she wasn't acting extremely impaired and didn't actually endanger anyone and she pleads guilty before a trial date without a prior record, she would likely receive the minimum. She could ask the prosecutor beforehand what they would ask for and confirm it.

That said, due to the criminal record, it's not just a financial decision. She needs to determine if she has a defence or not.

[mr2mike]

Originally posted by dexlargo
and didn't actually endanger anyone

Sad to say but she was in an accident. What determines endangering someone? Sorry to say.

[Mar]

She could plead guilty but I don't think she should since she wasn't intoxicated, at least not by the device's standards.
And what would happen if she had a summaries charge 11 years ago? She had a few criminal checks done recently for employment and both showed nothing, including an entry check for getting into the USA (she's Italian).

So what I'm hoping is these charges from 11 years ago won't somehow make a difference and cause her to get more than the minimum charges, what do you think? Otherwise I think she should plead not guilty since she isn't guilty and see how the officer tries to prove her guilty. I'm still wondering if a lawyer would be beneficial here as well.

[dexlargo]

A lawyer would definitely be beneficial.

If she had convictions 11 years ago and was over 18 at the time, they should show on her criminal record unless she's applied for and received a pardon.

An 11 year old conviction likely wouldn't affect any sentence she receives very much so long as it isn't a related offence - i.e. impaired driving, dangerous driving, etc.

I'm not going to say that she should or shouldn't plead guilty, but you seem to have a misconception as to the charge she faces. The charge isn't impaired driving as far as I can tell, but refusal/failure to provide a breath sample on an approved screening device. There is absolutely no requirement to prove that she was drunk, just that the officer had reasonable grounds to require her to give a sample. The bar for that isn't very high, the officer just has to have a reasonable suspicion that there is alcohol in her body - usually an odor of alcohol on the breath or an admission of drinking is sufficient to establish this.

That said, this is a very technical area of the law where Charter arguments are raised routinely. Sometimes Charter violations are not obvious. A good defence lawyer can see if they can find any and give her a better idea of her chances. Because of the extremely technical nature of the defences to these charges, this is not the type of charge that a layperson can represent themself on with any reasonable likelihood of success.

[Mar]

Originally posted by dexlargo
An 11 year old conviction likely wouldn't affect any sentence she receives very much so long as it isn't a related offence - i.e. impaired driving, dangerous driving, etc.

I'm not going to say that she should or shouldn't plead guilty, but you seem to have a misconception as to the charge she faces. The charge isn't impaired driving as far as I can tell, but refusal/failure to provide a breath sample on an approved screening device. There is absolutely no requirement to prove that she was drunk, just that the officer had reasonable grounds to require her to give a sample. The bar for that isn't very high, the officer just has to have a reasonable suspicion that there is alcohol in her body - usually an odor of alcohol on the breath or an admission of drinking is sufficient to establish this.
The summaries charge was completely unrelated though she did get sentenced to 8 months and served 6 in jail, she was 18 or 19 at the time. And she has had no trouble with the law since. But at the same time it didn't show up on her criminal records check, she even got hired at a credit card collections company where anything like that on your record would cause a refusal of employment.

Good point about the charge though, I guess she isn't really getting charged with impaired but the refusal carries the same sentencing as a DUI. And neither of us can really afford a lawyer right now, is there some sort of assisted alternative for obtaining council? I'm going to have her talk to the prosecution today and see what's up. I'm pretty sure her court date is this week.

[urban.one]

:eek:

Originally posted by Mar

The summaries charge was completely unrelated though she did get sentenced to 8 months and served 6 in jail, she was 18 or 19 at the time.

[CUG]

Originally posted by Mar

The summaries charge was completely unrelated though she did get sentenced to 8 months and served 6 in jail, she was 18 or 19 at the time. . I've got some bad news for you..


Kidding. So was it established that she was drunk? How is there solid proof that she was impaired? Zeros on a breathalyzer looks pretty "Not Guilty" to me..

[dexlargo]

^They don't have to prove she was drunk. She was charged with failing/refusing to provide a breath sample, not impaired driving. They just have to prove that she didn't give a proper sample into the machine and that they had grounds to demand a sample.

OP, there are cheap/free legal advice services for those with low incomes:

1 - Student Legal Assistance at the University of Calgary (law students) - 403-220-6637 http://sla.ucalgary.ca

2 - Calgary Legal Guidance - Articling students do the court work, but the initial interviews are done by lawyers and lawyers supervise the articling students. (Articling students are people who have law degrees, but haven't yet finished their year of working and other certification to become lawyers) - 403-234-9266 http://www.clg.ab.ca

There may be others, but those two come to mind first. It might be worth contacting Legal Aid as well, but I'm not sure they'd cover her: 403-297-2260. http://www.legalaid.ab.ca/help/Pages/default.aspx

[Mar]

Originally posted by dexlargo
^They don't have to prove she was drunk. She was charged with failing/refusing to provide a breath sample, not impaired driving. They just have to prove that she didn't give a proper sample into the machine and that they had grounds to demand a sample.

OP, there are cheap/free legal advice services for those with low incomes:

1 - Student Legal Assistance at the University of Calgary (law students) - 403-220-6637 http://sla.ucalgary.ca

2 - Calgary Legal Guidance - Articling students do the court work, but the initial interviews are done by lawyers and lawyers supervise the articling students. (Articling students are people who have law degrees, but haven't yet finished their year of working and other certification to become lawyers) - 403-234-9266 http://www.clg.ab.ca

There may be others, but those two come to mind first. It might be worth contacting Legal Aid as well, but I'm not sure they'd cover her: 403-297-2260. http://www.legalaid.ab.ca/help/Pages/default.aspx
This is one of the most helpful posts I've come across on this forum, thanks. She called all of those numbers, she doesn't qualify for legal aid on a technicality and the other 2 can't help her because her court date is so close, I didn't realize it's tomorrow. I'll be going down with her, maybe I can help out as a witness or something. I'll post the results when it's done.

[dexlargo]

Has she already pleaded not guilty and is going to trial tomorrow? If you don't know that, do you know what court room she's supposed to appear in? It might just be a docket appearance to enter a plea.

If it is a trial date, she can ask for an adjournment to get a lawyer or Student Legal Assistance or whatever, and she would probably get one if this is the first time that it's set for trial.

ETA: Okay, I had a look back at your earlier posts, and it seems from what you wrote earlier that this was charged only about 3 weeks ago. If that's correct, there's no way that she's going to trial tomorrow. It's probably just a first appearance in court. If she wants to get SLA or CLG, she can ask for an adjournment for a few weeks for that purpose and not enter a plea. That's pretty normal and shouldn't be a problem. I would ask for 4 weeks to be sure there's time, but 2 weeks might be enough to get into SLA or CLG if she's diligent.

I think that they do these appearances at a counter now rather than in court. Where does it say on her appearance notice or promise to appear for her to attend? If she chooses to adjourn, she should call SLA or CLG right after she's received a new date and set up an appointment.

[Mar]

She hasn't pleaded anything, this is the first date for anything to do with the incident. I'm passing along your questions.