Manitoba farmers who protested at the Portage Diversion last month will not face any penalties for their actions, and have agreed not to interfere with the operation of the diversion until July.
Manitoba stories
A Manitoba jailhouse drug conspiracy case has concluded with prosecutors securing convictions against several key players, including an aboriginal elder working at Headingley Correctional Centre.
An out-of-state driver was formally charged with felony death by vehicle after a Dec. 6, 2008 accident. After the crash, authorities say the 36-year-old woman took a Breathalyzer test, showing a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent, the legal limit under North Carolina DWI laws. However, a North Carolina State Trooper says that the woman’s alleged impairment did not factor into the cause of the accident on a dark stretch of a road in Gastonia.
Law enforcement says that she was driving on the dark two-lane road in 2008 and struck a bicyclist. The 33-year-old Gastonia man was killed in the accident. A North Carolina Highway patrolman says that based upon the circumstances, it would have been difficult for any driver to have seen the bicyclist that night.
Authorities took the woman into custody after the crash. After her original arrest, the woman posted a ,000 secured bond and she was released.
The woman reportedly lived at the time in South Carolina, but reportedly now lives in Florida. She was scheduled to appear in court in June and for arraignment in late August on the felony death by vehicle charge. Authorities say she failed to appear in court. The judge issued warrant in late August, ordering that she be arrested for failing to appear.
Recently, the woman was arrested on the warrant in Florida and extradited back to North Carolina. She was placed in the Gaston County Jail with no bond. News reports do not indicate when the woman will next appear in court on the felony death by motor vehicle charge.
Source: Gaston Gazette, “Woman jailed for missing court date related to DWI fatality,” Diane Turbyfill, Dec. 7, 2011
Two RCMP officers convicted of assaulting a man outside a Grand Beach area bar should be sentenced to four months in jail, a judge was told Thursday.
Manitoba stories
Most Americans believe that there is a constitutional right against being forced to provide evidence against yourself. And certainly, most Americans could not imagine that a citizen arrested for a criminal offense could actually be charged with a separate criminal offense of not giving possibly incriminating evidence — in other words, if you don’t provide evidence against yourself, you will be convicted of refusing to do so and be thrown in jail. Not in the U.S., right?
Wrong. But then most Americans aren’t familiar with "the DUI Exception to the Constitution".
Most people don’t realize it, but it is a criminal offense in a growing number of states for a citizen arrested for drunk driving to refuse to give a breath or blood sample; in most other states, a refusal increases the penalty for the DUI itself. After the DUI arrest, the police will tell the suspect to submit to a blood or breath test; if he refuses, he will be charged with drunk driving — and with refusing to submit to testing. And he can be convicted and sentenced for both. In some states, the penalty for refusing is the same as for the DUI offense itself.
Wait a minute….Is it a criminal offense to refuse to provide semen in a rape case? Nope. Can you be thrown in jail for not providing a hair sample for DNA analysis in a murder case? Uh-uh. Then why only in drunk driving cases? Ask MADD — and the politicians who cater to them.
The New Jersey Supreme Court addressed this issue a couple of weeks ago:
Judge: Failure to Provide Proper DUI Breath Test Akin to Refusal
Gloucester Co., NJ. May 27, 2011 – The failure of a motorist suspected of drunk driving failing to provide proper breath samples — of sufficient volume and length — constitutes a refusal that enables police to file an additional charge, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday…
Woolwich Sgt. Joseph Morgan pulled over a motorist on Nov. 29, 2007 for allegedly swerving between the east and westbound lanes of a road within the township’s borders. The motorist cited a physical handicap that would prevent him from performing field sobriety tests.
At the Woolwich station, he consented to provide breath tests that would eventually be administered by a Logan Township officer. The motorist provided samples of 1.2 liters over 4.9 seconds and 1.2 liters over 3.3 seconds, Stern noted in his opinion. The officer needed a minimum 1.5 liter sample.
So unlike with any other criminal offense, a DUI suspect can be charged with drunk driving….and with refusing to give the officer possibly incriminating evidence.
It gets worse.
The various breath machines all require the suspect to breath through a narrow breath tube hard enough to lift an inner piston, permitting the sample to enter the sample chamber. The reason is that blowing hard forces the suspect to produce the air from the deepest part of his lungs (alveolar air) — air with the highest percentage of alcohol; the harder the blow, the higher the blood alcohol level. When there is insufficient pressure from the suspect to activate the sample-capturing mechanism, the machine will signal that the test is invalid. At that point, the officer assumes that the suspect is purposely not breathing hard enough in order to avoid incrimination, so he discontinues the test and reports it as a refusal.
But how does the officer know that the reason for the failure to produce a breath sample is intentional? He doesn’t, of course; being a police officer, he merely assumes it. But the amount of pressure required to lift the valve can be misadjusted, and many of them begin sticking after constant use. And the tube can be too narrow; the manufacturers of one breath machine, the Intoxilyzer 5000, had to enlargen the breath tube in later models because of large numbers of complaints.
Many individuals, particularly the elderly and cigarette smokers, simply do not have the lung power. And then there are the millions suffering from emphysema or asthma.
Researchers in one scientific study of asthmatics found that only 2 of 51 subjects were able to breathe hard enough to activate a breathalyzer. P.J. Gomme et al., “Study into the Ability of Patients with Impaired Lung Function to Use Breath Alcohol Testing Devices”, 31 Medical Science and Law 221 (1991). In other words, 49 of them would have been prosecuted and punished for “refusing” a breath test.
The law, in its wisdom and majesty, continues to punish citizens for not breathing hard enough to activate these machines — with little or no evidence as to the reasons why. And as is common in DUI cases, the reasons are presumed (see “Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?”) — and, of course, who is going to believe the defendant’s denial?
Welcome to the insanity of MADD’s "war on drunk driving".
(Thanks to Dr. Ronald Henson.)
A 20-year-old North Carolina man who had been arrested for underage DUI is now facing drug charges in addition to the underage DUI. The incident allegedly began when law enforcement clocked a 2003 Ford pickup truck driving 70 mph in a 50 mph zone. Police say the 20-year-old had red, bloodshot eyes and a strong odor of alcohol on his breath when the driver was pulled over for speeding.
Police reportedly subjected the 20-year-old to an Intoxilyzer test, which reportedly returned a result of .04. The drinking age in North Carolina is 21 years of age. A North Carolina underage DUI charge can be supported with any measurable amount of alcohol. North Carolina has a zero tolerance policy in its underage DUI law.
The 20-year-old reportedly exhibited a good demeanor and had a job. A magistrate allowed for the 20-year-old to be released from jail into the custody of his mother. Jail officials say they conducted a search of the 20-year-old before his release from jail. During the search, authorities say they found two baggies containing marijuana. Jail officials claim the 20-year-old had a baggie of marijuana in each sock.
The 20-year-old now faces drug charges in addition to the underage DUI charge. Officials have charged the man with possession of a controlled substance on jail premises. The man was not immediately released into the custody of his mother; he was held in the jail on ,000 bond after the alleged discovery of marijuana.
Source: Gaston Gazette, “Jail search turns up more trouble for young drunken driving suspect,” Kevin Ellis 1 Apr 2011
An elderly Manitoba man who claimed he was fighting child pornography when he stored thousands of illegal images on his home computer should serve up to a year in custody, a judge was told Wednesday.
A man whose dangerous driving led to the death of an elderly man is going to jail.