Friday, May 14, 2010

Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez Charged


This caps of a very bad week for the Liberals. Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez has been charged with refusing to obey a police officer following a traffic accident involving his car.
Mr. Rodriguez offered few details about the accident and declined to answer when asked if another car was involved.

Was their property damage?

Accountability and Due Process for Liberal MP?

A spokesman for Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said the MP would keep his caucus duties.

Okay how do you fail the blowing into a breathalyzer? It is my understanding if you refuse or fail the charges can be the same as D.U.I. in Ontario.

In Quebec what is the consequence of refusing, failing this test? Was a blood, urine sample requested to test his blood level? Any Quebec lawyers on BT can give a quick opinion.

Here is a funny clip. Too many BT to h/t everyone (having fun on this story).This is a pile on but based on the last few months of drive by smears some would think this is Karma.




Update: This is for informational purposes ONLY. We should remember Due Process and Rule of Law extends to everyone in Canada. We should not excuse criminal behaviour but we need to allow those in trust to do their job.

Should the Liberal Party be held to same standard of accountability they have demanded of the CPC MPs in question period when being investigated?

Failing to cooperate in the U.K. here



Failing to cooperate in Ontario. here

Timeline from Suspected Impaired Driving to Court Appearance


The following timeline is based on an uncomplicated impaired driving investigation.

00:00 The suspect vehicle is sighted and pulled over.

00:02 Driver's documents have been obtained and an odour of liquor is noted on the driver's breath.

00:04 Driver is warned about being under investigation for impaired driving and the Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand is made.

00:05 Driver blows a fail on the ASD.

00:06 Driver is given the police warning and advised of his/her Charter Rights.

00:08 Breathalyzer demand is made.

00:09 24 hour suspension demand is made. Driver is placed in police vehicle for transport to the Detachment for testing.

00:25 A driving time of 15 minutes is assumed to arrive at the detachment. This estimate could be somewhat less or much more depending on the initial location.

00:27 Driver decides to contact Legal Aid for advice and an initial call is made.

00:47 An average time of 20 minutes for Legal Aid to return the initial call is assumed. The waiting time is seldom much less than this.

00:57 An average time of 10 minutes for conversation with Legal Aid is assumed. It is not usually much more or less than this.

Driver is taken to the breath testing area. Impaired drivers investigation guide is completed.

01:18 Face to face observation period to guard against mouth alcohol is completed prior to breath testing.

01:21 First breath sample is taken and analyzed. Sample over 100 mg. % is assumed for this scenario.

01:38 15 clear minutes are observed prior to test number 2. Sample over 100 mg % and within 20 mg % of the first sample is assumed. If not, a third test would be required. The driver's fingerprints and photograph are often taken in this waiting period.

rest on site....


Failing to cooperate in Quebec here


A police officer may order you to provide a blood sample in the following situations:


she has reasonable grounds to believe that, in the previous 3 hours, you were driving or had the care or the control of a vehicle while impaired and/or she has reasonable grounds to believe that, in the previous 3 hours, you were driving or had the care or the control of a vehicle while the level of alcohol in your blood was above 80 mg per 100 ml and taking a breath sample is difficult or impossible due to your physical condition at the time of your arrest.
For example, a person suffering from asthma or respiratory problems may be unable to perform a breathalyzer test. Or the driver may have injured his mouth or jaw in a car accident. In both cases, the police can take the driver to the hospital to get a blood sample. Only a doctor or nurse can take this sample and only if the doctor believes that this will not threaten the driver’s life.
Sometimes, the driver is unable to consent to the taking of a blood sample. For example, he may be unconscious or very agitated following an accident. In such a case, the police officer must get a warrant to obtain a blood sample. She can only ask for the warrant if a doctor has attested that the driver was in such a state that he could neither consent to nor refuse the request for a blood sample and that the procedure won’t endanger the driver’s life. The sample will only be authorized if the driver was involved in an accident in which he or another person were injured, or in which another person died.
 
The law states that it is a criminal offence to refuse to do the following acts without a reasonable excuse:


  • provide a breath sample through a breathalyzer test or the approved screening device
  • perform the physical coordination tests required by the police officer
  • consent to giving a blood sample follow a police officer in order to provide a sample
If you are found guilty of one of these offences, you are subject to the same punishment as you would be for the offence of driving while impaired or driving while the level of alcohol in your blood was above the limit.
You should know that if the evidence supports it, you can be charged with both refusing to provide a sample and impaired driving.
 
Conclusion: BIG LOOPHOLE
 
If I am reading this correctly, a person who is very agitated following an accident may be unable to provide a breathalyzer sample and not have his blood sample taken if no serious injury took place.
 
I am not sure about the other preliminary roadside tests or subsequent test at the police station.

8 comments:

Bec said...

"....some would think this is Karma"

Or what goes around comes around...sweet however other than the fun, I predict CONSERVATIVES will show far more class and dignity. We just ARE NOT sewer dwellers like those losers.

kursk said...

Pablo, drunk or sober, could not be any less comprehensible in either official language.

Prairie Kid said...

He held a news conference today to say he wanted to be transparent. Funny but I would think if he wanted to be transparent he would have held this news conference back in April immediately after it happened.

Tom said...

Good job he's not a Tory, they'd have him crusified on the lawn of Parliament Hill.
Of course he's a Liberal, he's entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

hunter said...

Funny how the comments have been disabled at the G&M for this article. Did they disable comments on the Rahim articles?

Rahim was an EX-MP, Perfect hair is a CURRENT MP, he should get more heat than Rahim, but I'm not holding my breath. He is a Liberal after all! If the CBC wants to show us how "unbiased" they are, the would be on this like a fly on SH&t.

CanadianSense said...

Updated post with U.K. Ontario and Quebec. Interesting loopholes in Quebec. A person may be able to bypass the breath tests and not have his blood taken unless an order from a judge, serious injury or death.

Fay said...

So who is the judge that helped out pablo?

MariaS said...

Where Liberals are concerned, Hypocrisy Rules. What's fine and dandy for a Lib MP, is taboo for a Conservative MP... and an ex-MP, no less.
Hypocrites.