Driving While Drugges Legislation

[cybercoma]

FTA, I'm trying to understand your legal counsel vs breathalyzer musings here...

Say I'm stopped by the RIDE program and they would like to administer a breathalyzer test on me, seemingly at random. Could I then request to speak with a lawyer before giving the sample? Would most police officers allow you this opportunity? What about the field sobriety tests they do, typically before you're arrested? Do you have the right to speak with an attorney before they subject you to those as well?

Here's the other thing, in New Brunswick they do random stops to check for up to date vehicle inspection stickers, license and registrations. If I've done nothing wrong and am just being pulled over in large batches at random (such as a RIDE program, except not for impaired driving) where is the legality in that?

Thank you for trying to become informed rather than just arguing on what your sister told you or the anecdote of "this guy I know" who totally cheated a jail sentence by chewing a big wad of minty-fresh Chiclets...

See, the problem with much of what is being argued here is that those doing the arguing don't really know anything about the process...which is good mind you, because I am glad to know that everyone hasn't been through it.

Here's how it goes...(with of course minor variations from province to province)...

Police can lawfully do random stops to check for license, registration, and insurance. Not having these things up to date any time you are on the road is an offence so they always have the ability to check these items for any car that's on the road.

Police can also do random stops to check for impaired drivers but it has to be part of an organized Checkstop-type program. The case law on this is pretty old and I'd have to research it again to be 100% sure, but my recollection is the courts found that random stops for this purpose are technically unlawful, but are excusable as part of an program to quell the horrors of drunk driving (saved by s. 1 of the constitution).

Of course, we all know that everytime an officer stops you to check your documentation, they are also going to ask you if you've had anything to drink. If you have (even one) or if you deny but booze is on your breath, you can now be investigated for possible impaired driving anyway.

Now, on the issue of right to counsel and impaired driving, what must fundamentally be understood is the difference between an "approved screening device" administered at roadside and an "approved instrument" a.k.a. the breathalyser machine administered in a police stattion or Checkstop bus. Much of the actual details are in s. 254 of the Criminal Code.

s. 254

You DO NOT have any right to counsel at roadside. If a police officer "reasonably suspects" that you have any alcohol in your system, then he is lawfully placed to demand that you blow on the roadside screening device (where you get a red, yellow or green light). If you try for a call to a lawyer at this point you will be flatly refused and if you don't give the blow, you get charged with a refusal.

The result of the roadside device cannot be used to prove that you are impaired or over .08...it can only be used by the officer to bolster his grounds for believing that you are in fact impaired. Much like the results of a field sobriety test (which are never done in Alberta...I can't say for certain in other provinces...but arguably you can refuse to do one and why would a cop want to bother when he can compel you to blow into his little roadside machine?)

If after observing your behavior / smell / appearance (and possibly doing a roadside test) an officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that you are impaired, he can demand that you accompany him to the actual breathalyser to provide samples which will give readings of your blood alcohol content (BAC). If it's more than .08 you are charged with both impaired and over .08.

At this point (on the way from your car to the officer's or to the bus) the officer has formed his grounds to believe that you have committed an offence, and therefore, he has arrested you for impaired driving. Since you are now under arrest, you now have a Charter right to "retain and instruct counsel without delay" so as to get some immediate summary legal advice about the type of sh-t you are in, what you are obligated to do by law, and what you should not let the police try to do (i.e. go beyond their lawful authority).

So sorry, sideshow, right to counsel at this point is completely cut and dry. You are not on a highway with no phone. You are in a police station or a Checkstop bus (which trust me, have beautifully appointed private telephone booths in them to accommodate the string of accuseds being processed). You don't "need the sample" because the officer is already drawing up the impaired driving charge based on his observations of you and the result from the breathalyser virtually will always now only determine if you will be given a second charge...being over .08.

I can't count how many times a guy is able to get the breathalyser evidence tossed out on a Charter breach only to then get convicted on the impaired charge because the officer describes in great detail how he fell out of his car, fumbled with and dropped his license, puked on the curb and fell in it etc. and it is clear he is impaired with or without any readings.

Anyway, the bottom line on my comments regarding the lawyer calls is that as a society, we have taken the position that it is more important to give people a reasonable opportunity to get legal advice before having to provide a bodily sample to the state than it is to let the state seize such a sample to get evidence to use to charge you with a second criminal offence (keeping in mind that by the time they read you the breath demand they already have everything they need to charge you with impaired driving).

Hope this clears some things up.

FTA

If you've gotta be dropping your keys, tripping over curbs and puking all over yourself for them to see that you're impaired....you've had to have had several, several drinks. The only other way I could see them nailing you near .08 is by smelling alcohol on you and after admitting to just coming home from a restaurant they make you blow into the roadside device. When it comes reporting time, they'll certainly doctor the evidence to show you had 'glassy eyes' and 'slurred speech' which probably wasn't true at the time, but it makes their roadside device readings more "reasonable."

I agree we all need to be protected from drunk drivers, but the balancing act between our Charter Rights and the power of the police seems really tricky. For them to get a rock solid case against you, you would have to be WELL over the .08 and having a friend who actually owned a $600 breathalyzer device (he worked for the OPP and bought one to ensure people at his parties were safe enough to drive)...I know that at .08 there are very few visible signs of intoxication on the people I know.

Now it effects people in different ways, but still. If the cops need to reasonably observe that you're impaired before you breathe into the roadside device, you've gotta be really smashed to begin with.

Here's the other thing I wanted to ask you about, the road traps (like RIDE) for checking vehicle inspection stickers, license and registration. I know we allow the RIDE program thanks to the case you cited in your post; however, that was seen as a benefit to society to prevent drunk drivers from killing people. Checking a vehicle inspection sticker and registration is not at all the same thing and I don't believe the police should setup roadblocks and pull everyone over to check these things. Pulling cars over individually on the highway is one thing, but stopping EVERYONE on their way somewhere is something entirely different. Isn't it?

[FTA Lawyer]

Actually FTA you are mistaken. Once an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is impaired, they are arrested. Which then the charter kicks in and the accused has the right to contact counsel. The officer at this point is NOT at the station-or for that matter, many many times, not at a checkstop station. So the issue of 'providing counsel' is still an issue. The accused is under arrest. To provide the charter right to counsel is not always immediately available. And THIS is the issue that is used by defence (in many cases) as to a reason why their clients rights were violated, and thus should have the charge tossed. Meaning that the defence argues what is a "reasonable" amount of time to contact counsel. The 'reasonableness' is what results in the tossing of charges. Sometimes the amount IS unreasonable, and sometimes not. Sometimes it is simply not articulated in court properly by the officer. Nevertheless, making the assertion that the right to counsel is given in the station-ludicrous. Any officer will tell you that a delay will be challenged. And lets face it. Most of simply talk to legal aid, are told not to give a statement, comply with the demand (so as not to lose their vehicle for twice as long), and go on their merry way. And then, when all of the cards are dealt, the lawyer can look at the evidence a year later and pick apart the officers conduct so as to let the alledged (dare I say criminal?) impaired driver argue his charter rights were violated.

Keep in mind FTA that to administer the breath test, the cruiser car will have to have an approved screening device, and the officer will have to be an approved tester. In most cases (other than traffic division cars of course) this is not the case. Most officers dont have the training or the equipment on board. So excepting for the roadside enforcement checkstops, the day to day traffic stops (which are the vast majority) simply do not play out in your scenario.

Wow...I really thought I had put the misconceptions to bed with the last post. Seriously, sideshow, I can't write every possible nuance and arcane legality regarding impaired driving on this board...I am trying to write so the general process is understood. If you really want to butt heads with me over the technicalities of the law of impaired driving I will win...I do this for a living. When other lawyers lose impaired driving cases at trial, they refer the clients to me to evaluate the appeal to the Court of Appeal. I have even had referrals from lawyers who have been practicing criminal law for 30 years.

And when you say that it is ludicrous that the right to counsel is provided at the station...where do you suggest it is provided?!?!? And why do I get phone calls at all hours of the night on our office cell phone from people in custody at the police station charged with impaired driving? Why is our office phone number on a list (known as the Brydges list after an SCC case by that name) along with a whole bunch of other lawyers numbers who take after-hours calls and why is that list posted on the wall in every police station in the Calgary area (in the room where the accuseds get put for privacy to contact their lawyer).

Anyway...yes, the Charter kicks in when arrested...which is exactly what I said:

If after observing your behavior / smell / appearance (and possibly doing a roadside test) an officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that you are impaired, he can demand that you accompany him to the actual breathalyser to provide samples which will give readings of your blood alcohol content (BAC). If it's more than .08 you are charged with both impaired and over .08.

At this point (on the way from your car to the officer's or to the bus) the officer has formed his grounds to believe that you have committed an offence, and therefore, he has arrested you for impaired driving.

Since you are now under arrest, you now have a Charter right to "retain and instruct counsel without delay"

so as to get some immediate summary legal advice about the type of sh-t you are in, what you are obligated to do by law, and what you should not let the police try to do (i.e. go beyond their lawful authority).

Where you are now making your error is the difference between reading the right to counsel (the 'informational component' of s. 10() and actually providing the reasonable opportunity (the 'implementational component' of s. 10().

You are absolutely right that defence lawyers will srcutinize whether the officer read the rights as soon as practicable and we will also scrutinize the reasonableness of any delay in providing access to a lawyer...but you again have a misinformed view of what the law actually says about these issues.

The 2007 annotated Criminal Code that I use cites a 1988 SCC case called Strachan (yes, this issue has been settled for the better part of 2 decades)...here's the annotation:

Police officers making arrests in a potentially volatile situation may be justified in preventing any new factors from entering the situation until some of the unknowns have been clarified. But once the police are clearly in control of the situation, they are required to allow D to contact a lawyer.

I can say with confidence that if a guy is arrested on a country road which by normal travel is 20 minutes away from the nearest breathalyser if he is taken to that location and put in front of a phone to call a lawyer within 30 minutes there is no way a court will consider that to be a violation. If however, the cop goes through the drive-thru for a coffee and the accused gets his lawyer call 45 minutes from when he is arrested, that's no good.

As to the officer's obligations to provide the reasonable opportunity to contact a lawyer, here's what the actual state of the law is from an SCC case called Prosper:

Agents of the state may not elicit incriminating evidence from the detainee until the opportunity has been provided. What constitutes a reasonable opportunity depends on the circumstances, including the availability of duty counsel services in the jurisdiction.

Where compelling and urgent circumstances exist, police need not hold off in their attempts to elicit incriminating evidence. Urgency is not created however by mere investigatory and evidentiary expediency.

As to your last point, I can tell you that the vast majority of police cars in Alberta are equipped with roadside screening devices and the officers are trained to administer them (really, if you can operate your tv remote, you can administer a roadside test).

FTA

[FTA Lawyer]

If you've gotta be dropping your keys, tripping over curbs and puking all over yourself for them to see that you're impaired....you've had to have had several, several drinks. The only other way I could see them nailing you near .08 is by smelling alcohol on you and after admitting to just coming home from a restaurant they make you blow into the roadside device. When it comes reporting time, they'll certainly doctor the evidence to show you had 'glassy eyes' and 'slurred speech' which probably wasn't true at the time, but it makes their roadside device readings more "reasonable."

...

Now it effects people in different ways, but still. If the cops need to reasonably observe that you're impaired before you breathe into the roadside device, you've gotta be really smashed to begin with.

...

Pulling cars over individually on the highway is one thing, but stopping EVERYONE on their way somewhere is something entirely different. Isn't it?

You don't have to be as hammered as I suggested...I was just doing a bit of overkill on my example. Remember, to ask you to blow on the roadside device, the officer only needs reasonable suspicion that you have alcohol in your system...he doesn't have to think you are impaired at all. So, if you admit you've just had one beer...or if you deny drinking but the officer can smell alcohol on your breath, he can do the roadside test.

If you fail that test and the officer satisfies him or herself that he has reasonable grounds that you are impaired, then it's off to the actual breathalyser. And I have to say you are bang-on when it comes to the notes regarding sign of impairment. I've only seen one case where the accused didn't have every one of smell of alcohol, glassy eyes, slurring of speech and unsteadiness on feet...awfully coincidental.

On the RIDE program for license, registration and insurance...I haven't really seen something just like that in Alberta where everyone gets pulled over...but again, since the driver of every car that doesn't have all documents up to date is by necessity committing an offence, I think that's why the courts would allow such a mass inspection.

FTA

[sideshow]

FTA,

You are correct in the assertion that there is a difference in providing the charter right and reading it to the accused. Of course you provide the charter right at the station-but once again, defence lawyers WILL argue the point (rightly or wrongly) of timely access to a lawyer (sorry my friend, it does happen all the time). My point was that BOTH issues are argued by defence lawyers.

As for administering the tech device, yes it is simple, but without the FORMAL training, defence lawyers use that lack of training as an in to push for charges being booted. And Calgary (and alberta) ( is not the only place in the country. In my city, I can tell you that it is NOT the case that most officers have official training in screening devices. So its a bit of apples and oranges.

As for going through the drivethru with a prisoner in the back. That is simply an inflamatory remark that does nothing to enhance the quality of the conversation here. Has it happened? I cant say. But Ive never seen it.

And unlike in court my friend, this conversation is not about "winning". it is about defining the truth.

[FTA Lawyer]

As for going through the drivethru with a prisoner in the back. That is simply an inflamatory remark that does nothing to enhance the quality of the conversation here. Has it happened? I cant say. But Ive never seen it.

And unlike in court my friend, this conversation is not about "winning". it is about defining the truth.

You take me too seriously...my tongue was firmly lodged in my cheek when I suggested a stop in the drive-thru as a no-no. Just being colorful and witty...more fun than saying "waiting for a tow truck to come haul the car to the impound lot for 15 minutes is a no-no".

As for you being a pot and me a black kettle...you chastise me for my "inflamatory remark" (which I really don't think was inflamatory per above) and then immediately thereafter tell me that in court all I do is try to win instead of seek the truth!?!?! How could that sentence possibly do anything to "enhance the quality of the conversation here"?

Sigh...

FTA

[sideshow]

Touche my friend. I was merely having some fun. All joking aside, I really do have respect for our defence lawyers. It is a tough job. No question about it. I just hate to see police officers maligned in any way either. Because like it or not, as much as the public likes to blast lawyers and police, who do you think are the first people they call when they have trouble?

[cybercoma]

On the RIDE program for license, registration and insurance...I haven't really seen something just like that in Alberta where everyone gets pulled over...but again, since the driver of every car that doesn't have all documents up to date is by necessity committing an offence, I think that's why the courts would allow such a mass inspection.

FTA

The drivers without those things may be committing the offense, but the police out here stop everyone driving down the highway to check these things like a RIDE program. I understand the necessity of it because of the intoxicated driving aspect, but wasn't that the ONLY reason they were allowed to do this type of stop when it went to the SCC (at least I believe it was challenged in its early days, I could be wrong)?

I could be wrong, but there's something very unsettling about the police setting up blockades to stop all traffic for no other reason than license, registration, insurance and car inspection stickers......

[Hydraboss]

Touche my friend. I was merely having some fun. All joking aside, I really do have respect for our defence lawyers. It is a tough job. No question about it. I just hate to see police officers maligned in any way either. Because like it or not, as much as the public likes to blast lawyers and police, who do you think are the first people they call when they have trouble?

All defense lawyers are scum.....until you need one, right?

Anyone who believes only the first part has never been, and knows no one who has been, charged with a serious offense. Suddenly, you'd sell your most prized possession to pay one of these "scum".

[jbg]

I tried it once just to find out what its like and I inhaled - there is no way I could have driven. Heck I don't get that high on a couple of glasses of wine.

Well, Bill Clinton didn't inhale.

All kidding aside, new laws don't impress me, particularly on drunk driving.

The politically easy thing to do is pass a law. If society were serious, the police would stop every fifth car leaving a parking lot or on-street parking adjacent to a liquor-serving establishment at a late hour, say, after 11:30 p.m. The problem is the tavern operators would scream bloody murder.

[blueblood]

I tried it once just to find out what its like and I inhaled - there is no way I could have driven. Heck I don't get that high on a couple of glasses of wine.

Well, Bill Clinton didn't inhale.

All kidding aside, new laws don't impress me, particularly on drunk driving.

The politically easy thing to do is pass a law. If society were serious, the police would stop every fifth car leaving a parking lot or on-street parking adjacent to a liquor-serving establishment at a late hour, say, after 11:30 p.m. The problem is the tavern operators would scream bloody murder.

Well I guess it's up to society to start telling people who aren't on board to start flying kites. If stopping every fifth car after leaving a bar at close is going to make a difference, society needs to step up and tell bar owners and other opponents to go **** themselves

[FTA Lawyer]

I tried it once just to find out what its like and I inhaled - there is no way I could have driven. Heck I don't get that high on a couple of glasses of wine.

Well, Bill Clinton didn't inhale.

All kidding aside, new laws don't impress me, particularly on drunk driving.

The politically easy thing to do is pass a law. If society were serious, the police would stop every fifth car leaving a parking lot or on-street parking adjacent to a liquor-serving establishment at a late hour, say, after 11:30 p.m. The problem is the tavern operators would scream bloody murder.

Well I guess it's up to society to start telling people who aren't on board to start flying kites. If stopping every fifth car after leaving a bar at close is going to make a difference, society needs to step up and tell bar owners and other opponents to go **** themselves

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that the anticipated uproar of tavern owners has relatively little to do with why such a proposal is not done when compared to the manpower issues.

Seriously, do you know how many police officers this would take?

FTA

[blueblood]

I tried it once just to find out what its like and I inhaled - there is no way I could have driven. Heck I don't get that high on a couple of glasses of wine.

Well, Bill Clinton didn't inhale.

All kidding aside, new laws don't impress me, particularly on drunk driving.

The politically easy thing to do is pass a law. If society were serious, the police would stop every fifth car leaving a parking lot or on-street parking adjacent to a liquor-serving establishment at a late hour, say, after 11:30 p.m. The problem is the tavern operators would scream bloody murder.

Well I guess it's up to society to start telling people who aren't on board to start flying kites. If stopping every fifth car after leaving a bar at close is going to make a difference, society needs to step up and tell bar owners and other opponents to go **** themselves

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that the anticipated uproar of tavern owners has relatively little to do with why such a proposal is not done when compared to the manpower issues.

Seriously, do you know how many police officers this would take?

FTA

I was just playing into the hypothetical situation proposed earlier, I know full well that it would take a lot of manpower and wouldn't be feasible which is why more and more I believe society needs to step up and govern itself and smarten up, more officers won't make as much a difference as that.

[jbg]

All kidding aside, new laws don't impress me, particularly on drunk driving.

The politically easy thing to do is pass a law. If society were serious, the police would stop every fifth car leaving a parking lot or on-street parking adjacent to a liquor-serving establishment at a late hour, say, after 11:30 p.m. The problem is the tavern operators would scream bloody murder.

Well I guess it's up to society to start telling people who aren't on board to start flying kites. If stopping every fifth car after leaving a bar at close is going to make a difference, society needs to step up and tell bar owners and other opponents to go **** themselves

The way I described would be the operative way to do just that.

[jbg]

I was just playing into the hypothetical situation proposed earlier, I know full well that it would take a lot of manpower and wouldn't be feasible which is why more and more I believe society needs to step up and govern itself and smarten up, more officers won't make as much a difference as that.

If it were done on a spot, roving basis it would make a difference.

[cybercoma]

Bars should be required to install breathalyzers at their exit doors and a bouncer would have to 'test' patrons as they were leaving. If you blow over the legal limit they will have the responsibility of detaining you.

No more drunk drivers from bars, hurray.

Now what do you do about the idiots that get smashed at home and go out drunk?

[jdobbin]

Bars should be required to install breathalyzers at their exit doors and a bouncer would have to 'test' patrons as they were leaving. If you blow over the legal limit they will have the responsibility of detaining you.

No more drunk drivers from bars, hurray.

Now what do you do about the idiots that get smashed at home and go out drunk?

Ban alcohol?

[blueblood]

Bars should be required to install breathalyzers at their exit doors and a bouncer would have to 'test' patrons as they were leaving. If you blow over the legal limit they will have the responsibility of detaining you.

No more drunk drivers from bars, hurray.

Now what do you do about the idiots that get smashed at home and go out drunk?

Thats as unfeasible as having the cops stop every fifth person from leaving, what about the bars with a few hundred people attending there would be people there till 9 in the morning plus the fact that they are smashed... that's a can of worms.

The only person who has the right of detaining me is the RCMP or other recognized police force, joe bouncer doesn't have a right to detain me, that's borderline kidnapping and whatever funstuff a lawyer can come up with, a bouncer is no where near qualified to arrest someone, cripes a lot of them are gang members themselves.

Drunk Driving isn't nearly as big a problem as people make it out to be, it's gotten much better over the years. Most kids don't do it anymore, those laws that are getting tougher are scaring a lot of people, but there wil be outliers. Out in the country it took getting your truck taken away and a loss of liscence for a year to put the kibosh on it (taking away something we value tends to make a person smarten up). I used to drive after a few drinks back in the day on occassion just out of convenience, I've gotten a lot more flack about it by people in the city than a guy who snorts coke. According to them (now I'm generalizing here) it's a bigger problem of driving drunk than drug use, so as a "society" they denounced it as a whole and there are more drug users than drunk drivers in the city (that I know of) From what I've seen if something isn't viewed as "cool" nobody really does it.

[FTA Lawyer]

If drunk driving isn't nearly as big a problem as people make it out to be, why can I name 5 senior defence lawyers in the city of Calgary whose entire practices (95% or higher) are defending impaired driving charges and I was talking to one of them last Thursday and he surmised he could vacation for about 4 months before he'd have any concern about a drop in his business (that's how many new files he's been opening lately).

In addition to those lawyers, every criminal defence lawyer has a fairly steady diet of impaired driving files...and I can certainly say that my personal experience suggests that impaired driving is on the rise, not the decline.

The Student Legal Assistance program at the University of Calgary actually keeps stats on their file load (for grant purposes) and they are reporting steady increases in the percentage of impaired driving matters they are handling, to the point now that about half of ALL of their files (including civil and family matters) are impaired driving charges.

In my opinion, it's a bigger problem than it has ever been.

FTA

[blueblood]

If drunk driving isn't nearly as big a problem as people make it out to be, why can I name 5 senior defence lawyers in the city of Calgary whose entire practices (95% or higher) are defending impaired driving charges and I was talking to one of them last Thursday and he surmised he could vacation for about 4 months before he'd have any concern about a drop in his business (that's how many new files he's been opening lately).

In addition to those lawyers, every criminal defence lawyer has a fairly steady diet of impaired driving files...and I can certainly say that my personal experience suggests that impaired driving is on the rise, not the decline.

The Student Legal Assistance program at the University of Calgary actually keeps stats on their file load (for grant purposes) and they are reporting steady increases in the percentage of impaired driving matters they are handling, to the point now that about half of ALL of their files (including civil and family matters) are impaired driving charges.

In my opinion, it's a bigger problem than it has ever been.

FTA

If people are smartening up nowadays to get lawyers, then it would look like now it is a bigger problem, if more and more people are getting lawyers of course it is going to APPEAR to be a bigger problem based on case load. I don't think you can base a drunk driving argument based on amount of legal practice that is obtainied, imagine if people back in the day were inclined to use lawyers as much as now, there would be a legal gong show back in the day, sorry but from what i've seen at the grass roots level it's going down, but I will say this if losing your vehicle, loss of liscence, a steep fine, or jail time is not going to phase you then I don't think a drop in drunk driving will occur. So in essence both our arguments are sort of biased, if I could find a police stats sheet on drunk driving occurences, i will concede my point.

[FTA Lawyer]

Fair enough, more people getting lawyers for drunk driving charges rather than handling them on their own would make it appear that the problem was on the rise on my method of measurement.

I guess we're both just giving our own personal perceptions...either could be right or wrong. Seems like no choice now but to try and find some stats re: arrests / charges...

FTA

[cybercoma]

Fair enough, more people getting lawyers for drunk driving charges rather than handling them on their own would make it appear that the problem was on the rise on my method of measurement.

I guess we're both just giving our own personal perceptions...either could be right or wrong. Seems like no choice now but to try and find some stats re: arrests / charges...

FTA

The laws have changed recently (in the last 5 years, haven't they?); therefore, the stakes are higher and more people may be looking for legal assistance.

To really see how drunk driving is going, perhaps examining drinking and driving related accidents and charges would be better.

Although it does seem to be the older I get, the less I hear about drunk driving, MADD, etc. It seems my circle of friends are becoming more willing to drive after a few drinks. This is by no means evidence...I'm just being anecdotal.

[blueblood]

Fair enough, more people getting lawyers for drunk driving charges rather than handling them on their own would make it appear that the problem was on the rise on my method of measurement.

I guess we're both just giving our own personal perceptions...either could be right or wrong. Seems like no choice now but to try and find some stats re: arrests / charges...

FTA

The laws have changed recently (in the last 5 years, haven't they?); therefore, the stakes are higher and more people may be looking for legal assistance.

To really see how drunk driving is going, perhaps examining drinking and driving related accidents and charges would be better.

Although it does seem to be the older I get, the less I hear about drunk driving, MADD, etc. It seems my circle of friends are becoming more willing to drive after a few drinks. This is by no means evidence...I'm just being anecdotal.

This is going to be so hard to tell, i can be pretty sure that back in the day in small town Canada a lot of guys got away with drunk driving just as it wasn't seen as much of a problem back then by the cops. I can honestly think it is going down just from what people are saying and their attitudes, but don't get me wrong there are always going to be outliers.

This is one of the things that perplexes me on our society, so people ask for stiffer laws on drunk driving they get them and the judge enforces them and (in my view) drunk driving goes down, and people are happy. People ask for stiffer laws on crime, reluctantly the government passes them and the judge doesnt really enforce them, and we got a crime problem and the same people are saying we need to be rehabilitating, go easier on them etc. hmmmm. The funny thing is though our society wants jail to rehabilitate people but when they are tossed back into society, they are viewed as ex-cons not a rehabilitated person and denied many things. I think society is confused on these type of things