Aals

In late 1999, the Province of Alberta decided to implement the Alberta Administrative License Suspension (AALS), which is described in my operators manual as:

Quote:

---

Effective December 1, 1999, the AALS became law in Alberta. This means that drivers charged with an alcohol-related offense will face an automatic suspension of their operator's license. No conviction is necessary.

Any driver who is charged with having a breath or blood sample over 0.08 [blood-alcohol content, the legal limit specified in the Criminal Code, section 253(b)], or refusing a demand thereof, will recieve an automatic three-month suspension.

If the individual holds a valid Alberta driver's license, a 21-day temporary permit is granted before the suspension begins. These temporary driving privileges are intended to allow time for drivers going under suspension to get their affairs in order.

Then, hwen a driver is convicted on a first offence, they will lose their driving privileges for one year on top of the AALS. If it is a second offence, they willl lose their license for three years. A third offence will keep a drunk driver off the road for five years. Convicted impaired drivers causing bodily harm or death will recieve a mandatory five-year suspension [this is enforced by the Motor Vehicle Administration Act, and apply after a federal conviction].

If an impaired driver causes bodily hrm or death, the AALS ensures that their license is taken away for at least six months, on-the-spot [without a conviction]. Alberta is the only jurisdiction to increase the automatic revokation.

---

I find the AALS to be an abomination to the democratic liberties we are said to enjoy in Canada and throughout the western world; yet other provinces and nations are taking similar action without regard to the presumption of innocence.

Any thoughts?

If you drive drunk, you should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Absolutely, but this is penalty before prosecution or conviction. That is not what we value in a democratic society.

Agreed; trial must come first, otherwise (I dunno the Canadian way :)) it's unconstitutional.

Although I find the actions taken by the AALS a bit harsh in some cases, I think that they're justifiable. Drunk drivers kill many people each day, and from a political standpoint, to not take any action intended to decrease the death toll would be illogical.

However... (the infamous however, right?)

In practice, I don't think that these restrictions will prevent that many deaths or injuries. Sure, they'll probably prevent some, but the majority of drunk drivers that get in accidents are most likely either alcoholics who wont stop drinking because they're addicted, underage drinkers who got drunk at a party or something and had no other transportation besides driving themselves home, or just flat-out drunks who drive drunk all the time as it is. The threat of a license suspension may not have an effect on some or all of the people in these groups.

Basically, I don't think that these measures will cause a profound decrease in alcohol related vehicular accidents.

As far as the trial thing goes, I think it's wrong that they get automatic suspension. I agree, trial should come first.

It's very unconstitutional; the legal rights are very consistant among Canadian and American citizens.

Quote:

---

Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

---

So there ya go. According to you (hey, I'm just taking what I know), it is unconstitutional.

Oh my goodness! Are we actually all agreeing on something?:eek:

Scary. :eek:

Has this ever happened before?