DUI what happens?
- Thread starter standing on the sidelines
- Start date
- Status
DowntroddenDad
New member
Here is a little blurb I found that might help:
Court of Appeal lists ?care and control? factors - Ottawa Criminal Lawyer
I don't see anything here about sitting around a campfire be considered in care and control. Walking near the vehicle with your keys in your hand might be though....
Court of Appeal lists ?care and control? factors - Ottawa Criminal Lawyer
I don't see anything here about sitting around a campfire be considered in care and control. Walking near the vehicle with your keys in your hand might be though....
DowntroddenDad
New member
Here is a Supreme Court ruling that clarifies it:
The elements of care and control are:
(1) an intentional course of conduct associated with a motor vehicle;
(2) by a person whose ability to drive is impaired, or whose blood alcohol level exceeds the legal limit;
(3) in circumstances that create a realistic risk of danger to persons or property
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the risk that the car be set in motion must be a realistic , as opposed to a theoretical, one. If all that was required was a theoretical risk, then anyone found drunk in a car with any access to the keys would be convicted. While the standard was not meant to be a high one, this was clearly too low and would capture innocent or benign conduct.
Be careful where you fall asleep: The Supreme Court reviews the offence of impaired care and control | The Litigator - Kingston, Ontario
The case was one where a Quebec man wakes up one morning after heavy drinking, and has to leave. He calls a cab, gets into his car to wait and turns on the heater (keys in the ignition) to wait for the cab. The cabbie found him asleep at the wheel.
The man was acquitted.
So getting back to the campfire example, if you are drunk and headed towards your car, and the obvious conclusion is you are going to drive drunk, you could be charged. If you were just heading there to get a pack of smokes no problem. (if you can prove that).
As for the opinion on private property, I was witness to an incident where an upstairs neighbour was asleep at the wheel, passed out and the police were called on a noise complaint. The car was in the driveway. My van was behind it, so the car could not move. The police threatened to charge him with impared care and control, but did not. I moved out of there a few weeks later.
The elements of care and control are:
(1) an intentional course of conduct associated with a motor vehicle;
(2) by a person whose ability to drive is impaired, or whose blood alcohol level exceeds the legal limit;
(3) in circumstances that create a realistic risk of danger to persons or property
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the risk that the car be set in motion must be a realistic , as opposed to a theoretical, one. If all that was required was a theoretical risk, then anyone found drunk in a car with any access to the keys would be convicted. While the standard was not meant to be a high one, this was clearly too low and would capture innocent or benign conduct.
Be careful where you fall asleep: The Supreme Court reviews the offence of impaired care and control | The Litigator - Kingston, Ontario
The case was one where a Quebec man wakes up one morning after heavy drinking, and has to leave. He calls a cab, gets into his car to wait and turns on the heater (keys in the ignition) to wait for the cab. The cabbie found him asleep at the wheel.
The man was acquitted.
So getting back to the campfire example, if you are drunk and headed towards your car, and the obvious conclusion is you are going to drive drunk, you could be charged. If you were just heading there to get a pack of smokes no problem. (if you can prove that).
As for the opinion on private property, I was witness to an incident where an upstairs neighbour was asleep at the wheel, passed out and the police were called on a noise complaint. The car was in the driveway. My van was behind it, so the car could not move. The police threatened to charge him with impared care and control, but did not. I moved out of there a few weeks later.
wretchedotis
New member
From personal experience, I have seen police held at bay by the property owner refusing them entrance to the property.
Shenanigans were proceeding in plain sight of the police - yet they were unable to enter the property without permission.
I don't exactly know how this would relate to 'probable cause' and Drinking and driving - but I'm pretty certain they would be powerless in that situation.
Perhaps too it needs to be considered that typically a home-owner does not technically own their property from the road to the sidewalk. Maybe if the car is parked on that spot they can intervene.
Shenanigans were proceeding in plain sight of the police - yet they were unable to enter the property without permission.
I don't exactly know how this would relate to 'probable cause' and Drinking and driving - but I'm pretty certain they would be powerless in that situation.
Perhaps too it needs to be considered that typically a home-owner does not technically own their property from the road to the sidewalk. Maybe if the car is parked on that spot they can intervene.
- Status