# DUI/impaired driving in CF (merged)



## JimmyJazz123 (9 Aug 2012)

Im in the forces and I've just been charged with a DUI. Just wondering what happens next.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Aug 2012)

Likely an Admin Review.  Wait one, there was another thread on this not long ago...and I'll see if I can't dig up the DAOD.  Had a buddy just go through this not long ago.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Aug 2012)

DAOD 5019-7, Alcohol Misconduct

DAOD 5019-2 Admin Review

And a short thread on AM - Admin Review from not long ago.

When the SHTF for my buddy I also reviewed the Business Process document used by D Mil C/DCMA (IIRC) and condensed the 17 pages doc to a 2 Page "aide memoire".  I think I still have it saved at work, if so I'll PM you it tomorrow.

You will likely also be required to be assessed by an Addictions councellor, etc, so a proper medical assessment can determine if this is part of a larger problem or a 'one time stupid mistake' kind of thing.

Each case is assessed on its own merit/facts, with whatever contributing/mitigating circumstances taken into account.


----------



## gcclarke (9 Aug 2012)

One key thing to note is the following:



> A CF member is required to report:
> 
> their arrest by a civil authority, in accordance with QR&O article 19.56, Report of Arrest by Civil Authority


----------



## McG (9 Aug 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Each case is assessed on its own merit/facts, with whatever contributing/mitigating circumstances taken into account.


That being said, the CF expectation is that a DUI = C&P as the start state.  There need to be pretty significant mitigating factors to bring the resultant remedial measure down from that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Aug 2012)

Which is what happened in the case I am referring to; C & P.  Also, he plead guilty to the charge in Provincial Court and all of the normal events that would go with that.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (9 Aug 2012)

And your 404's will be lifted too.....


----------



## Journeyman (9 Aug 2012)

You've _completely_ written off any chance of getting that MSE Safe Driver award this year.   :nod:


----------



## TN2IC (10 Aug 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> You've _completely_ written off any chance of getting that MSE Safe Driver award this year.   :nod:





Ha! Made my day. That award is BS anyways.


----------



## donaldk (10 Aug 2012)

JimmyJazz123 ,

Ensure you keep your divisional supervisor/officer updated through the process.  The quicker you give them copies of your Breathalyzer tickets (or certified result declaration from the tech) and the 'other' paperwork given to you from the local PD, the Admin Review (AR) can start and finish.  DMCA 2 will release a message announcing the commencement of your AR and it will details the circumstances career wise (e.g. entitlement to promotion, career coursing, posting) during the time you are under AR.   Your CO will have input on the draft AR file (with his recommendation to retain you in the CF or to initiate release) before it hits DMCA for initial assessment. Most times while under AR (and the C&P to follow), you cannot be posted, promoted, or loaded on any career courses.

I had a couple subordinates caught with DUI on my last posting:

One of my subordinates (at the rank of Ordinary Seaman) got f***ed over by my predecessor and his AR was stalled for almost 2 years until I got a hold of the file, restarted it and rocketed it through the chain and DMCA to get his 6-months C&P started, meanwhile he was restricted from being promoted to his AB, and lost out on four opportunities to get on his next trades course.  There is a technicality issue still ongoing in the courts over the timings of when the Breathalyzer samples were collected which will probably cause the DUI criminal charges to get tossed (because proving beyond a reasonable doubt is difficult).  But DMCA's take on it was the fact that he was caught DUI behind the wheel by the police, and subsequently blew over 0.08 twice signed off by a certified Breathalyzer technician within a few hours while under custody.  As with an AR, proving beyond a reasonable doubt is NOT required (i.e. exact timings of when the samples are not of concern, only that they were pulled after the incident prior to the police releasing the member from the local lockup).  The only way the member could get the AR/C&P removed from his file (after I heavily discussed with DMCA on this), is if the trial judge declares in his verdict that the Breathalyzer machine itself was broken or the technician did a bad sample pull, then the AR/C&P will be deleted from his PERS file.


----------



## McG (10 Aug 2012)

There is also precedent to kick guys out of the CF for driving with a licence suspended from a DUI.  If you don't abide by the civilian punishment and rehabilitation, the CF will look upon it as you don't care and have breached the DUI C&P.  I have even seen the C&P skipped because the guy was driving while suspended before the initial AR was even complete.


----------



## JimmyJazz123 (12 Aug 2012)

So it turns out it wasn't a full DUI with criminal charges. I was charged under the motor vehicle act so it's just an administrative punishment that comes with about $4000+ of fees and so on.  Much better!


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Aug 2012)

But you're still subject to the military double jeopardy machine.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (12 Aug 2012)

Remember you must report this incident to your CoC.......

Still expect your 404's to be lifted until you complete a DDC course (I believe)....


----------



## Occam (12 Aug 2012)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> But you're still subject to the military double jeopardy machine.



For an MVA Summary Offence ticket?  I'd have to check the Driver's Handbook (the CFTO, that is) to see if he even has to report the accident to Base Transport, but I don't think he does...assuming there's no licence suspension involved, of course.


----------



## eliminator (12 Aug 2012)

What about a 24hour roadside licence suspension?  Would that require involvement by the CoC, or does it fall into the speeding ticket/parking ticket category?


----------



## Occam (12 Aug 2012)

eliminator said:
			
		

> What about a 24hour roadside licence suspension?  Would that require involvement by the CoC, or does it fall into the speeding ticket/parking ticket category?



For what offence?



From Transportation Directive 532 (TD 532), part of A-LM-158-005/AG-001 Transportation Manual:

TD 532
PROVINCIAL DRIVER’S LICENCE
SUSPENSIONS – MILITARY

Ref: DAOD 2007-0

1. This directive is to be read IAW
A-LM-158-005/AG-001. The following instructions are
in addition to the PDL suspension policy listed in
Chapter 5, Section 3.

2. CF members who are required to operate a
DND vehicle in the performance of their duties must
be in possession of a valid Driver Permit (DND 404).

3. CF members who are issued a DND 404
shall immediately report any suspension or
cancellation of their provincial driver’s licence to their
supervisor who in turn shall inform the TA. CF
members who have had their PDL suspended will
automatically lose their DND 404 for a period at least
equal to the period of suspension imposed by
provincial authorities, or a greater period if
necessary.

4. In addition to the above, the TA has the
authority to suspend a DND 404 at any time should
they or the service member’s CO consider such
action necessary in the interest of safe vehicle
operation.

5. Driving offence means a driving offence
under the Criminal Code of Canada, a Provincial
Highway Traffic Act or the National Defence Act.

6. In those cases where driving duties are a
requirement of their position, the member may face
career action. If the suspension of the DND 404
precludes the member from performing the member’s
duties, the CO will refer the case to NDHQ/D Mil C
for Career Review Board (CRB) consideration.
Depending upon the member’s Military Occupational
Structure Identification (MOSID) and individual
circumstances, the CRB may decide in favour of
retention (with or without restriction), reassignment,
or release. If the CRB decision is to retain the
member, the CO may reinstate the DND 404, once
the period of suspension has expired; if the driving
offence was alcohol or drug related, action in
accordance with HCFAO 19-21, Drug Abuse or
HCFAO 19-31, Misuse of Alcohol as applicable, shall
be considered.

7. Upon being convicted of a driving offence
resulting in a first suspension or restriction of a
provincial driver’s licence, or following an
administrative decision to suspend a CF member’s
DND 404, the CF member’s DND 404 shall be
suspended for a period equal to the suspension
awarded by provincial authorities. Additionally, the
following actions shall be taken:

a. The member’s chain of command shall take
appropriate administrative measures, which
may include: counselling and probation,
reassignment, demotion or a
recommendation for release.

b. The member shall be warned in writing of the
DND 404 suspension. A sample letter is
shown at Annex A.

8. Once the DND or civil imposed period of
suspension has expired, and the member is free from
all restrictions, (i.e., inter-lock condition), the CO may
reinstate the member’s DND 404 once the:

a. member’s unit has requested a Provincial
Driver Abstract and submitted it to the TA for
review;
b. member has successfully passed a written
Driver’s Information Test and Supplementary
Test;
c. member has successfully passed a practical
driving test; and
d. member has completed the Defensive
Driving Course.

SUSPENSION OF DND 404 FOR CARELESS
DRIVING

9. Immediately upon receipt of a report of a
collision or of an alleged incident of careless driving
on the part of a military member, the CO, after
considering the degree of negligence, and having
regard to the member’s driving record may:

a. pending completion of an investigation, order
a temporary suspension of the member’s
DND 404; and/or
b. upon completion of an investigation, direct
the permit issuing authority to suspend the
member’s DND 404.

SUBSEQUENT PDL SUSPENSION 

10. Upon being convicted of a driving offence
resulting in a second suspension of the member’s
DND 404 or provincial driver’s licence, the following
action will be taken:
a. The member’s DND 404 shall be suspended
for life.
b. If the suspension of the DND 404 precludes
the member from performing the member’s
duties, the CO will refer the case to NDHQ/D
Mil C for CRB consideration. Depending
upon the member’s MOSID and individual
circumstances, the CRB may decide in
favour of retention (with or without
restriction), reassignment, or release.
c. If the driving offence was alcohol or drug
related, action in accordance with HCFAO
19-21, Drug Abuse or HCFAO 19-31, Misuse
of Alcohol as applicable, shall be considered.


----------



## MapleLeaf4Evr (17 Aug 2012)

eliminator said:
			
		

> What about a 24hour roadside licence suspension?  Would that require involvement by the CoC, or does it fall into the speeding ticket/parking ticket category?



If you are referring to a 24 roadside suspension for exceeding a provincial legal alcohol limit (Blood alcohol over 40 mg% or 50 mg% depending on the province), in most provinces, there is likely no offence committed or charge, but an administative driver's license suspension would be issued.  As per para 3 of Occam's post, this would need to be reported through the CoC.


----------



## McG (20 Aug 2012)

eliminator said:
			
		

> What about a 24hour roadside licence suspension?  Would that require involvement by the CoC, or does it fall into the speeding ticket/parking ticket category?


Driving over the provincial alcohol limit is not like a parking ticket.  Under DAOD 5019-7, violating a provincial law or municipal by-law while under the influence of alcohol is a conduct deficiency involving alcohol - though considered less severe than alcohol misconduct, you can still find your self with RW or C&P as the result of such an incident.


----------



## TN2IC (27 Aug 2012)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> And your 404's will be lifted too.....



This is correct. Until Ottawa gives a go ahead on the member in question. Their 404's will be lifted. We need Ottawa's green light, plus the local DMV clean bill before we even consider reissuing a DND 404. Once that happens, then the member has to do a DDC, SBC, DIT, and local Supplmental Test. Plus we reqr to submit a new file for a plastic DND 404.

DDC (Defensive Driving Course)
SBC (Safe Backing Course)
DIT (Driver Information Test)
Local Supp Test (Rules test of the local province)

Hope this helps somewhat,
Regards,
Macey


----------



## DAA (27 Aug 2012)

JimmyJazz123 said:
			
		

> Im in the forces and I've just been charged with a DUI. Just wondering what happens next.



It is "incumbent" upon you to report the arrest IAW QR&O 19.56 - REPORT OF ARREST BY CIVIL AUTHORITY - Where an officer or non-commissioned member has been arrested by a civil authority, the member shall cause the arrest to be reported to the member's commanding officer.

After that, and seeing as you have to go through the Civilian Justice system, it should fall into the category of "suspected alcohol misconduct" IAW DAOD 5019-7, which I highly recommend you famiiarize yourself with!!!

However, your CO MUST consult with the local JAG before doing anything.


----------



## captloadie (27 Aug 2012)

Macey said:
			
		

> This is correct. Until Ottawa gives a go ahead on the member in question. Their 404's will be lifted. We need Ottawa's green light, plus the local DMV clean bill before we even consider reissuing a DND 404. Once that happens, then the member has to do a DDC, SBC, DIT, and local Supplmental Test. Plus we reqr to submit a new file for a plastic DND 404.
> 
> DDC (Defensive Driving Course)
> SBC (Safe Backing Course)
> ...



For a 24hr roadside suspension, it is unlikely that your 404s will be lifted, even as an MSE Op. At least where I have been postedthis is the case, and I have a very recent example of this.

I would be surprised if very many report this up their CoC, even though they should.


----------



## TN2IC (27 Aug 2012)

captloadie said:
			
		

> For a 24hr roadside suspension, it is unlikely that your 404s will be lifted, even as an MSE Op. At least where I have been postedthis is the case, and I have a very recent example of this.



I'm not sure for the 24hrs deal. I need to sit down and look into it. Just been busy with the CFSDC lately.
An educated guess, it is the unit responsibly to report this issue to local MSE Safety. And it is up to DTnJ4 Ottawa to decide on his DND 404's.



> I would be surprised if very many report this up their CoC, even though they should



Even if it is in the book. Does it mean everyone follows all the Regs to a "T" ? I know a lot of units like to fib to us on a daily bases, pretty much.  ;D

I just follow up on DUI's that come across my desk. I don't start the corrective action. I'm just part of the process to get them back on the road for DND. It is all speaking from my experience in this position I hold.

Hope this helps,
Regards,
Macey


----------



## gerry1 (23 May 2013)

Question.
What are the chances of being released for impaired driving twice in 13 years?


----------



## 63 Delta (23 May 2013)

Were you in the CF for both? I assume you are in for one of them..


----------



## 211RadOp (23 May 2013)

There are so many variables that I don't think anyone here can answer.

Such as:
Do you have any other alcohol related issues?
Are you on any sort of remedial measures?
Does the Adjt have a file a foot thick on you?
Are you a pump they are trying to get ride of?
Are you an outstanding soldier?
Do you need your 404s to perform you primary function?
What is your CO like on impared drivers?

And the list goes on.

No I don't want the answers to these, these are just some examples.


----------



## mariomike (23 May 2013)

gerry1 said:
			
		

> What are the chances of being released for impaired driving twice in 13 years?



SUBSEQUENT PDL SUSPENSION 

10. Upon being convicted of a driving offence resulting in a second suspension of the member’s DND 404 or provincial driver’s licence, the following action will be taken:
a. The member’s DND 404 shall be suspended for life.
b. If the suspension of the DND 404 precludes the member from performing the member’s duties, the CO will refer the case to NDHQ/D Mil C for CRB consideration. Depending upon the member’s MOSID and individual circumstances, the CRB may decide in favour of retention (with or without restriction), reassignment, or release.
c. If the driving offence was alcohol or drug related, action in accordance with HCFAO 19-21, Drug Abuse or HCFAO 19-31, Misuse of Alcohol as applicable, shall be considered.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/107018/post-1164458.html#msg1164458


----------



## Haggis (23 May 2013)

CFAO 19-31 has been superseded by DAOD 5019-7 Alcohol Misconduct.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 May 2013)

There will 99.9% be an Admin Review for AM.  One possible recommendation from an AR is release.

The factors that 211RapOp talked about are very relevant to the AR.  AFAIK, an AM incident triggers an AR.


----------



## Franko (23 May 2013)

If you we're put on C&P for the first offence, which in some units is the SOP......then I'd say you're done.

Regards


----------



## Haggis (23 May 2013)

gerry1 said:
			
		

> Question.
> What are the chances of being released for impaired driving twice in 13 years?



Did you apply for and receive a pardon for the first offence?  If so, it will (should) not show on your Conduct Sheet.


----------



## cti (13 Aug 2018)

Hello,

I am looking to VOT into COMm Research (00120) and have recently gotten a Canadian Pardon for a past DUI. Any inputs if it will pend a top secret clearance as I am now cleared of my one and only criminal record?

Thank you


----------



## SCE86 (26 Mar 2019)

I’m an OCdt about to graduate university next month and was about to get my commission. I got a DUI yesterday. I do have an IC from last year regarding a separate domestic incident with my husband. I’m 32 and have never been in trouble until this last year. Just wondering if anyone has any idea what is likely to happen? Will I be kicked out? Will it be C&P? An RW?

Thanks


----------



## garb811 (26 Mar 2019)

Nobody here can say with any certainty as DMCA is the authority for ARs for Alcohol Misconduct, which is what Impaired Driving is. My experience is you will face a minimum of C&P though.

If you haven't already, review DAOD 5019-7, Alcohol Misconduct.

If you haven't reported the incident to your CO yet, you need to do so ASAP.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Mar 2019)

To add to Garb811, for your knowledge:

2. Definitions

alcohol misconduct (inconduite liée à l'alcool)

Alcohol misconduct means any conduct, other than a conduct deficiency involving alcohol, that is an offence under the Criminal Code or the Code of Service Discipline that includes the consumption or influence of alcohol as an element of the offence or as a contributing factor, including, but not limited to, the following offences:
•impaired driving;
•impaired driving causing bodily harm or death;
•refusing to comply with a demand to provide a breath or blood sample;
•drunkenness under section 97 of the National Defence Act or an offence under QR&O article 19.04, Intoxicants, if dealt with at court martial, or at summary trial if a court martial election was given; and
•stealing, assault or sexual assault.

3. General Principles

Standard of Conduct
3.5 No CAF member must engage in alcohol misconduct.

Consequences
3.6 A CAF member who engages in alcohol misconduct is liable to criminal, disciplinary and administrative action, including release.


*Responsibilities of CAF Members
*3.8 A CAF member is required to report:
a.  alcohol misconduct by another CAF member, in accordance with QR&O subparagraph 4.02(1)(e), General Responsibilities of Officers,or QR&O subparagraph 5.01(e), General Responsibilities of Non-Commissioned Members, as applicable; and
b.  their arrest by a civil authority, in accordance with QR&O article 19.56, Report of Arrest by Civil Authority.

*19.56 - REPORT OF ARREST BY CIVIL AUTHORITY

*Where an officer or non-commissioned member has been arrested by a civil authority, the member shall cause the arrest to be reported to the member's commanding officer.

Reporting an Incident

3.9 An incident of alcohol misconduct or suspected alcohol misconduct must be reported to:
a.the CAF member's commanding officer (CO) through the chain of command;
b.the military police; or
c.the local representative of the Judge Advocate General (JAG).

If you don't report, and report asap, that could become a separate issue you could answer for in the future as well.

Last part I'll highlight from the DAOD, as Garb mentioned, DMCA and the Admin Review.

5.2 Upon notification by a CO, DMCA must initiate an administrative review (AR) as appropriate under DAOD 5019-2, Administrative Review.

* it has been 6-7 years since I've known anyone personally who had a DUI;  that mbr was placed on C & P (the mbr's first alcohol incident on record) by the CAF, lost their license for a year and pays substantially higher insurance rates.


----------



## mariomike (26 Mar 2019)

SCE86 said:
			
		

> . I got a DUI yesterday.



For reference to the discussion,

DUI/impaired driving in CF (merged)
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/107018.0

DUI - Effects on Joining?
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/22214.0


----------



## SCE86 (26 Mar 2019)

I notified my CoC immediately - less than 3 hours after I was released. Due to leave (not mine) I’m to receive my punishment next week. I’ve been working 3 jobs on the side (did a memo and it was approved) to make ends meat. My commissioning was going to let me go down to just working for the military but now I’m worried I won’t get my commission. Also worried they will revoke my permission for secondary employment. As an OCdt I’m also worried the likelihood of me getting kicked out is high  I really really fucked up.


----------



## Remius (26 Mar 2019)

SCE86 said:
			
		

> I notified my CoC immediately - less than 3 hours after I was released. Due to leave (not mine) I’m to receive my punishment next week. I’ve been working 3 jobs on the side (did a memo and it was approved) to make ends meat. My commissioning was going to let me go down to just working for the military but now I’m worried I won’t get my commission. Also worried they will revoke my permission for secondary employment. As an OCdt I’m also worried the likelihood of me getting kicked out is high  I really really ****ed up.



Were you actually convicted? Or just arrested?


----------



## SCE86 (26 Mar 2019)

Edited on request of OP for PERSEC reasons.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Mar 2019)

SCE86 said:
			
		

> I notified my CoC immediately - less than 3 hours after I was released. Due to leave (not mine) I’m to receive my punishment next week. I’ve been working 3 jobs on the side (did a memo and it was approved) to make ends meat. My commissioning was going to let me go down to just working for the military but now I’m worried I won’t get my commission. Also worried they will revoke my permission for secondary employment. As an OCdt I’m also worried the likelihood of me getting kicked out is high  I really really fucked up.



You're met your duty to report, and did it quickly.  That might not help you, but it certainly won't hurt you either.

Have a review of the DAODs on Alcohol Misconduct and Admin Reviews.  As you can't catch water that is already under the bridge, you can familiarize yourself with the processes and steps that will happen now.  Take a look at Section 5 of the Admin Review DAOD and the AR Process Table;  understanding the process may help you sleep a little easier tonight.


----------



## brihard (26 Mar 2019)

SCE86 said:
			
		

> Edited on request of OP for PERSEC reasons.



xxxmg% is a high blow. That’s quite a few drinks.

Under our laws as they stand, on criminal conviction you’ll face a minimum fine of $1500 plus victim surcharge- probably a bit shy of $2000 all in. You’ll get a one year driving prohibition. This assumes no priors.

Your province may have an ignition interlock program open to people who plead guilty early. If that is your intent I suggest contacting a lawyer and figure out your options ASAP, as often you need to move quick to access those.

You screwed up, badly. The good news is you didn’t hurt or kill anyone, so there’s that. You will not make your situation worse than it already is by taking ownership, and showing accountability for your choices. If that’s your intent, talk to your chain and make it clear to them. They will be more inclined to go to bat for you if you show that just maybe you have the strength of character to redeem yourself in time.


----------



## JesseWZ (26 Mar 2019)

SCE86 said:
			
		

> Edited on request of OP for PERSEC reasons.



If you are expecting to graduate (and _*presumably*_ that comes with a posting) within the next couple of months, you should be aware that first court date is likely only a First Appearance. Even if you intend to plead guilty, there will likely be other court dates further down the road before the matter is settled. If your graduation comes with a posting, you may be required to travel back in order to attend court several times. It would be in your interest to keep your chain apprised of those dates as you learn them.


----------



## JesseWZ (26 Mar 2019)

Folks,

Pre-emptive comment here:

The OP has come here and self disclosed something that paints them in an unfavourable light in order to seek guidance with the "what now". 

This thread is going to remain a place _*only*_ to answer the questions asked by the OP - not to judge the OP on their decisions, motivations, rationale, character, etc. 

Anyone responsible for the administrative and disciplinary side of this has been made aware and is in a much better position than us to pass judgement.

JesseWZ
Army.ca Staff


----------



## brihard (26 Mar 2019)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> If you are expecting to graduate (and _*presumably*_ that comes with a posting) within the next couple of months, you should be aware that first court date is likely only a First Appearance. Even if you intend to plead guilty, there will likely be other court dates further down the road before the matter is settled. If your graduation comes with a posting, you may be required to travel back in order to attend court several times. It would be in your interest to keep your chain apprised of those dates as you learn them.



Though rare to see, you can plead guilty at a first appearance. I had one a couple months back who did exactly that.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Mar 2019)

SCE86 said:
			
		

> I’m an OCdt about to graduate university next month and was about to get my commission. I got a DUI yesterday. I do have an IC from last year regarding a separate domestic incident with my husband. I’m 32 and have never been in trouble until this last year. Just wondering if anyone has any idea what is likely to happen? Will I be kicked out? Will it be C&P? An RW?
> 
> Thanks



Step 1:  Retain a lawyer

Step 2:  Stop talking about the incident on here.  You haven't been convicted of an offence, you haven't even had a trial.  

Step 3:  Talk to the Chain of Command but don't tell them anything related to the case.  They don't need to know anything more about it than what the police report says.  It's pointless anyways as their hands are tied by DMCA Policy.

The policy is an Automatic C&P for six months.  Regardless of the outcome of the court case, you will be put on C&P. 
The police arresting you for impaired driving is enough to get that ball rolling  You are not supposed to be posted on C&P and you are not supposed to do career courses.

If you follow the conditions of the C&P, at the end of the six months you should be good to go.  

My question for you though:  How are you feeling?  IC for a domestic dispute and now this, you are in tough and I hope you are doing ok?


----------



## SentryMAn (27 Mar 2019)

One thing I don't think I read in here is that you may also face being charged within the Military via Summary Trial or Court Marshal.  You may be and likely WILL be limited on  career courses, being promoted, Posting etc until your C+P etc  is completed.

Have you thought about seeking help regarding alcohol consumption, counselling, AA, etc?   They will go a LOOOOONG way when it comes time for the punishments given if you seek it out yourself rather then wait for the COC to direct you to medical services.


----------



## Haggis (27 Mar 2019)

SentryMAn said:
			
		

> One thing I don't think I read in here is that you may also face being charged within the Military via Summary Trial or Court Marshal.



The OP was charged by the MP for impaired driving under the Criminal Code.  Why, in your estimation, would she also face an NDA charge for the same offence?


----------



## medicineman (27 Mar 2019)

SentryMAn said:
			
		

> One thing I don't think I read in here is that you may also face being charged within the Military via Summary Trial or Court Marshal.  You may be and likely WILL be limited on  career courses, being promoted, Posting etc until your C+P etc  is completed.
> 
> Have you thought about seeking help regarding alcohol consumption, counselling, AA, etc?   They will go a LOOOOONG way when it comes time for the punishments given if you seek it out yourself rather then wait for the COC to direct you to medical services.



More likely going to face Administrative Measures regarding Alcohol Misuse than Disciplinary Measures than a Court MARTIAL (not Marshal - completely different word) or ST if they're already being charged under the Criminal Code - this should/will trigger a C&P with an AR...if they're in a position that's safety sensitive and or requires legal ability to drive, more likely that will happen at the highest level of Admin Measures permitted.

MM


----------



## JesseWZ (27 Mar 2019)

SentryMAn said:
			
		

> One thing I don't think I read in here is that you may also face being charged within the Military via Summary Trial or Court Marshal.  You may be and likely WILL be limited on  career courses, being promoted, Posting etc until your C+P etc  is completed.



There is a principal in Canadian law and enshrined in our Charter known as "Double Jeopardy". Essentially what it boils down to is you cannot be tried twice for the same conduct/offences. As impaired driving charges are typically heard in the criminal justice system, a Summary Trial or Court Martial for the same instance of impaired driving should not (and legally cannot) occur. 

There are *some* minority occasions where someone could face an impaired driving charge AND Code of Service Discipline charges however the CSD charges would need to stem from separate conduct _*post and during arrest*_ - _**not**_ from the impaired driving.

In one example, an impaired driver was arrested and charged by the civilian constabulary, following the arrest the member behaved disgracefully towards the arresting officer, breath tech and jail supervisor. The MP's were called and the member faced impaired driving charges *and* charges of drunkenness and conduct prejudice laid by their unit after receiving a report of the members behaviour while in custody.

Charterpedia has a good summary of "Double Jeopardy" Here.


----------



## SentryMAn (27 Mar 2019)

Sorry about my post, I've been up far too long and hadn't read where this is from 2013(OP).  I was speaking more so regarding charges for conduct rather then an ST/CM for the actual DUI, which will be settled in a civilian court room.  I understand Double jeopardy(even watched the movie) and how it is applied and depending on the members COC can be avoided depending on the nature of the situation.....but that would be for an UDI to determine.  

Would it be worth it?  likely not, the member is already facing financial issues and now will be paying fines and increased insurance etc.

The AR would be what I would be most scared of in this situation as a barely in the military OCdt. 

Again, SEEK help for alcohol, seek counselling for your marital problems, document these things, they WILL help you.


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Mar 2019)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> There is a principal in Canadian law and enshrined in our Charter known as "Double Jeopardy". Essentially what it boils down to is you cannot be tried twice for the same conduct/offences. As impaired driving charges are typically heard in the criminal justice system, a Summary Trial or Court Martial for the same instance of impaired driving should not (and legally cannot) occur.
> 
> There are *some* minority occasions where someone could face an impaired driving charge AND Code of Service Discipline charges however the CSD charges would need to stem from separate conduct _*post and during arrest*_ - _**not**_ from the impaired driving.
> 
> ...



As an aside, C&P and AR are administrative measures and separate and independent from any criminal charges. They are not a punishment so 'double jeopardy' does not apply. Admin measures are meant to have a formal structure for the divisional system to ensure the member is getting the mentoring, extra training, help etc. required to deal with a specific issue, and the AR is intended to ensure the member is still employable by the CAF. Being released as a result of an AR is possible, and have read CMs where it was a mitigation considered for sentencing, but you can be placed on some kind of admin measure and still be charged for the same incident.

Aside from being on your record, it is also intended to hold the CoC accountable for their side of it (ie by providing extra guidance, time for training opportunities, etc) to correct the deficiency (although that part is debatable). The AR is also supposed to ensure that anything that misconduct that would lead to a release is done by a neutral third party and that both the CoC and member's viewpoints are considered.  It can be fairly painful, but for the problem children that can be the bane of a CoC's existence does ensure that someone not directly involved in it does make the decision, so a lot fairer than what you get in most companies.


----------



## JesseWZ (27 Mar 2019)

SentryMAn said:
			
		

> _*I understand Double jeopardy(even watched the movie) and how it is applied and depending on the members COC can be avoided depending on the nature of the situation*_.....but that would be for an UDI to determine.



How is a members chain of command going to "avoid" a right enshrined by s. 11(h) of the _Charter of Rights and Freedoms_? It's pretty clear. You cannot be charged twice for the same circumstances. There are no "workarounds" to add an extra dose of discipline on top of criminal charges. 

s. 11(h) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

_11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ... (h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again _


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Mar 2019)

Anyone who says C&P is not a punishment has clearly never been on C&P. It's living under the all seeing Eye of Mordor for six months, and then being viewed with a yellow eye for a considerable time after, depending on vindictiveness of individuals.


----------



## Remius (27 Mar 2019)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Anyone who says C&P is not a punishment has clearly never been on C&P. It's living under the all seeing Eye of Mordor for six months, and then being viewed with a yellow eye for a considerable time after, depending on vindictiveness of individuals.



Or depending on the nature of the deficiency.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Or depending on the nature of the deficiency.



Why is that necessary? C&P is over, climb down out of their ass and let them get on with their lives. It's petty control freak Bullshit of Damocles.


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Mar 2019)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Anyone who says C&P is not a punishment has clearly never been on C&P. It's living under the all seeing Eye of Mordor for six months, and then being viewed with a yellow eye for a considerable time after, depending on vindictiveness of individuals.



Even a RW will stay on your file for your entire career, and there is no pardon or similar.  There are definitely consequences, but in any case, has no bearing on any kind of 'double jeopardy' wrt criminal charges.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Mar 2019)

That's not what I was referring to. Someone said C&P was not punishment. There is punishment and then there is _punishment_, but I think you knew that. Yes, an RW stays on your sheet because, well, it's R. Not me personally, but I've overheard a WO say to a Cpl words to the effect of "remember when you were on C&P a couple years back? Nudge nudge, wink wink." Of course that's way back before anyone decided we had rights.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Mar 2019)

Target Up said:
			
		

> That's not what I was referring to. Someone said C&P was not punishment. There is punishment and then there is _punishment_, but I think you knew that. Yes, an RW stays on your sheet because, well, it's R. Not me personally, but I've overheard a WO say to a Cpl words to the effect of "remember when you were on C&P a couple years back? Nudge nudge, wink wink." Of course that's way back before anyone decided we had rights.



All remedial measures stay on the mbr's Pers File "forever" now...why shouldn't they?  If you are on C&P for something in 2017, and then mess up for the same thing again in 2020...not really the 'first time' is it?

RMs stay on file for a reason.  If you don't mess up...nothing is ever on your file.  

What other COA would you suggest to keep a history of conduct and/or performance deficiencies?


----------



## Navy_Pete (28 Mar 2019)

Target Up said:
			
		

> That's not what I was referring to. Someone said C&P was not punishment. There is punishment and then there is _punishment_, but I think you knew that. Yes, an RW stays on your sheet because, well, it's R. Not me personally, but I've overheard a WO say to a Cpl words to the effect of "remember when you were on C&P a couple years back? Nudge nudge, wink wink." Of course that's way back before anyone decided we had rights.



I was mentioning it to clarify that remedial measures are separate from any legal charges so will not count towards a double jeopardy.  Some lower deck lawyers tend to bring that up, but it's not accurate.  Don't feel like hijacking this thread over sidebars, so will leave it at that.


----------



## Franko (2 Apr 2019)

Target Up said:
			
		

> That's not what I was referring to. Someone said C&P was not punishment. There is punishment and then there is _punishment_, but I think you knew that. Yes, an RW stays on your sheet because, well, it's R. Not me personally, but I've overheard a WO say to a Cpl words to the effect of "remember when you were on C&P a couple years back? Nudge nudge, wink wink." Of course that's way back before anyone decided we had rights.



No need to say anything at all. The member screws up, someone checks their pers file and there it is - grounds for an Admin Review.

If there's nothing there, charges that would probably accompany the transgression along with the RM if required.

Regards


----------



## brihard (2 Apr 2019)

Remedial measures address performance deficiencies. Yes, they overlap with conduct measures in cases like this, and appropriately so. The military is not a normal job. Soldiers are expected to keep themselves ready. Having outstanding criminal court matters is a readiness issue, and so is a performance issue. It's absolutely appropriate to keep record of such things in case it persists.

C&P is not _punishment_. It is predictable _consequences_ of poor choices that impact your operational readiness. C&P won't result in a fine, it won't result in you being ineligible to cross the border, it won't result in a criminal record. Yes, it hurts you professionally, but that's how it goes.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Apr 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Remedial measures address performance deficiencies. Yes, they overlap with conduct measures in cases like this, and appropriately so. The military is not a normal job. Soldiers are expected to keep themselves ready. Having outstanding criminal court matters is a readiness issue, and so is a performance issue. It's absolutely appropriate to keep record of such things in case it persists.
> 
> C&P is not _punishment_. It is predictable _consequences_ of poor choices that impact your operational readiness. C&P won't result in a fine, it won't result in you being ineligible to cross the border, it won't result in a criminal record. Yes, it hurts you professionally, but that's how it goes.



I agree Brihard and I have issued them and had them issued to me.  With a caveat though:

One thing the CAF does that I don't agree with is issue remedial measures for some conduct issue involving court when a person has never been found guilty or received a criminal conviction.  Because you know, nobody has ever been wrongfully accused  :rofl:

Yep, I've heard it all before that it's about burden of proof, which most of the time is a police report that just says someone "may have" done something so they are being charged with a crime.  None of which has been proven in court at all.


----------



## brihard (2 Apr 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I agree Brihard and I have issued them and had them issued to me.  With a caveat though:
> 
> One thing the CAF does that I don't agree with is issue remedial measures for some conduct issue involving court when a person has never been found guilty or received a criminal conviction.  Because you know, nobody has ever been wrongfully accused  :rofl:
> 
> Yep, I've heard it all before that it's about burden of proof, which most of the time is a police report that just says someone "may have" done something so they are being charged with a crime.  None of which has been proven in court at all.



The threshold for laying charges is 'reasonable and probable grounds' to believe a person has committed an offense... That's somewhat higher than 'may have', which falls short even of 'reasonable suspicion'. 

In the specific case of impaireds, while I won't say there has never been someone wrongfully accused, what I can say with a high degree of confidence is that in pretty much every case where someone has been found guilty it has been due either to a very technical defense, or a Charter argument. Not that the person was not, in fact, driving drunk. The acquittals are almost always found in the (sometimes wide) gap between 'we know' and 'we can prove that'...

Reading through the DAOD on alcohol misconduct, the threshold for administrative action for alcohol misconduct is "clear and convincing evidence that the CAF member has engaged in alcohol misconduct". Being stopped, and providing a breath test that blows over is certainly 'clear and convincing' evidence. I note that the DAOD seems to deliberately stop short of requiring the burden of proof for criminal conviction, probably in part because of the recognition that many people who are guilty in fact will not be found so in law due to the vagaries of the criminal justice system. Charges are not laid nearly so willy-nilly as you suggested above. Officers who are charging will have their files reviewed by a supervisor, and crown can quash those they think aren't well founded too.

Remembering that the point of the DAOD and the administrative process is to correct deficiencies that are maladaptive to the individual's future success in their career, it seems fair and appropriate to lay the hammer at that lower threshold in order to get a grip on performance issues earlier.

If you get liquored up and hop behind the wheel, it's not how it goes in court that determines whether or not you're making poor life choices. If you're having to go to court for impaired, even if ultimately acquitted, you have still created an administrative burden to the CAF due to your own choices. That's what's being sorted out.


----------



## blacktriangle (2 Apr 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> If you get liquored up and hop behind the career



Good evening sir, where are you coming from? Have you been drinking tonight? 

 ;D


----------



## Haggis (3 Apr 2019)

As per para 5.2 of DAOD 5019-7, an AR *must* be conducted in all cases of alcohol misconduct. This includes those instances where a CAF member charged with an alcohol related offence (i.e. DUI) is tried and found not guilty.  Why? it's simple, really.  The AR must determine of the member's actions fell within the expected norms of a CAF member's *conduct*.  If so, then no RM are likely.  If not, the CAF will attempt to course correct that conduct back on track within the norms through the RM process.


----------



## brihard (3 Apr 2019)

DetectiveMcNulty said:
			
		

> Good evening sir, where are you coming from? Have you been drinking tonight?
> 
> ;D



Lol, whoops.


----------



## ballz (3 Apr 2019)

There's a few things I want to chime in on as I'm feeling a bit pedantic, but I think the nuances are important.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> The threshold for laying charges is 'reasonable and probable grounds' to believe a person has committed an offense... That's somewhat higher than 'may have', which falls short even of 'reasonable suspicion'.



That's true. But that threshold ("reasonable grounds to believe") is actually lower than the administrative law threshold "on the balance of probabilities." So no, the laying of a charge by police alone is not enough. This part does irritate me, because it seems very misunderstood. There are those that think that simply because the police laid a charge, something has been proven on the balance of probabilities, but it hasn't... it is _explicitly_ a lower threshold. Other than that, I have no issues with using administrative action before any convictions are determined.... as long as you're basing it on more than just the police laying a charge.

In most cases that I've dealt with (from a CoC perspective), I had more evidence on hand than just the fact that police had laid a charge. For example, I'd have the police report, as well many times the persons own report (when they reported it to their Chain of Command, etc). Usually from the content within that, it was usually enough to conclude that on the balance of probabilities someone did something they ought not to, and remedial measures could be issued. I dealt with a case where there wasn't, and I'm dealing with a case now where DMCA 2 waited for the trial to finish before moving forward with the AR (i.e. no remedial measures were issued).



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> In the specific case of impaireds, while I won't say there has never been someone wrongfully accused, what I can say with a high degree of confidence is that in pretty much every case where someone has been found guilty it has been due either to a very technical defense, or a Charter argument. Not that the person was not, in fact, driving drunk. The acquittals are almost always found in the (sometimes wide) gap between 'we know' and 'we can prove that'...



Maybe not for impaired, but sexual assault as an example tends to be a lot of he-said / she-said and without the items being scrutinized you can be left right on the 50/50 split. One of the ones I dealt with, the charges were laid, they were going to court, and the only evidence I had were two or three statements that were so far apart and conflicting I was tempted to toss a coin.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> I note that the DAOD seems to deliberately stop short of requiring the burden of proof for criminal conviction, probably in part because of the recognition that many people who are guilty in fact will not be found so in law due to the vagaries of the criminal justice system.



I'm pretty sure its simply because the law has already determined that the burden of proof in administrative law is the balance of probabilities, and that's the type of law that administrative action falls under...  the DND has no discretion on that. But a lawyer would have chime in.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Apr 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> There's a few things I want to chime in on as I'm feeling a bit pedantic, but I think the nuances are important.
> 
> That's true. But that threshold ("reasonable grounds to believe") is actually lower than the administrative law threshold "on the balance of probabilities." So no, the laying of a charge by police alone is not enough. This part does irritate me, because it seems very misunderstood. There are those that think that simply because the police laid a charge, something has been proven on the balance of probabilities, but it hasn't... it is _explicitly_ a lower threshold. Other than that, I have no issues with using administrative action before any convictions are determined.... as long as you're basing it on more than just the police laying a charge.
> 
> ...



Thank you for this post which so eloquently described what I was trying to get at.

I would just accept that remedial measures are going to happen and like I said in an earlier post, don't tell your chain of command anything.  

The chain of command are not your friends and neither are the police, inspite of what they may tell you.


----------



## Somerandomfellow (7 May 2019)

Somerandomfellow said:
			
		

> Don’t give anyone anything, let your lawyer do it, don’t talk to anyone don’t tell anyone what happened keep your mouth shut and LET YOUR LAWYER DO ALL THE TALKING FOR YOU.
> 
> If the cop messed up or the lawyer gets you off without charge, the military may not decide to charge you also.
> 
> ...


----------



## JesseWZ (7 May 2019)

FYI I removed a double post leaving the more recent one. No reason to repeat the same advice twice.

JesseWZ
Army.ca *Staff*


----------



## X Royal (7 May 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> As per para 5.2 of DAOD 5019-7, an AR *must* be conducted in all cases of alcohol misconduct. This includes those instances where a CAF member charged with an alcohol related offence (i.e. DUI) is tried and found not guilty.  Why? it's simple, really.  The AR must determine of the member's actions fell within the expected norms of a CAF member's *conduct*.  If so, then no RM are likely.  If not, the CAF will attempt to course correct that conduct back on track within the norms through the RM process.


How would that work if the charged party was a Class A reserve not on duty at the time? 
Not subject to the Code of Service Discipline.


----------



## brihard (7 May 2019)

X Royal said:
			
		

> How would that work if the charged party was a Class A reserve not on duty at the time?
> Not subject to the Code of Service Discipline.



Doesn’t matter. Administrative measures are not contingent on the CSD. In the case of alcohol misconduct they still apply to someone whose poor decisions makes them an administrative burden. Military members, whether reg or reserve, are bound by certain behaviour expectations both on and off duty, including the expectation to not eat a criminal charge and jeopardize your deployability. Administrative measures exist to address that.

A person who chooses to drink and drive has chosen not to meet the performance and conduct standards imposed by the CAF as their employer. The CAF is perfectly within its rights to attempt to correct that decision making, which also serves as the necessary documented efforts that labour law expects before you fire someone for performance reasons.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 May 2019)

Don't forget to only roll the window down a crack to talk to officers.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 May 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Doesn’t matter. Administrative measures are not contingent on the CSD. In the case of alcohol misconduct they still apply to someone whose poor decisions makes them an administrative burden. Military members, whether reg or reserve, are bound by certain behaviour expectations both on and off duty, including the expectation to not eat a criminal charge and jeopardize your deployability. Administrative measures exist to address that.
> 
> A person who chooses to drink and drive has chosen not to meet the performance and conduct standards imposed by the CAF as their employer. The CAF is perfectly within its rights to attempt to correct that decision making, which also serves as the necessary documented efforts that labour law expects before you fire someone for performance reasons.



Not only it is within the CofC rights, it actually is a responsibility/required action:
From DAOD 5019-0, Conduct and Performance Deficiencies

Requirements

2.4 The chain of command or designated staff, as applicable, *must take appropriate action if a CAF member demonstrates conduct or performance deficiencies*. Depending on the circumstances, the appropriate action may involve disciplinary or administrative action, or both.

2.5 If a CAF member has been charged with an offence under the National Defence Act, Criminal Code or other federal statute, the chain of command or designated staff may, regardless of the outcome of the offence charged, take administrative action to address any conduct or performance deficiencies arising from the same circumstances.

2.6 The CAF *must provide education, counselling and treatment*, as appropriate, to assist CAF members to prevent, correct or subsequently overcome conduct or performance deficiencies.

Additionally, as the career impacts for things like DUI are more significant (someone mentioned C & P is the start point for RMs), the member is then afforded more procedural fairness.

From A-LG-007-000/AF-010, Military Administrative Law Manual, Ch 14 - Administrative Action:

6. Administrative Sanction In contrast to career management, procedural fairness plays a significant role when serious administrative sanctions are being taken against a CF member. Such sanctions can impair a member’s career progression or, ultimately, lead to the termination of the member’s military service career by way of compulsory release. Accordingly, as the administrative sanctions become progressively more severe, procedural fairness requirements are enhanced for the benefit and protection of the member.

10. There are three types of remedial measures: Initial Counselling (IC), Recorded Warning (RW) and Counselling and Probation (C&P). Remedial measures are intended to make the CF member aware of any conduct or performance deficiency, assist the CF member in overcoming the deficiency, and allow the CF member to correct their conduct or improve their performance.3 Although the members on whom they are imposed may perceive them as punitive, IC, RW and C&P are not punishments as defined in QR&O 104.02 (Scale of Punishments).

15. Neither an IC nor RW impacts on any eligibility for promotion, training, posting, re-engagement or pay. As long as the member improves the performance or conduct, there should be no further career implications. When a CF member is placed on C&P, the eligibility for career opportunities is restricted. The CF member is not eligible for promotion, attendance on career courses, receiving incentive pay, or being posted or attached posted. Exceptions may be made to the general prohibition against postings and attached postings for operational reasons and in exceptional circumstances by DGRMC.

17. Because of its career implications, there is a requirement for more procedural fairness before initiating C&P. The Initiating Authority shall complete DAOD Form 5019-CPDA B, Notice of Intent to Place on Counselling and Probation and deliver it to the CF member, informing the CF member of the Initiating Authority’s intention to place the member on C&P, of the deficiency for which the measure is being taken, and the reasons that support the measure. The Initiating Authority shall disclose to the CF member copies of all documents that substantiate the proposed C&P and are to be considered before making a final decision. The Initiating Authority shall not release information that is exempt under DAOD 1001-0, Access to Information and DAOD 1002-0, Personal Information. The Initiating Authority shall provide the CF member with a reasonable opportunity, not less than 24 hours, to make written representations to the Initiating Authority. A CF member may request assistance or additional time to make representations. The Initiating Authority may grant such a request, if appropriate in the circumstances. If the CF member provides representations and the decision is to proceed with C&P, the Initiating Authority shall complete the appropriate form. The CF member’s representations may also cause an Initiating Authority to initiate IC or RW instead of C&P, to initiate other administrative action, or to take no further action.


----------



## brihard (7 May 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Don't forget to only roll the window down a crack to talk to officers.



Hell yes. There’s basically no better way to guarantee that a police officer will invoke the new mandatory alcohol screening authority for compulsory roadside tests. Better have your paperwork all in order too.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 May 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Hell yes. There’s basically no better way to guarantee that a police officer will invoke the new mandatory alcohol screening authority for compulsory roadside tests. Better have your paperwork all in order too.



I guess its a better reason than returning "too many empties" at a beer store. Glad there wasn't any OPP when I dropped off my Christmas empties today, would have loved to waste his/her time and tell them how much of a joke that new law is.


----------



## brihard (7 May 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I guess its a better reason than returning "too many empties" at a beer store. Glad there wasn't any OPP when I dropped off my Christmas empties today, would have loved to waste his/her time and tell them how much of a joke that new law is.



I know the last guy I caught and charged with impaired driving using it found it hilarious.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 May 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Hell yes. There’s basically no better way to guarantee that a police officer will invoke the new mandatory alcohol screening authority for compulsory roadside tests. Better have your paperwork all in order too.



I'm also no afraid to break out a "I want to talk to your supervisor" followed by "I pay your salary". I'll save the "taxation is theft!" for when I'm handcuffed in the back of the car though


----------



## PuckChaser (8 May 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I know the last guy I caught and charged with impaired driving using it found it hilarious.



If he was hammered then I don't doubt he found weird things funny. So are you 1 for 1 with being able to suspend that pesky "probable cause" part, or is it now just a giant fishing expedition?


----------



## Haggis (8 May 2019)

X Royal said:
			
		

> How would that work if the charged party was a Class A reserve not on duty at the time?
> Not subject to the Code of Service Discipline.



To be subject to administrative review or remedial measures a Reservist does not have to be subject to the CSD at the time to alleged conduct deficiency occurred. In Ontario, for example, you are subject to a automatic 90 day licence suspension if you blow over .08, refuse a test or a Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) determines you are impaired, regardless of the outcome of criminal charges which could take many months to be disposed of.  This could render a Class A Reservist who is, say, an MSE Op or Non-trade Driver unemployable in their primary role.  That would be grounds for an AR.


----------



## Haggis (8 May 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Hell yes. There’s basically no better way to guarantee that a police officer will invoke the new mandatory alcohol screening authority for compulsory roadside tests. Better have your paperwork all in order too.


It's also helpful to question the officer's authority to interfere with your natural law right to "travel".  Asserting that their jurisdiction is limited only to those citizens who have given servitude to an unlawful monarch, and you are not such a "person" goes a long way as well.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 May 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> It's also helpful to question the officer's authority to interfere with your natural law right to "travel".  Asserting that their jurisdiction is limited only to those citizens who have given servitude to an unlawful monarch, and you are not such a "person" goes a long way as well.



Oh, I didn't know this one.  I know what I'm saying next time I get pulled over or go thru a checkpoint!!   ;D


----------



## brihard (9 May 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If he was hammered then I don't doubt he found weird things funny. So are you 1 for 1 with being able to suspend that pesky "probable cause" part, or is it now just a giant fishing expedition?



"Probable Cause" is an American term. It's not a thing here what you're referring to is the removal of the "reasonable suspicion" requirement.

I use it sparingly, and certainly not just 'fishing'. Usually at night, usually when I've seen either poor driving or I'm dealing with a novice driver with a probationary license and a zero alcohol condition attached. Generally speaking if I do a mandatory alcohol screen I'll do that in lieu of a ticket that would probably run $120 bucks. I'm showing that the driving behaviour matters, I'm verifying that they're licensed, registered, insured, and sober, I'm adding a bit more deterrence in the form of people knowing they could randomly get screened, and often as not I'm cutting them a break on a ticket. I've had several where people have denied drinking entirely, but the test shows that while they're below the limit they have definitely been drinking. I've been able to tell a few people that they were quite close, and one more drink would have seen them in a bad spot.

The one I mentioned- he wasn't 'hammered' or I would not have needed to use the random testing provision as I would have had ample evidence to constitute reasonable suspicion. He was speeding excessively past police that were out at an accident scene at 2:30 am, his passenger was obliterated, and there was open alcohol in the vehicle. But I had no smell off him, and he denied any consumption. I gave him the random testing demand, and he kept arguing it to the point where I deemed refusal after several minutes and arrested him for same. In the time he was then in the back of my car his behaviour continued to get more erratic and I was able to get a very strong smell of alcohol from his breath once in the enclosed space of my car. Despite this he continued to deny drinking, or for that matter the speeding that I had locked on my radar... I ended up adding the straight impaired by alcohol charge to the refusal based on these subsequent observations, but I would not have been able to argue impairment at first glance or based on a minute at the car window.

Despite all that I described, what initially presented to me would not have reached the threshold of 'reasonable suspicion', and I can't use things that happen afterwards to go back and retroactively justify a reasonable suspicion demand. The new provision worked exactly as intended- to catch someone who otherwise would have gone undetected. This is happening all across the country.


----------

