Hey there, time traveller!

This article was published 1/12/2018 (662 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Opinion

Perhaps the highway signs on the province’s borders should be changed to read: "Welcome to Manitoba, the home of roadside justice."

First, the provincial government changed the distracted-driving law. Beginning Nov. 1, police officers got the power to immediately punish suspected distracted drivers with measures such as three-day suspensions of their licences and $672 fines.

And on Thursday, the government tabled an amendment that again lets police sidestep the law courts and, on the spot, punish suspected impaired drivers. The officers will be able to impound vehicles, impose a mandatory ignition interlock of one year and issue fines for impairment reading as low as 0.05.

The important adjective in both cases is "suspected." The drivers are only "suspected" offenders. But the Progressive Conservative government has altered the rules so drivers can now be punished upon accusation, without a chance to defend themselves.

People who ponder the implications of the government’s changes might wonder: what about important legal traditions such as presumption of innocence and due process?

No one should trust police unconditionally. Police have a tough job and they’re not perfect. We should trust the justice system to catch the mistakes made by police.

To ask that question, you must have Manitoba confused with provinces that still respect the rights of its citizens.

It’s not that the government is wrong to get tough with drivers who drink or are distracted. Those goals are commendable.

The problem is its method. By moving roadside enforcement outside of the Criminal Code, it ­undermined traditional legal safeguards and erased the rights of Manitobans to get a proper hearing.

It’s like the government wants us to trust police and forget about the legal rights that have evolved through hundreds of years of jurisprudence.

Well, no one should trust police unconditionally. Police have a tough job and they’re not perfect. We should trust the justice system to catch the mistakes made by police.

Justice Minister Cliff Cullen said Thursday the new Manitoba system will mirror an impaired-driving program in B.C. It’s called immediate roadside suspension.

Manitoba drivers accused of impairment used to have the freedom to challenge police accusations and be convicted only on evidence that is trustworthy. Those hard–won rights have been lost in the government’s zeal for roadside justice.

The B.C. system has been often criticized as a cash grab. Do the math. Between 15,000 and 20,000 drivers a year are fined under its program, and a typical fine swells to more than $3,000 because it includes "administrative penalties" such as fees to tow and impound the vehicle, to have the driver’s licence reinstated, to have an interlock device installed in their vehicle and to enrol in a mandatory responsible driver program.

Manitoba’s coffers will be similarly enriched. In a news release on Thursday, Cullen noted the new $200 fine for blowing 0.05, the lowest level of impairment, would be just the beginning of the driver’s financial hit: "Adding up all the administrative sanctions and penalties, the minimum cost... could be $2,600 for a first offence to about $3,200 for a third or subsequent offence."

Like B.C., Manitoba will test drivers with Approved Screening Devices (ASD), which are not to be confused with breathalyzer machines that offer evidence that is commonly accepted in court.

The ASD is a portable device that is quick and easy for police. Cullen noted approvingly that the ASD takes only six minutes to test drivers, while the breathalyzer takes four hours.

What Cullen didn’t tell the public is that it’s been shown in B.C. that the ASD is often inaccurate.

Many types of ASD can’t differentiate between alcohol from the breath or alcohol in the mouth, which means the results can be elevated if the subject was tested soon after a drink of alcohol that left an oral residue.

The ASD machines must also be recalibrated at least every four weeks and different police forces have been shown to not calibrate them properly.

Unfortunately for drivers who know the ASD exaggerated their impairment because they know they only had one glass of wine, the onus in B.C. is on the drivers to prove the machine is wrong.

This is frustratingly difficult because police typically don’t allow public access to the service and calibration records for machines, so drivers must go to the considerable trouble and expense of filing freedom of information requests.

There is an appeal process in B.C., but it’s widely criticized as unfair because it takes place outside of a court system where drivers could exercise their legal rights, and because the punishment has already been levied by the roadside officer before the appeal can be heard.

As an example, imagine the plight of a driver who needs her vehicle for employment. With her vehicle impounded and her licence suspended for a month, she has to book an appointment to explain to an appeal official why her roadside conviction is wrong. She has been severely penalized before she can state her case.

There are plenty of better ways for Manitoba to crack down on distracted driving and impaired driving. By all means, continue to increase the fines, increase the advertisements that change behaviour and increase the number of traditional Checkstop blitzes.

But police shouldn’t hand out convictions and sentences at roadside. Their role is to investigate and charge, not to be judge and jury.

Manitoba drivers accused of impairment used to have the freedom to challenge police accusations and be convicted only on evidence that is trustworthy. Those hard-won rights have been lost in the government’s zeal for roadside justice.

Carl DeGurse is a member of the Free Press editorial board.