American DUI in Canada

[Brent in Az]

I rarely drink, but football season I go to the local pub, right down my backstreet. 1/2 mile, and sneak back home the same way.

The thought of smoking dope makes my skin crawl.

Do other countries forbid entrance over things like a DUI, or just Canada? Does it affect the ability for passport?

 

[BRICKBURN]

Every country has entrance requirements.

Criminal records can stop you entering plenty of countries.
The CBSA will attempt to determine/compare the conviction with the Criminal Code of Canada. That will determine entry.

A US Customs officer refused entry to a young client of mine. The young man answered a question honestly about smoking marijuana. Done. Refused entry and his trip to Hawaii with his family was over.
He had no convictions, no criminal record. Bill Clinton would have been excluded.

eg.:
UK
Chapter 26.12 (Refusal on grounds of criminal conviction)

26.12 states:


Refusal on grounds of criminal conviction [Updated 11 August 2008]


Paragraph 320(18) of the Rules states that an application should normally be refused if that person has been convicted of an offence in any country, which would be punishable with imprisonment for a term of 12 months or more if the offence had occurred in the UK,. ECOs should not refuse under 320(18) if the conviction is considered “spent” under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (see Annex 26.3). Paragraph 320(18) will not apply where an applicant has been cautioned.

 

[Hank2211]

I rarely drink, but football season I go to the local pub, right down my backstreet. 1/2 mile, and sneak back home the same way.

The thought of smoking dope makes my skin crawl.

Do other countries forbid entrance over things like a DUI, or just Canada? Does it affect the ability for passport?

Many countries - including the US - will bar those with a criminal record from entering the country. A DUI or its Canadian equivalent - impaired driving (and another similar offence) - are criminal offences.

Now you don’t have to volunteer the record - there’s no legal requirement to do so, and the customs form doesn’t ask. As someone else has noted though, if you’re asked, you need to be truthful. If they’re asking, it’s more than likely because it’s popped up on their screen. Tell a lie to a US customs officer and you will more than likely be banned for life. Same in Canada. It’s within the discretion of the officer, but you shouldn’t assume you’ll be able to talk your way out of it.

It’s easier to get a dispensation from a prior record - assuming no other issues - than it is to get a dispensation from lying to an officer.

So yes, the US applies much the same rules, as do other countries.

 

[Pheroze]

I rarely drink, but football season I go to the local pub, right down my backstreet. 1/2 mile, and sneak back home the same way.

The thought of smoking dope makes my skin crawl.

Do other countries forbid entrance over things like a DUI, or just Canada? Does it affect the ability for passport?

The legal reason for denying entry has to do with the nature of the offence...we Canadians just do not believe you can get drunk on American beer. For someone to have drunk enough beer in the US to fail a roadside stop...well, that person must have put considerable time and resources into the endeavour. Clearly a reckless and calculating mind at play...

Seriously, I believe (and i am not certain as it has been a long time since I practiced in this area) that the issue is that a DUI in Canada can be either a summary conviction offence ( misdemeanor) or indictable offence (fellony). Since it could be indictable it is classified as a serious criminal offence. Even though in the US it may be only classified as a misdemeanor.

Anyway, I recall this being an issue all the time as folks who now hold respectable positions often had a blemish on their record as a souvenir of their misspent youth. I believe you can get a waiver. May be worth retaining an immigration lawyer or paralegal. Good luck.

 

[Brent in Az]

With the exception of a traffic ticket, my record is clean. I do, however, have a buddy that wants to live in Thailand. His record has a few blemishes, but nothing serious. He's trying to get that sorted out.

I can relate to the Canadians drinking American beer. Used to have a Canadian buddy that lived here in Tucson. We used to rub elbows at the pub. Dude could drink more beer than anyone I have ever seen. LoL

 

[Spooksar]

With the exception of a traffic ticket, my record is clean. I do, however, have a buddy that wants to live in Thailand. His record has a few blemishes, but nothing serious. He's trying to get that sorted out.

I can relate to the Canadians drinking American beer. Used to have a Canadian buddy that lived here in Tucson. We used to rub elbows at the pub. Dude could drink more beer than anyone I have ever seen. LoL

Actually Brent with some of the new micro beers in the US they are producing some ‘beers’ that come close to being real beer.

 

[wesheltonj]

The legal reason for denying entry has to do with the nature of the offence...we Canadians just do not believe you can get drunk on American beer. For someone to have drunk enough beer in the US to fail a roadside stop...well, that person must have put considerable time and resources into the endeavour. Clearly a reckless and calculating mind at play...

And you believe that with Molson you will, but all the fine American Beers you won't!

 

[Pheroze]

And you believe that with Molson you will, but all the fine American Beers you won't!

In the interests of fairness I really should try the best each state has to offer. It is probably a lot of research to undertake, but I am just that kinda guy.

 

[Brent in Az]

During my time in Montana, I drank Moose Drool, and Trout Slayer beer. Good stuff.

 

[Dragan N.]

The USA will crucify you for a DUI, yet, many states want to legalize Marijuana.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around that.

There is a huge difference in the capacity to cause harm to others between the 2. Think about it driving is by far the most dangerous thing that the average joe or jane does on a regular basis. When you are drunk your reaction time, judgement, etc... is drastically reduced. Driving drunk greatly increases the odds of that individual causing a traffic accident. Traffic accidents can easily result in serious or fatal injury to innocent third parties.

Somebody sitting at home smoking weed doesn't have that same capacity to cause significant harm to others while stoned. Just like a drunk guy who isn't driving a vehicle or engaging in some other potentially extremely dangerous activity.

 

[wesheltonj]

The problem is they are driving stoned too.

And it’s not just weed and booze, some prescription drugs are worse, and a physician note does not cut it.

 

[Brent in Az]

Not really. Awhile back, here in Tucson, a driver of a vehicle killed a university student on a bicycle. He confessed to smoking synthetic marijuana, shortly before the accident. Many stupid people out there that feel a medical marijuana card, or legalized weed, is a license to get away with whatever they want in regard to that substance. Drunk drivers are bad enough, but add in stoners, and pill poppers, and driving becomes a game of Russian Roulette.

 

[wesheltonj]

I don't know about Arizona, but in Texas they are not getting away with driving that way. DWI/DUI is an "opinion" crime. The LEO arrest because it's "his opinion" that the driver has lost the normal use of his physical or mental faculties. The LEO at trial testifies that its "his opinion" that the defendant has lost his physical faculties OR mental faculties OR a blood alcohol of .08 from the introduction of drugs or alcohol. There is no level for anything other then alcohol, so the drug case are loss of use cases.

In Texas the conviction is reported to the TCIC, who then reports it to NCIC. That conviction is available for all law enforcement to see. So if its in NCIC you can be sure its showing up on the monitor when you are entering the Country as the USA and Canada report to each other. Pulled over for a traffic stop, Texas claims their system takes all of 12 seconds to return a result. If they ask you, they already know the answer.

And that DWI in Texas almost never goes away on your record. They only way is to get a Judge to grant you Judicial Clemency and set aside the conviction, and then get another Judge to expunge the record. Good luck with that.

 

[lwaters]

I am 67 and my driving is probably worse than say a 35 year old who has had a few brews

 

[Brent in Az]

Arizona has a "buzzed driving" law.
If you are pulled over, or stopped at a sobriety checkpoint, you are not legally required to submit to a field sobriety test. If you do get arrested, they can get a warrant for a blood draw. If you refuse to submit to the blood draw warrant, you will automatically get your license suspended for 1 year, even if you are not under the influence.

With computers in the cop cars, they know all about you in a matter of seconds.

 

[buffybr]

The USA will crucify you for a DUI, yet, many states want to legalize Marijuana.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around that.

And they keep lowering the Blood/Alcohol level for being charged with a DUI.

 

[wesheltonj]

And they keep lowering the Blood/Alcohol level for being charged with a DUI.

Yes, and the Feds want to lower it to .05. Two beers/wine/booze in an hour and your toast.

 

[Hank2211]

The problem with the whole blood/alcohol issue is that we've gone from a somewhat science-based approach to a trend towards 'zero tolerance' or something similar. Much like the anti-tobacco types (full disclosure - I quit 30 years ago) who behave as if they are on a mission from God, so too with the anti-alcohol types.

When the blood alcohol limits for driving were first set, there was some science behind the 0.01% adopted in many jurisdictions. That was the level at which the average person's reactions were affected enough that a reasonable person would conclude that they should not be driving. Some jurisdictions - such as Canada - decided to add a margin of error, and adopted 0.08% as the limit.

What's happened since is that the science has to a certain extent improved and to a certain extent been disregarded. Views based on some sort of moral calculus have come into play - "if you drink, don't drive" and the like. So acceptable limits have been coming down, and eventually, it will likely be illegal to drive with any alcohol in the blood. Is that a good thing? Well, like most things, it depends.

Studies have shown that below about 0.05, there is no demonstrable effect on people's driving. So if you were to test two people in the same simulator, side by side, one with a blood alcohol of 0.05% and the other completely sober, you would not be able to tell from the driving which is which. Where a demonstrable effect has been shown, it's often the other way - that is, people who've had a drink or two, but not enough to be impaired, tend to drive more carefully than those who have not had anything to drink. Between 0.05% and 0.08%, the science now demonstrates some degree of impairment, but whether it is enough to impact driving, or whether it impacts factors which are critical to driving, is still unresolved. Still, it could be considered a case of better safe than sorry at that level. No such argument can be made below 0.05%.

Is is right to criminalize people who have done "nothing wrong" in the sense of not putting themselves or anyone else at greater risk that other drivers? I'd suggest not, but I might be in a minority.

 

[lwaters]

I can remember in Kansas when it was legal to drink 3.2 beer on the highways. My generation grew up with a beer in one hand and car keys in another. Then when they tighten the law a lot got duied

 

[kevin masters]

I am 67 and my driving is probably worse than say a 35 year old who has had a few brews

lol that is great