(This column was published in the North Shore News on Dec. 31, 2003)
Drunk driver process doesn't help police
By Leo Knight
WELL, another Christmas is over. All the rushing around, braving packed malls, frustrating parking lot traffic gridlock, frayed tempers and rapidly diminishing bank accounts, it’s all done for another year.
I passed a very pleasant Christmas night with friends and family from the neighbourhood. No drinking and driving, perhaps just a little wobbly walking down the street. One of my dinner companions is a former DOJ prosecutor and now defence counsel. We were talking about how attitudes about drinking and driving have changed and he remarked that impaired driving used to be the bread and butter of defence lawyers but now it’s domestic violence.
That’s a very interesting observation. Are there fewer people drinking and driving? Possibly and that may account for part of the decline. But I suspect there are a great many fewer charges processed by the police than there used to be. Conversely, in domestic violence situations, police must, by law, make an arrest of the perpetrator of the assault.
Certainly over the last 20 or so years, education efforts by ICBC and groups like MADD coupled with enforcement programs by the police have helped change the attitudes of many people. The public humiliation of Premier Gordon Campbell last year at this time showed it can happen to anyone.
But, realistically, go to any hockey game and GM Place or a Lions tilt at the dome and the taps are flowing freely. Given the thousands of people streaming out at once to the teeming parking lots, can anyone really suggest all those people are sober enough to drive?
Of course not. So, if we extrapolate that to all the bars, pubs and clubs in and around our city, it seems to me there is still a huge issue with drinking and driving. So why are there fewer and fewer charges as observed by my friend?
It’s become a bit of a numbers game. The police have to deal with ever-increasing calls for service. Property crime is skyrocketing as are other demands for police time. Fifteen years ago, a police officer could process an impaired driving arrest in about two to three hours. Now it takes that same officer off the road for five to six hours to process all the paperwork made necessary by all the Charter cases that have piled up over the years.
And this is a huge problem. Instead of charging drivers found to be impaired, police officers tend to take the path of least resistance and suspend the driver’s licence for 24 hours under the authority of Section 215 of the provincial Motor Vehicle Act. While this accomplishes the immediate goal of getting the drunk off the road, it is a small consequence indeed for someone committing a crime.
It also cannot address the issue of treatment for the problem drinker who is a menace to the rest of us. Frankly, it is just another breakdown in the system as a whole in failing to protect the public.
A story ran across the country in early December describing the results of a study done by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation. According to a survey they did, nearly 16 per cent of drivers surveyed admitted to drinking and driving this year. I suspect that number is low, but even so, it shows there is still a significant problem in this country.
The same report also indicated that the decline in drinking and driving, which began in the early 80’s, seems to be reversing. In 2001, the last year that stats are available, 38 percent of all drivers killed in Canada had been drinking. This is an increase of two percent from 2000 and four percent from 1999.
At this time of year there is always an increase in the educational efforts to convince all of us not to drink and drive. The tragic results of those who fail to heed the warnings are in the media daily. Yet, there are fewer and fewer cases of impaired driving reaching the courts than there used to be and largely because of the legal impediments placed upon the police to bring prosecutions into court.
There’s something very wrong with this equation.
-30-
This column drew an e-mail from an ex-BC Policeman now living and working in California that has some added value that we would like to pass on.
In B.C. I arrested a lot of drunk drivers , but eventually the courts wore me down and I started to hand out 24 hour suspensions mostly . Unless the driver was going to blow over 2 times the legal limit I didn't think it was worth the mountain of paperwork and the grilling I was guaranteed by some defence lawyer on the stand . I am proud of my reputation of being a thorough investigator , but on average I would go to court on about 19 out of 20 drunk driving arrests ( even if there were no loop-holes or vagueness in my reports ) . So the government could say publicly in Counter-Attack T.V. ads that drunk driving arrests were down , but only because more cops were handing out 24 hour suspensions instead - out of frustration with the courts and Charter of Rights . I love the idea of 24 hour suspensions ( for those who are below 80 mgs. but are a danger on the road nonetheless - like those who are really tired ) but it should NOT be a replacement for good drunk driver charges . No sober person , let alone a drunk one , can understand the Charter and Caution that's read ( what the HELL does " the right to retain and instruct counsel " mean ? ) .