Vancouver Impaired Driving Lawyer

Vancouver Criminal Lawyer - Brian Mickelson

Re: R v. Client 1
Vancouver Criminal Lawyer: Brian E. Mickelson
Accused client charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood/alcohol concentration over 80 mg following a single-vehicle accident.

CRIMINAL DEFENCE CASE FACTS:
Vancouver police attend following a single-car collision. A witness on scene told the police that the client had gone through a red light at a high rate of speed and struck a cement barrier. The witness smelled alcohol on the client’s breath. When the police officer asked the client questions about his drinking, he also asked if he was the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
The officer asked the client if he was the driver because he did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that client was the driver based on what the witness told him. The statement that he was the driver was inadmissible as it was made before the officer made the demand and advised him of his rights. The statement was inadmissible as it violated the client’s right against self incrimination.

Re: R v. Client 2
Vancouver Criminal Lawyer: Brian E. Mickelson
Accused client charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood/alcohol concentration over 80 mgs.

CRIMINAL DEFENCE CASE FACTS:
Client observed driving erratically. Stopped by the police who note symptoms consistent with excessive alcohol consumption. Arrested and transported to the police station where Breathalyzer tests were made showing a blood/alcohol concentration of 160 and 150 mgs of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
No evidence that the client's blood/alcohol was over 80 mg% at the time of driving. Evidence of the prosecution's expert witness ruled insufficient to conclude the client was over "08". Evidence that the client was ill at the time of driving accepted by the judge, who acquitted the client on both charges.

>> Read Criminal Defence Case

Re: R v. Client 3
Vancouver Criminal Lawyer: Brian E. Mickelson
Accused client charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood/alcohol concentration over 80 mgs.

CRIMINAL DEFENCE CASE FACTS:
Accused found by police at 1:00 a.m. asleep at the wheel at an intersection, with the vehicle running and in gear. Arrested and transported to the police station where breath tests were made showing a blood/alcohol concentration of 200 mgs in 100 ml of blood.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
The breath samples are inadmissible evidence because the officer did not make a proper demand for the samples. Symptoms of impairment observed are consistent with a person suffering fatigue.

Re: R v. Client 4
Vancouver Criminal Lawyer: Brian E. Mickelson
Accused client charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood/alcohol concentration over 80 mgs.

CRIMINAL DEFENCE CASE FACTS:
Accused pulled over after a complaint from a member of the public and having run a red light. Failed a roadside breath test. Arrested and transported to the police station where breath tests were made showing a blood/alcohol concentration of 190 mgs in 100 ml of blood.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
The breath samples are inadmissible evidence because the demand for the samples is invalid. Symptoms of impairment insufficient to convict the accused of impaired driving.

Re: R v. Client 5
Vancouver Criminal Lawyer: Paul C. Doroshenko
Accused client charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood/alcohol concentration over 80 mgs.

CRIMINAL DEFENCE CASE FACTS:
Following a serious head-on collision, the accused was transported to the hospital where blood samples were obtained by the Burnaby RCMP showing a blood/alcohol concentration of 240 mgs in 100 ml of blood.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
No evidence that the blood/alcohol concentration was over 80 mgs at the time of driving. Symptoms of impairment observed are equally consistent with a head injury resulting from the collision.

Re: R v. Client 6
Vancouver Criminal Lawyer: Paul C. Doroshenko
Accused client charged with driving while prohibited due to a 24-hour driving prohibition.

CRIMINAL DEFENCE CASE FACTS:
Client prohibited from driving for 24 hours. Pulled over driving during the 24-hour period and charged with driving while prohibited.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
The prosecutor must call evidence to prove that the 24-hour prohibition was lawful. Absent of evidence proving that the 24-hour prohibition was lawful, Crown counsel has not proven that the client was prohibited when driving.

>> Read Criminal Defence Case

Re: R v. Client 7
Vancouver Criminal Lawyer: Paul C. Doroshenko
Accused client charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood/alcohol concentration over 80 mgs.

CRIMINAL DEFENCE CASE FACTS:
Accused pulled over by the West Vancouver police for swerving over the center line, odour of liquor, failed a roadside breath test. Arrested and transported to the police station where breath tests were made showing a blood/alcohol concentration of 180 mgs in 100 ml of blood.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
The breath samples are inadmissible evidence because the demand for the samples is invalid. Evidence of swerving over the line is consistent with driving a large vehicle on a narrow road.

Re: R v. Client 8
Vancouver Criminal Lawyer: Brian E. Mickelson
Client charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a blood sample following a collision with a police vehicle.

CRIMINAL DEFENCE CASE FACTS:
A van driven by a Vancouver Police officer with three police officers as passengers was involved in an accident with a vehicle driven by the client. The client was injured. The police made a demand for a blood sample to determine the concentration of alcohol in the client’s blood. The client refused to comply with the blood demand. At trial Brian argued on behalf of his client that because the client’s implementational right to counsel had been infringed, the client’s refusal was not admissible evidence.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
“I am satisfied that the defence has established on a balance of probabilities that the defendant’s implementational right to counsel was infringed. While I must say that the Constable did everything he could to assist the defendant to contact his lawyer, I must also say that he had no duty or right to call Legal Aid on behalf of the defendant without obtaining the defendant’s authorization to do so. The right to counsel is one to be exercised by the defendant, not the police officer. The officer infringed upon the defendant’s right to consult with counsel of his choosing.

Re: R v. Client 9
Vancouver Criminal Lawyer: Brian E. Mickelson
Accused client charged in 100 Mile House with impaired driving and driving with a blood/alcohol concentration over 80 mg.

CRIMINAL DEFENCE CASE FACTS:
Crown prosecutors tendered a certificate of qualified technician showing a blood/alcohol concentration well over 80mg in 100 ml, arguing that the certificate is conclusive proof that the client’s blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit. Defence evidence called into question the reliability of the samples obtained by the RCMP.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
The evidence constitutes “evidence to the contrary” which raises a reasonable doubt as to whether the client’s blood alcohol level was over the legal limit at the time of driving.

Re: R v. Client 10
Vancouver Criminal Lawyer: Brian E. Mickelson
Accused client charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood/alcohol concentration over 80 mgs.

CRIMINAL DEFENCE CASE FACTS:
Richmond RCMP pull over client after a witness reports him driving drunk. The police officer has client blow into a roadside screening device, resulting in a "fail" reading. Client arrested and provides two more breath samples at the station, both well in excess of the legal limit.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
The position of the defence is correct. The police are not permitted to ask a person to blow into a roadside screening device unless the officer has an objectively reasonable suspicion that the person has alcohol in their body. Symptoms of impairment ruled insufficient to ground the allegation of impaired driving, therefore the client is acquitted on both counts.

>> Read Criminal Defence Case

Re: R v. Client 11
Vancouver Criminal Lawyer: Paul C. Doroshenko
Accused client charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood/alcohol concentration over 80 mgs.

CRIMINAL DEFENCE CASE FACTS:
Accused client found near her damaged vehicle in a parking lot near the location of a collision. The investigating officer overheard her make a statement indicating that she was the driver. Three witnesses provide descriptions of the woman driver. After failing an approved screening device test, she was arrested and transported to the Burnaby RCMP detachment where she provided 2 samples of her breath both indicating a blood/alcohol concentration of 170 mg in 100 ml of blood.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
The breath samples are inadmissible because the officer did not have the requisite opinion of who was driving at the time of making the ASD demand. The impaired charge is dismissed because the Crown’s evidence falls significantly short of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the client is the driver.

Re: R v. Client 12
Vancouver Criminal Lawyer: Brian E. Mickelson
Accused client charged with dangerous driving, impaired driving and driving with a blood/alcohol concentration over 80 mgs in Coquitlam.

CRIMINAL DEFENCE CASE FACTS:
Client pleaded not guilty to the charges. The first trial date was cancelled due to lack of court time. A total of 14 months passed from the time that the charges were approved to the second trial date. Brian argued that his client’s right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
The prejudice to the accused outweighs the public interest in prosecution. Although there is a significant public interest in prosecuting impaired driving cases, a delay of this magnitude justifies judicial scrutiny and under the circumstance a judicial stay.

Re: R v. Client 13
Vancouver Criminal Lawyer: Paul C. Doroshenko
Client charged in Brampton Ontario with driving while over .08% alcohol in his blood.

CRIMINAL DEFENCE CASE FACTS:
Client and his cousin pulled over by the Peel Regional Police driving from a notorious tavern. He is arrested and taken to the detachment. When asked if he has a lawyer he says “I do in Vancouver.” The police officer says in Ontario “we have a 1-800 number.” The client responds “sure wonderful” and allows the police to make the call. After speaking with a duty-counsel lawyer, he blew over 80 mg in a 100 ml on the Intoxilyzer.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
The accused clearly indicated that he had a lawyer in Vancouver. He was entitled to call his Vancouver Criminal lawyer, but the police did not inform him of this right or assist him. The police obstructed his right to call his criminal lawyer in Vancouver. The evidence of the Intoxilyzer is not admissible. Case dismissed.