How would you define, "reasonable grounds"? Imagine you are a police officer, you are at the scene of an accident involving a motor vehicle and a pedestrian, in a marked cross walk, in a controlled intersection and could smell alcohol on the drivers breath. Would you...
A) Shrug it off as no big deal?
B) Ask the driver for a breath sample?
C) Call the Supreme Court of Canada to get their opinion?
If you chose A, go to the back of the bus! You are a disgrace to your uniform!
If you chose B, congratulations for serving the people you swore to protect. Unfortunately though, it was also the wrong choice. Go to the back of the bus.
The correct answer in Canada is, of course, C
The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments on Thursday about what constitutes reasonable grounds to ask for a breath sample in a case involving impaired driving causing death in Alberta.
If this is the kind of decisions we need our SUPREME COURT to be making.... Lord help us all.
3 comments:
He had that much to drink and wasn't slurring his words? Maybe because he was comatose?
I give up
If what his "friends" are saying is true... I don't know how the man could not have shown other signs of impairment... Mind you, I am not a good judge on this one as I am a cheap drunk... more than two beers and I am drunk, and I know it. I won't even go near hard liquor...
Something like this shows only one half of debate on what constitutes "Reasonable Grounds" check here (www.reasonabletoassume.com)to get an idea of what's on the other side of the coin.
In this particular instance smelling alcohol on the breath of person operating a motor vehicle is, in fact, reasonable grounds to believe an offense has been committed - but without a definition of the term it can become a license for police vigilantism.
Post a Comment