Career options while facing a DUI charge.

[Raymond Hall]

It just a matter of your Rolodex and bank roll, you can buy as much justice as you can afford. I'd wager if you have a few cop friends and or $20,000 ish to invest in justice, you'll be fine.

After practising law for more that 25 years, seeing justice meted out while working both inside the system and outside the system, I must respectfully disagree with you. It is correct to say that the quality of one's legal representation can make a substantial difference to the way a charge evolves and in the eventual judicial decision, depending on the facts and on the legal knowledge and advocacy skills of one's counsel with respect to the applicable law. But there is no magic bullet. One cannot buy oneself an outcome, at any price, no matter who you know.

One of my mentors succinctly put it this way. He replied to me one day when we were entering court after I had suggested that we were in a very strong position on the facts and law of the case in particular, "Don't ever think when you walk through these doors that it is going to be anything but a crap shoot. Be prepared, but be prepared to be challenged and surprised."

The proposition that justice is for sale simply does not accord with my belief, with my knowledge or with my experience, period. Your suggestion that the Canadian legal system is inherently corrupt amounts to a slander on the reputation of most, if not all of the participants. Many of my law classmates are judges. One is currently a Minister of Justice. One is the Chief Justice of Manitoba. Each, whom I have watched for decades, without exception, has resolutely defended their professional integrity and professional performance, without exception. One of my former partners, on appointment as a Federal Court judge, gave up one of his most cherished passions, golf. He quit the local golf club because, as he explained to me, he simply could not take the risk of appearing on the bench before anyone, lawyer or client, whom he had been associated with in his former personal life, no matter how remote.

Even the Prime Minister failed to overcome the law when his proposed appointee to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied by the Court on the basis of a simple motion filed by a lone private attorney. If there ever were an example of how little privilege matters in the law, that must surely be one.

Also this might not even be a real DUI or a crime.

Suggest that to someone who just lost all of their children to a drunk driver.

I believe you need a victim for a crime and I didn't see where any persons or property were damaged.

One of the key elements of statutory and criminal code prohibitions is deterrence, particularly where the perpetrator's actions result in an inability to make rational decisions and/or to react in a safe and timely manner to events on the highway. Society is the victim. The risk of grievous bodily harm or loss of life is sufficient.

As for being drunk, I don't know, there are some folks who have like one drink and are a mess, others who can drink all day long and go about their day without even being able to tell that had a single drink.

Even if others don't perceive the impact, the machine knows, and performance is inversely related to the amount of alcohol in one's system, regardless of the perception of others.

The DUI thing has more to do with revenue generation then the illusion of safety.

Wrong again. The "DUI thing" is all about preventing the slaughter that would otherwise occur without effective laws to counter it. Convictions for impaired driving do not even necessarily result in fines, and there is no revenue generation resulting from incarceration--in fact, the cost to society is substantial. There is no illusion about the safety of an impaired driver--science, facts and history resolved that debate long ago.

[DanWEC]

Mr. Hall, as a law professional, I'd be interested to hear more on your take of the current system. Specifically, the proportionality and prudence of adding the criminal conviction in all it's severity, to an Over 80, compared to it's efficacy as a deterrent considering the volume of cases that are now, in no uncertain terms, clogging the courts. Is there a better way?

Cheers,
Dan

[Raymond Hall]

I'd be interested to hear more on your take of the current system. Specifically, the proportionality and prudence of adding the criminal conviction in all it's severity, to an Over 80, compared to it's efficacy as a deterrent considering the volume of cases that are now, in no uncertain terms, clogging the courts. Is there a better way?

Well, this thread is about the impact of a conviction for DUI (an American term) on the potential for career progression in the piloting profession in Canada. So I am a little reluctant to get too much into philosophical discussions about the legal system here, as that would tend to hijack the thread.

A very short answer might suffice. Transport Canada, by its regulations, has zero tolerance. One cannot have any alcohol in one’s system when performing one’s function under its licensing authority. Zero. Good regulation, in my view. Booze and flying simply do not mix. And if one is not able to keep them separate, one does not deserve to be afforded the privilege to exercise the rights of one's licence, professional or otherwise. It is not asking too much of anyone to be 100% competent to perform one's job.

Law, in its evolution, is generally a response to, or a reflection of, a social need. Collectively, as a society, we need to prevent murder, fraud, assault and a myriad of other prejudices to the rights of the individual members of our society, including the harm created by motor manslaughter. The issue is really not about the need; rather it is about the implementation. Some laws may go too far. Some may not go far enough. Some individuals may suffer consequences disproportionate to their own circumstances. But that doesn’t alter the need to have the laws in place, to protect the public.

Is there a better way? Probably. Law is continually evolving. Most jurisdictions in Canada have Law Reform Commissions empowered to recommend changes to laws to their respective governments.

As well, different political parties have different philosophies and methodologies. In short, law is evolutionary, not revolutionary.

Yes, there is probably a better way. I believe that the biggest future impact to law will be the improvisation to prevent transgressions, not to correct them. But that, strictly speaking, is a social issue. And that opens a whole new discussion.

[single_swine_herder]

It is excellent to see you supply information Mr. Hall.

My personal tolerance for DWI is less than zero. I was a passenger in a car at a stop light which was struck from the 4 o'clock position and I was off work for close to four months and suffered a concussion which had me wondering for about six weeks of deep anguish if I would ever be able to return to the cockpit.

When someone comes forward and advocates that DWI has no victims, it drives me wild.

Try being a cop that has to go to a door at 2 AM and tell a wife that her husband was killed on the drive home when T-Boned at an intersection by a drunk. One of the pilots that worked at our outfit had to do that several times.

SSH

[Raymond Hall]

I was a passenger in a car at a stop light which was struck from the 4 o'clock position and I was off work for close to four months and suffered a concussion which had me wondering for about six weeks of deep anguish if I would ever be able to return to the cockpit.

Yours is not an isolated incident. I have had several clients in my office with similar histories.

In my view, most people do not understand the severe consequences or the probability of negative outcome of such an experience. The reality is that everything that one has planned from one's teenage years, career and otherwise, comes into question, not as result of one's own failings, but rather, as a result of circumstance--being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[SuperchargedRS]

It just a matter of your Rolodex and bank roll, you can buy as much justice as you can afford. I'd wager if you have a few cop friends and or $20,000 ish to invest in justice, you'll be fine.

After practising law for more that 25 years, seeing justice meted out while working both inside the system and outside the system, I must respectfully disagree with you. It is correct to say that the quality of one's legal representation can make a substantial difference to the way a charge evolves and in the eventual judicial decision, depending on the facts and on the legal knowledge and advocacy skills of one's counsel with respect to the applicable law. But there is no magic bullet. One cannot buy oneself an outcome, at any price, no matter who you know.

One of my mentors succinctly put it this way. He replied to me one day when we were entering court after I had suggested that we were in a very strong position on the facts and law of the case in particular, "Don't ever think when you walk through these doors that it is going to be anything but a crap shoot. Be prepared, but be prepared to be challenged and surprised."

The proposition that justice is for sale simply does not accord with my belief, with my knowledge or with my experience, period. Your suggestion that the Canadian legal system is inherently corrupt amounts to a slander on the reputation of most, if not all of the participants. Many of my law classmates are judges. One is currently a Minister of Justice. One is the Chief Justice of Manitoba. Each, whom I have watched for decades, without exception, has resolutely defended their professional integrity and professional performance, without exception. One of my former partners, on appointment as a Federal Court judge, gave up one of his most cherished passions, golf. He quit the local golf club because, as he explained to me, he simply could not take the risk of appearing on the bench before anyone, lawyer or client, whom he had been associated with in his former personal life, no matter how remote.

Even the Prime Minister failed to overcome the law when his proposed appointee to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied by the Court on the basis of a simple motion filed by a lone private attorney. If there ever were an example of how little privilege matters in the law, that must surely be one.

Also this might not even be a real DUI or a crime.

Suggest that to someone who just lost all of their children to a drunk driver.

I believe you need a victim for a crime and I didn't see where any persons or property were damaged.

One of the key elements of statutory and criminal code prohibitions is deterrence, particularly where the perpetrator's actions result in an inability to make rational decisions and/or to react in a safe and timely manner to events on the highway. Society is the victim. The risk of grievous bodily harm or loss of life is sufficient.

As for being drunk, I don't know, there are some folks who have like one drink and are a mess, others who can drink all day long and go about their day without even being able to tell that had a single drink.

Even if others don't perceive the impact, the machine knows, and performance is inversely related to the amount of alcohol in one's system, regardless of the perception of others.

The DUI thing has more to do with revenue generation then the illusion of safety.

Wrong again. The "DUI thing" is all about preventing the slaughter that would otherwise occur without effective laws to counter it. Convictions for impaired driving do not even necessarily result in fines, and there is no revenue generation resulting from incarceration--in fact, the cost to society is substantial. There is no illusion about the safety of an impaired driver--science, facts and history resolved that debate long ago.

I'm not too sure if it's just that you've been around the system so long that you inadvertently drank the koolaid or that your for profit motives are just comming to light, you appear to be a intelligent person and I have a hard time believing your at that naive.

For one, someone who blows a .08 vs another person who blows a .08 always being the same level of intoxicated just isn't medically proven, and anyone who has ever been to a bar or around a handful of people who drink knows different people hold their booze differently.

For the victimless part, yeah, I thought the court was about justice not deturance. If you pull me over at a DUI checkpoint and force me to blow into your machine, even though I don't appear drunk, I haven't hit anything or even entered another lane without using my blinker, well that's suspect, but to say I'm drunk because you mindless follow a little box even when your subject is able to pass all your physical filed sobriety tests, THATS a crime, complete with a victim.

And please don't say that someone driving down the road just fine after drinking is the same thing as someone who t bones a car, that's right up there with saying all guns are dangerous because one person shot someone.

As for money and justice, what's the conviction rate between people living under the poverty line and people making well into the six figures?

I'll ask you one more question consoler, in your 25 years of practicing law how many DUI cases have you had where there was no REAL victim, ie the person was charged with DUI even though he didn't swerve into another car, hit anyone, basically outside from what a machine told the cop wasn't even "acting drunk"?!! NOW in your 25 years, how much money have you made from cases which meet the above description? How much money was paid to the police and government in fines?

[Old fella]

To the original poster. Don’t pay attention to what is said on this thread subject, consult a qualified Criminal Defense Attorney with a background defending impaired driving charges for proper legal advice. Don’t ask for/accept any legal advice from friends/cops/family etc., keep your mouth closed and listen to the advice given by your lawyer as he/she knows the Criminal code better than anybody else.

[Raymond Hall]

I'm not too sure if it's just that you've been around the system so long that you inadvertently drank the koolaid or that your for profit motives are just comming to light...
NOW in your 25 years, how much money have you made from cases which meet the above description?

You know, I sometimes question why I even bother contributing my knowledge and considered opinions to these threads, when almost invariably the replies to my posts degenerate into venal slander. Good luck in your assumptions about your own invincibility to science and the law. So long.

[TeePeeCreeper]

I'm not too sure if it's just that you've been around the system so long that you inadvertently drank the koolaid or that your for profit motives are just comming to light...
NOW in your 25 years, how much money have you made from cases which meet the above description?

You know, I sometimes question why I even bother contributing my knowledge and considered opinions to these threads, when almost invariably the replies to my posts degenerate into venal slander. Good luck in your assumptions about your own invincibility to science and the law. So long.

Mr. Hall,

Please excuse the transgressions of the plebe. (also refered to as "colleague" in this instance)

I am appreciative of the insight and perspective you've brought to this discussion and trust you will continue this discussion in a gentlemanly manner. I am sure others will as well.

All the best,
TPC

[BE20 Driver]

You know, I sometimes question why I even bother contributing my knowledge and considered opinions to these threads, when almost invariably the replies to my posts degenerate into venal slander. Good luck in your assumptions about your own invincibility to science and the law. So long.

Mr Hall, I too appreciate your insight and well reasoned responses. The notion of invincibility and superiority of some people astound me sometimes. I just can't buy the argument that little accidents are ok or that I personally haven't had an accident yet and can handle my liquor better than someone else. As you might surmise, I also have less than no tolerance for this in my profession.

To the original poster, please see this as a wake up call. Seek some legal advice and move on. The response varies by company at the entry level of the industry. It won't bar you from all work, but it may close a few doors at some companies until you are able to obtain a pardon.

Every year, more than one person gets let go from a good job because of problems with alcohol. More than once, at the airline level pilots have been breathalyzer because someone at security or the gate had some suspicions. We are living in a day and age where everyone is watching. This event is a speed bump in your career, not an exit ramp. Please for the sake of my children, don't let it happen again.

[mbav8r]

SuperchargedRS,
I'm not really sure exactly what to think about you ignorant post, a few things come to mind. Trolling, idiotic, paranoid, you were caught driving impaired, your tinfoil hat fell off, these are some of the possibilities.
Why the personal attack on Raymond, because he doesn't agree with your view that the system in its entirety is corrupt? Really? That's absurd and rife with paranoia!
Even though there is some truth to your opinion that some people handle alcohol better than others the line has to be drawn somewhere and has been set to the majority but to think it's a victimless crime when they are caught at a check stop or random traffic stop is, well just plain ridiculous. It means they were caught breaking the law before they killed someone.
It's also against the law to walk around downtown with a loaded gun even though no one was shot, no victim, would you be ok with that?
Also, how do you explain the son of one of the richest families in Canada pleading guilty to killing four people, why didn't he buy his way out of it, I look forward to how you might explain why he's chose to face 10 years in prison instead of taking advantage of the corrupt system.

[Understated]

I'm not too sure if it's just that you've been around the system so long that you inadvertently drank the koolaid or that your for profit motives are just comming to light, you appear to be a intelligent person and I have a hard time believing your at that naive. For one, someone who blows a .08 vs another person who blows a .08 always being the same level of intoxicated just isn't medically proven, and anyone who has ever been to a bar or around a handful of people who drink knows different people hold their booze differently.

...to say I'm drunk because you mindless follow a little box even when your subject is able to pass all your physical filed sobriety tests, THATS a crime, complete with a victim. And please don't say that someone driving down the road just fine after drinking is the same thing as someone who t bones a car, that's right up there with saying all guns are dangerous because one person shot someone. ... how many DUI cases have you had where there was no REAL victim, ie the person was charged with DUI even though he didn't swerve into another car, hit anyone, basically outside from what a machine told the cop wasn't even "acting drunk"?!!

How many drinks did you consume before making this post?

What flights are you scheduled to operate in the next few weeks? Honestly, I don't want any of my family members to be subject to the risk that you obviously pose to the public.

[mike12345]

It just a matter of your Rolodex and bank roll, you can buy as much justice as you can afford. I'd wager if you have a few cop friends and or $20,000 ish to invest in justice, you'll be fine.

After practising law for more that 25 years, seeing justice meted out while working both inside the system and outside the system, I must respectfully disagree with you. It is correct to say that the quality of one's legal representation can make a substantial difference to the way a charge evolves and in the eventual judicial decision, depending on the facts and on the legal knowledge and advocacy skills of one's counsel with respect to the applicable law. But there is no magic bullet. One cannot buy oneself an outcome, at any price, no matter who you know.

One of my mentors succinctly put it this way. He replied to me one day when we were entering court after I had suggested that we were in a very strong position on the facts and law of the case in particular, "Don't ever think when you walk through these doors that it is going to be anything but a crap shoot. Be prepared, but be prepared to be challenged and surprised."

The proposition that justice is for sale simply does not accord with my belief, with my knowledge or with my experience, period. Your suggestion that the Canadian legal system is inherently corrupt amounts to a slander on the reputation of most, if not all of the participants. Many of my law classmates are judges. One is currently a Minister of Justice. One is the Chief Justice of Manitoba. Each, whom I have watched for decades, without exception, has resolutely defended their professional integrity and professional performance, without exception. One of my former partners, on appointment as a Federal Court judge, gave up one of his most cherished passions, golf. He quit the local golf club because, as he explained to me, he simply could not take the risk of appearing on the bench before anyone, lawyer or client, whom he had been associated with in his former personal life, no matter how remote.

Even the Prime Minister failed to overcome the law when his proposed appointee to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied by the Court on the basis of a simple motion filed by a lone private attorney. If there ever were an example of how little privilege matters in the law, that must surely be one.

Also this might not even be a real DUI or a crime.

Suggest that to someone who just lost all of their children to a drunk driver.

I believe you need a victim for a crime and I didn't see where any persons or property were damaged.

One of the key elements of statutory and criminal code prohibitions is deterrence, particularly where the perpetrator's actions result in an inability to make rational decisions and/or to react in a safe and timely manner to events on the highway. Society is the victim. The risk of grievous bodily harm or loss of life is sufficient.

As for being drunk, I don't know, there are some folks who have like one drink and are a mess, others who can drink all day long and go about their day without even being able to tell that had a single drink.

Even if others don't perceive the impact, the machine knows, and performance is inversely related to the amount of alcohol in one's system, regardless of the perception of others.

The DUI thing has more to do with revenue generation then the illusion of safety.

Wrong again. The "Driving under influence law thing" is all about preventing the slaughter that would otherwise occur without effective laws to counter it. Convictions for impaired driving do not even necessarily result in fines, and there is no revenue generation resulting from incarceration--in fact, the cost to society is substantial. There is no illusion about the safety of an impaired driver--science, facts and history resolved that debate long ago.

HI
The strategies in this section are effective for reducing or preventing drunk driving. Different strategies may require different resources for implementation or have different levels of impact. Find strategies that are right for your state.
Drunk driving laws make it illegal nationwide to drive with a BAC at or above 0.08%. For people under 21, “zero tolerance” laws make it illegal to drive with any measurable amount of alcohol in their system. These laws, along with laws that maintain the minimum legal drinking age at 21, are in place in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and have had a clear effect on highway safety, saving tens of thousands of lives since their implementation.

[Cat Driver]

When making the decision to drink alcohol and you are a pilot with peoples lives in your hands you must ensure you are not impaired when you get behind the controls.

A hangover is impairment.

If you are not willing to follow that very simple rule either quit drinking or quit flying.

[garfield]

A lot of people don't understand that even if you've slept 8 hours you can still be drunk the following day... When I have a big party I wait the following evening to even drive my car, I just can't take the risk to face a DUI.