Re: 鈥淲oman, 76, challenges legality of licence loss,鈥� April 23.
I am a retired police officer with experience in impaired-driving enforcement. When I heard about the change in legislation that gave the police the authority to demand a breath sample without having a reasonable belief that the driver had alcohol in his/her system, I thought the law was doomed to fail. I considered that the demand would be arbitrary and would not withstand a Charter challenge.
If you drive, you must blow. If the law survives, then it follows that people who can鈥檛 blow, can鈥檛 drive. I don鈥檛 think that was the intention.
That said, I know (and the police officer in the story knows) it requires very little effort to provide a suitable sample for the Alco-Sensor IV Roadside Screening Device. I have seen many drivers try to defeat the device by placing their tongue over the mouthpiece, or inflating their cheeks with air while not blowing, or failing to envelop the mouthpiece with their lips, before declaring that they just can鈥檛 do it.
That鈥檚 why police officers have had to rely on other observations of impairment to charge such a person with failing to provide. These include an admission of drinking, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, poor balance and the odour of liquor on the breath. They鈥檙e what gave the officer the authority to make the demand in the first place.
Without those other observations, why even make the demand 鈥� even if the law does authorize it? I think the former standard was fair, defensible and effective.
Kevin Worth
Victoria
