Wednesday, February 24, 2010

If Judges had to live with their decisions - Form change results in drunk driver acquittals

CBC News - Saskatchewan - Form change results in drunk driver acquittals

So let's see if I can get this straight:

A person caught driving drunk is taken back to the detachment (or police station) for a breath test administered. Presumably, the officer(s) have enough suspicion that the person is going to be proven to be drunk, which is why they are hauled back to the station. This story is telling me that the drunk driver can get off because they USED THE WRONG FRIGGIN' FORM?!?!?!?!?!?!

So whatever happened to the testimony of the arresting officer, saying "the subject looked, smelled and acted drunk. I administered 2 tests, 15 minutes apart and determined that the subject was, in fact, drunk"? I mean, I know that there has to be some documentation, but seriously? Someone can get off because there's no place on the form for the time of the second test?

Here's a thought. Maybe any judge that would consider letting a person off on this technicality should have to accompany this person to the bar every time they go for the following year - not necessarily to drink, just to ensure that they might be affected if this person drives drunk and injures something.

Or maybe another thought... Why don't breathalyzers have a built in clock that automatically timestamps the results of a test whenever it is administered? Then maybe you have no chance of someone getting off on a technicality like this.

Just a couple thoughts.

No comments:

Post a Comment