Our Chicago DUI Lawyers found yet another tale from the “war” on drunk driving.  This time it’s an 82 year old Alberta, BC native who had her car towed, was fined, and lost her license, not because she had been drinking, but because she couldn’t blow hard enough into a breathalyzer.  Bravo, Mounties.

B.C. senior snared by draconian drunk driving law
By Michael Platt, QMI Agency

CALGARY — To bully and berate an innocent senior then punish her without a trial for a crime she clearly didn’t commit.

This, apparently, is what Alberta has to look forward to under draconian drunk-driving laws inspired by our neighboring province, where suspected motorists are guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

Fortunately for 82-year-old Margaret MacDonald, tears brought on by allegedly obnoxious B.C. RCMP officers didn’t blind her to protecting herself.

“I came into the house and burst into tears — then I stood here at three o’clock in the morning and thought ‘my word means nothing’,” said MacDonald.

“Three officers don’t believe me, so I phoned the hospital and took a taxi over to have a blood test.

“I’m not going to let the Mounties get away with saying I was drunk.”

There was no alcohol in her system — not a drop — and yet MacDonald’s failure to provide a proper breath sample meant her car was taken away for a month and her license suspended for 90 days.

Now, $6,000 out-of-pocket and in fear of losing her home, the Cranbrook senior will wait another six months for a ruling on her case, as the B.C. government tweaks legislation to comply with a court order.

It was May 21 when MacDonald was approached by an off-duty RCMP officer, just outside her home.

MacDonald, a near-teetotaler, was returning from an engagement party at a friend’s house when she mistakenly turned into the wrong lane. She assumed that’s why the police officer was there.

Even when the off-duty cop told MacDonald a breathalyzer was coming to test her for drinking and driving, she didn’t worry — her last serious drink was 60 years ago. “I really don’t drink,” she said.

What she didn’t count on was the lung power needed to properly blow into a police breathalyzer. Having suffered from serious pneumonia a few years ago, she couldn’t manage.

That didn’t stop RCMP from making her try — over the next two hours, MacDonald says she was forced to stand in the chill and told to blow 15 times by increasingly snotty RCMP officers.

“He pounded on the hood of his car and shouted at me to blow. He shoved this thing in my mouth and it fell on the ground, and he picked it up and put in back in again,” said MacDonald.

“I said, ‘I don’t drink, I haven’t been drinking,’ and he said, ‘you’re sticking your tongue in there because you don’t want do this — you’re slurring, you’re drunk and you stink of alcohol.’”

RCMP officials are now reviewing the conduct of officers that night, but try as they might, the Mounties couldn’t get a sample from the shivering, teary-eyed senior, who was wearing only sandals and a thin dress.

Thus, MacDonald was cited for failing to provide a breath sample, given a Notice of Driving Prohibition for three months, fined $500 and told her car was to be towed.

MacDonald wept, but she was sharp enough to obtain proof of her innocence, because in Canada that used to be enough to make those in power see sense.

Not anymore. Under a system about to be adopted in Alberta, drivers suspected of driving drunk, even under .05%, can lose their licenses and cars without a trial.

Even after MacDonald took her blood test to the RCMP station, she was told nothing could be done.

A helpful corporal on duty provided her with a letter, stating: “I believe it is only fair that this Driving Prohibition and Vehicle Impound be terminated and removed from your driving record as soon as possible.”

But it didn’t end there.

Despite proof of alcohol-free blood, B.C.’s superintendent of motor vehicles adjudicator still found her guilty — a decision now under review by direct order of B.C. Solicitor General Shirley Bond.

“Obviously, I am concerned with this circumstance but it is important that we get all the facts of the case,” Bond said in a statement to QMI Agency.

“As soon as I became aware of this, I directed the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles to review the case and that work is currently underway.”

The ordeal took a massive toll on MacDonald — a few days later, she suffered what doctors in Calgary told her was a mild, stress-related heart attack, leaving her bed-ridden in hospital.

Back in Cranbrook, all she can do is wait.

“I’m nearly 83 and you have to cope with life, but through my years I’ve never been this traumatized over anything,” she said.

“Especially when I’m totally innocent.”

Unfortunately, our DUI Attorneys will tell you, that this is not an isolated incident.

Our Chicago DUI Lawyers have been following this tragic story from day one.  Today, the jury is expected to wrap up deliberations in the trial of ex-Chicago Police Officer Richard Bolling, is is accused of, among other charges, reckless homicide in the hit & run crash that killed a 13 year old boy.  Prosecutors allege that Bolling, a 17 year veteran of the Chicago Police Department, received special treatment by investigators at the scene of the accident who held off giving Bolling field sobriety tests.

Off-duty officer got special treatment in fatal hit-run case, prosecutors argue
January 17, 2012|By Jason Meisner, Chicago Tribune reporter

A Chicago police officer accused in a hit-and-run crash that killed a 13-year-old boy received preferential treatment from investigators who drove the off-duty officer to a restroom, delayed field-sobriety tests and overlooked key evidence that he was intoxicated, prosecutors said Tuesday in closing arguments.

A Cook County jury deliberated on the fate of Richard Bolling into the evening without reaching a verdict. Deliberations are scheduled to resume Wednesday morning. The veteran narcotics officer, 42, is on trial on charges of aggravated DUI, reckless homicide and leaving the scene of a fatal accident in the May 2009 crash that killed Trenton Booker, who was riding his bike late at night.

One of the officers who stopped him testified that she was ordered to “hold off” on the field-sobriety tests by her watch commander. Both arresting officers reported at the time that Bolling passed those tests but admitted in their testimony at trial that they were mistaken. Bolling was also driven to a restroom to wash up before the field-sobriety tests and didn’t have to take the alcohol breath test until almost five hours after the crash, registering just below the legal limit.

A tragedy for everyone involved.

Our Chicago DUI Attorneys have written about prior “No Refusal Weekends” here in Illinois.  (See DUI No Refusal Weekends In Jeopardy and Kane County No Refusal Weekend Is Back). The State of Texas, it seems, has taken “No Refusal” to a whole new level.  Threats of being strapped down to a chair and stabbed by a needle are now part of the law enforcement culture as suspects are forced to give up their Constitutional rights.

By NATHAN KOPPEL – Wall Street Journal

Texans arrested for drunken driving should be prepared to give blood this holiday season.

Cities and counties across the state are increasingly demanding that drunken-driving suspects who refuse to take breathalyzer tests submit to blood tests that measure the amount of alcohol in their systems.

The blood-test policy—dubbed “no refusal” by law-enforcement officials, because it prevents drivers from refusing to provide evidence of intoxication—has grown from a novel procedure used in a few Texas jurisdictions to an initiative used by police statewide, particularly during weekends and holidays when drunken driving is most common. The no-refusal initiative has also caught on in other states, including Florida, Illinois, Louisiana and Missouri.

Interesting.  But what about the 4th Amendment which does not allow unreasonable search and seizure?  Isn’t that a concern to prosecutors?

 ”If it bleeds, it pleads,” said Fort Worth prosecutor Richard Alpert.

Oh, right.  Winning at all costs is what’s important.  But how does law enforcement get these tests?

“We give people the option of blowing into a tube or getting poked with a needle,” said Lt. Rod Liston. “People increasingly are going with the less painful option.”

Yes, torture does have a way of working, doesn’t it?

“It’s the CSI effect,” said Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed, referring to the popular television show about crime-scene investigators.

Oh, right.  “CSI”, not torture, our bad.

“About one in four DWI suspects refuses a breathalyzer test in order to avoid prosecution,” Mr. LaHood said at the time. “It’s a persistent, ongoing problem.”

Yes, Secretary LaHood, that Constitution can be problematic.