OHTA.ca

After 40 years of driving accident free and no traffic violations (not even a parking ticket) I made the mistake of going to get some gas after having a few drinks. I realized my mistake and immediately turned to go home and some cop stopped me for no reason. Probably he wanted to look closer at a car he couldn't afford in a million years. He said is was a RIDE stop. BS. Anyway I was naive, hired an incompetent lawyer, pled guilty and paid the price.

A few months into my disqualification, I had an emergency at work, and had to drive in. It seriously was a matter of life and death. Coming home, a cop ran my plate and I was caught driving disqualified. Fancy, shinny cars seem to get their eye.

This time I had an excellent lawyer who got me off with a driving while suspended charge, not driving disqualified, so no addtional criminal record, or heavy fine or jail. Just 6 more months suspension.

Sorry for the long story, however my question is as follows:

The first notice from the MTO for the DUI was that I would have to take the rehab course (I did that) and have a vehicle immobilizer installed.

The second notice from the MTO for driving while suspended says that my license is suspended and I will get it back on a certain date. It says that if it is printed at the top that I have to do the rehab course, or that I have to have a vehicle immobilizer, I need to do these things. However, nothing IS printed.

So, from anyone's experience, does the second notice superceed the first?

In other words when I get my license back from being suspended (not disqualified) will I have to have the vehicle immobilizer installed?

It is not that I care to drink and drive again..I never will..and except for a few times 40 years ago in my youth, never did drive intoxicated. I rarely drink anyway. The issue I have is with some bozo in a muffler shop installing some device into my vehicle's electrics and buggering it up. That would be worse that anything the courts could throw at me.

Thanks for your assistance.

James.

You are under two different suspension numbers. which means two different suspensions. One is for the plea is time based and it ends will disappear. The second is for the drunk driving and will not disappear until you meet the conditions.

Neither supersedes the other.

OPS

Thank you for your reply. A further question if you don't mind. Will I then only have to have the immobilizer for 6 months due to the additional 6 months of suspension taking half of what I would have had the immobilizer in?

Nope. Both suspensions are independent of each other. You need to fulfill the conditions of each. If the Immobilizer has to be there a year then it has to be there a year.

OPS

You can also choose not to drive for that one year period, instead of having the immobilizer installed.

It is a pain in the ass to have it installed, but thats not the worst part.

The worst part is that you have to blow in the machine every 15 minutes regardless. If you don't your car will shut down while driving.

It also keeps a record. If you blow in it while intoxicated, your car won't start, and it will also be recorded that you tried to start your car again while intoxicated.

Thanks for the replies. I realize I made a mistake, however I fail to see why the system groups everyone into the same category. Just because it happened to me once in 40 years, does not mean I am an alcoholic or that I will repeat the offense. No consideration was given for my good record at all. If I had robbed someone, or murdered some one, at least the circumstances and previous record, would have been taken into consideration for sentencing, and I would serve 2/3 of my sentence and get parole. Not so if it is impaired driving. We are all grouped into one class and dispensed the same penalty.

Last year some woman left her child out in a stairwell to freeze to death. Her fine was $800. Some woman hired a hit man to kill her husband, and she got 6 months of house arrest. Some guy cuts the head off a man on a bus and eats his eyes, and he is considered for parole in 2012. The justice system stinks for first time impaired drivers. Sure, a habitual drunk driver should be banned or jailed forever, but a first timer with an exemplary record should be given some consideration. Anyway, this has changed me. Where I once was a police supporter and contributed to the police fund whenever asked, I now treat them all with contempt. One day one of them is going to need my help.

How do we know you are not a criminal..Just becasue you say so? How do I know that you are not a habitual drunk who just got caught?

Everyone tells me they are innocent Just as the cuffs go on.

You made the choice to become a criminal when you decided to drive and it is a choice you made no one forced you into driving. We all know how many drinks we have consumed and yet when they get caught they all say 1 drink that is all.

. If I can take a taxi home so can you. If it is to far then get a hotel.

you say the system is to hard on first time drivers. Well what if you kid was injured by a first time drunk driver. I bet then you would be screaming with MADD at how lenient the system is.

You have contempt for the police and that we will need you some day as if that is some threat to with hold service. Sad thing isthough you will need the police probably sooner than they need you. And even though you are a criminal they will be there for you. . Well I would think the police have contempt for criminals and you are one now. I guess that shows the difference in Character of a person.

OPS

That is the typical uneducated, unsympathetic reply I would expect from a cop.

For the record, I am by no means a drunk, and instilled in my kids many times, not to drink and drive. Many times I woke up in the middle of the night to go get one or the other so they would not drive home impaired.

My drinking is regulated to Christmas and birthdays.

I was illegally stopped by a cop who just wanted to look at my car, not because my driving was affected. I blew .10 and the lawyer said I should not have even been charged. No, it is just you cops have a superiority complex and unarmed impaired drivers are an easy target. Put you up against a real criminal and you would run away like a scared little schoolgirl.

I will be on the road in two weeks and if I happen to see an impaired driver do you think I will call 911, so you clowns could ruin someones life. Not a chance. If I see a cop on the side of the road requiring assistance, I will just keep driving.

Anyway, I am out of here. No reply is necessary. Watch out for bad donuts.

admin wrote:You can also choose not to drive for that one year period, instead of having the immobilizer installed.

It is a pain in the ass to have it installed, but thats not the worst part.

The worst part is that you have to blow in the machine every 15 minutes regardless. If you don't your car will shut down while driving.

It also keeps a record. If you blow in it while intoxicated, your car won't start, and it will also be recorded that you tried to start your car again while intoxicated.

Thanks for the information. I don't ever plan to even sit near anyone who is drinking, so there will be nothing to record like that. Thanks.

I have a neighbour who's life was significantly impacted by a drunk who decided the he was fine to drive after a few drinks, and when he was convicted in court was pissed and yelled that they should be convicting 'real' criminals. This neighbour's now confined to a wheel chair for the rest of his life. I wonder how many times an impaired driver gets behind the wheel before actually getting caught. I consider all drunk drivers to be criminals, just as i would consider anyone that plays russian roulet with a stranger's life a criminal.

But that's just me.

Illegally stopped? In Ontario I can stop a vehicle for the simple reason to Check the Drivers license, Insurance, and registration. There does not need to be a reason like in the the USA.

OPS

USA still allows motorists to be stopped to check driver status, vehicle registration, etc. Mostly it depends on which state you're in. Some do, some don't.

fortec_man wrote:But that's just me.

You're not alone.

fortec_man wrote:when he was convicted in court was pissed and yelled that they should be convicting 'real' criminals.

They all say that. It's always someone else's fault, someone else is the a-hole: The police, the Justice, the Prosecutor, the victim, the bartender... always someone else.

NotAcriminal wrote:Put you up against a real criminal and you would run away like a scared little schoolgirl.

Nice. That verbal attack might work if it was remotely believable, or credible. The police aren't going to need your help, and even if they did need it, they wouldn't want your help anyway.

NotAcriminal wrote:That is the typical uneducated, unsympathetic reply I would expect from a cop.

That is the typical, uneduated, unsympathetic reply I would expect from some bone head who hasn't learnt his lesson...

Just saying.

I swore I was not coming back to the donuts fat cop site, but I have to relay the injustices.

A murderer gets sentenced, less time served. An impaired driver loses his license immediately, and depending when he goes to court, it is one year from that date. No consideration that he may have lost his license 6 weeks ago. So he loses his license for over a year. If I was some kid, you guys picked up and sent him off to jail, at least he would have been credited with time served.

Conrad Black is sentenced to 6 years but after only 2 years is out. Why is a one year impaired driving sentence so cut and dry. Will Conrad not commit another crime? Have not I been on good behavior?

You all have typical cop mentality. No empathy for someone who made a mistake. My wife was stopped for speeding in 2001. The cop said I can't be in court on that day so just go, and it will get thrown out. *EDIT*.

My daughter is a beautiful California blond who (again) drives a car none of you loses could afford in a lifetime, and you stop her for no reason.

And lastly, my lawyer says we are becoming a police state. Welcome to Russia.

I've been following this post and watching this unfold for a while now. I can't remain silent.

"notacriminal" you are WRONG. A cop did his job... followed his instincts and got a DRUNK DRIVER OFF THE ROAD. Your just pissed because that drunk was YOU. maybe he pulled you over because someone called 911 to report you as an impared driver. You really think it was becuse you have such a nice car? get over yourself!

By your own admission in your first post you are a criminal because you admit to drinking and driving. Deciding to go out for gas after you had a few drinks is not a mistake it is a bad decision you made knowing the possible outcome. Why didnt you just stay home and get gas the next time you neded to go somewhere? Not only that but you drove under your suspention to make the matter worse. You screwed up and its time to pay the piper.

Most citizens of Ontario agree that these stiff penaltys are warrented for this behaviour. And although I agree that some of the things the ontario govermnent comes up with seems like were are in a "police state" your case is not one of them.

GROW UP AND LEARN YOUR LESSON.