OHTA.ca

Hi All...

I'm a Saskatchewan resident who recently got picked up for over .80 mg. I was the DD over the course of the night and had 2 beer. The police watched me go through the drive thru at Tim hortons. I actually did eat an apple fritter before I was pulled over. Im not sure if this is to my benefit in court or not. They automatically issued a 90 ADLS suspension and took both my photo id and paper licence away. My duty council said they had to return the photo id for identification purposes. The cop and his staff sargent both said they did not have to return it. Upon further research on this site I have found the following:

( 8 ) Every police officer to whom a drivers licence is surrendered under this section shall return the Photo Card portion of the licence to the person, if the licence consists of a Photo Card and Licence Card. 1996, c. 20, s. 8.

I was curious if this might help out my case at all?

Any input would be appreciated....

Only way you get part back is if it is a two part DL...IE paper and photo card. Otherwise it is taken

See subsection 8

This is Ontario law and nothing to do with Criminal Code

HTA sectio

48.3

(1) Where a police officer is satisfied that a person driving or having the care, charge or control of a motor vehicle meets one of the criteria set out in subsection (3), the officer shall notify the Registrar of that fact, or cause the Registrar to be so notified, in the form and manner and within the time prescribed by the regulations.

(2) Upon being notified under subsection (1), the Registrar shall suspend a person's driver's licence for a period of ninety days.

(2.1) A person has no right to be heard before or after the notification by the officer, or before or after the Registrar suspends the licence, but this subsection does not affect the taking of any proceeding in court.

(3) The criteria for the purpose of subsection (1) are:

1. The person is shown, by an analysis of breath or blood taken pursuant to a demand made under subsection 254 (3) of the Criminal Code (Canada) or pursuant to section 256 of the Criminal Code (Canada), to have a concentration of alcohol in his or her blood in excess of 80 milligrams in 100 millilitres of blood.

2. The person failed or refused to provide a breath or blood sample in response to a demand made under section 254 of the Criminal Code (Canada).

(4) The suspension takes effect from the time notice of the suspension is given, in accordance with section 52, to the person whose licence is suspended.

(5) If notice of the suspension is delivered personally to the person by a police officer, the officer may request the person to surrender his or her driver's licence and, upon the request, the person shall forthwith surrender his or her driver's licence to the police officer.

(6) If notice of the suspension is given to the person by mail, the person shall forthwith surrender to the Registrar his or her driver's licence, except the Photo Card portion of the licence, if the licence consists of a Photo Card and Licence Card.

(7) Whether or not the person is unable or fails to surrender his or her driver's licence under subsection (5) or (6), the licence is suspended and invalid for any purpose for a period of ninety days from the time notice is given to the person.

( 8 ) Every police officer to whom a driver's licence is surrendered under this section shall return the Photo Card portion of the licence to the person, if the licence consists of a Photo Card and Licence Card.

OPS

Thats what I was trying to get across... It was a 2 piece DL and they kept both. Now I am stuck in Ontario without any proper photo ID. I was just curious if this was some how a violation of my rights in any way.

Thanks.

Nope its just an error that can easily be explained away...If you had a 1 piece license you would still be here with no ID.

Plus the ADSL has noting to do with guilt or innocence with impaired driving...So it has no bearing on the criminal code. If you are found not guilty the suspension does not go away...

A D.D is supposed to drink nothing....Not "1-2 Beers"

GS

Not to get into my case any further but I'll literally only had a beer or two over a period of 4 hours. I know I was fine... I truly believe that that apple fritter at tim hortons actually might have gave a false positive. Anyhow, I appreciate your input on the licence screw up.

Thanks.

If you had 2 beers over a four hour period and claim an apple fritter made you blow over 80mg/100mL then I claim to be the Pope. For informational purposes only; it is physically impossible for you to have more than 80mg/100mL from two beers over a four hour period, assuming standard volumes.

Regardless, if the Police didn't return your D/L it won't win your criminal case.

I know I was fine...

Famous last words........

Check with the breathalyser test on the bottom of the site. If you were sure about being "fine" than you could have requested the blood test as well.

racer wrote:If you were sure about being "fine" than you could have requested the blood test as well.

Not going to happen!

Blood tests are only done in cases where a physician says the subject cannot provide a sample (ie due to injury or if it would put the subject at risk). The subject cannot "request" anything.

hwybear wrote:

racer wrote:If you were sure about being "fine" than you could have requested the blood test as well.

Not going to happen!

I read too much american news...

mustang1988 wrote:Not to get into my case any further but I'll literally only had a beer or two over a period of 4 hours. I know I was fine... I truly believe that that apple fritter at tim hortons actually might have gave a false positive. Anyhow, I appreciate your input on the licence screw up.

Thanks.

If you get a lawyer to run with this defense you will be able to sue for neglect of duty when you lose....

But good luck with that...I look forward to hearing of this ground breaking case law...

OPS

P.s If a fritter would give a false positive then we would have heard of this Tim Horton's Defense before....Oh and the Breathalyzer, one of the most heavily contested instruments in the history of Impaired driving would have been ruled unreliable years and years ago,...Perhaps this will be a clue that this line of defense will go no where....

OPS Copper wrote:

mustang1988 wrote:Not to get into my case any further but I'll literally only had a beer or two over a period of 4 hours. I know I was fine... I truly believe that that apple fritter at tim hortons actually might have gave a false positive. Anyhow, I appreciate your input on the licence screw up.

Thanks.

If you get a lawyer to run with this defense you will be able to sue for neglect of duty when you lose....

But good luck with that...I look forward to hearing of this ground breaking case law...

OPS

P.s If a fritter would give a false positive then we would have heard of this Tim Horton's Defense before....Oh and the Breathalyzer, one of the most heavily contested instruments in the history of Impaired driving would have been ruled unreliable years and years ago,...Perhaps this will be a clue that this line of defense will go no where....

My Grandmother used to make rum balls, oooooh rum balls, and I swear the tingle would hit hard and fast. Maybe our friend had a rum fritter??

OPS Copper wrote:If a fritter would give a false positive then we would have heard of this Tim Horton's Defense before....Oh and the Breathalyzer, one of the most heavily contested instruments in the history of Impaired driving would have been ruled unreliable years and years ago,...

That says it all.

mustang1988 wrote:I truly believe that that apple fritter at tim hortons actually might have gave a false positive.

Breathalyzers/intoxilyzers have been challenged so often that manufacturers go through an exhaustive testing and certification process. They hold the title for "most challenged devices in court," easily beating out the second-place radar/lidar units. It is of no advantage to them to spend a boatload of money developing and selling a product that would not stand up in court. The second one of them is found to not be admissible or trustworthy, the manufacturer would lose a considerable amount of business or just go bankrupt. There are only a limited number of circumstances where a false-positive may be generated, but techniques used by police in administering the tests makes that very unlikely.

Also, a Tim Horton's apple fritter does not have the chemical composition to cause a false-positive. Well, unless it is

Reflections wrote:a rum fritter.

That's given me an idea for Christmas dessert: Rum fritters!

Perhaps a very expired fritter?