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: Brian E. Mickelson
Accused client charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood/alcohol concentration over 80 milligrams.

CRIMINAL DEFENCE CASE FACTS:
Accused operating a tractor trailer was involved in an accident at an intersection in New Westminster. Police were called to the scene. The investigating officer noted an odour of liquor coming from the driver. The driver performed sobriety tests and answered questions at the request of the investigating police officer.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
The evidence of the sobriety tests and the statements made by the accused to the police were ruled as inadmissible evidence. The tests and conversations were important aspects of the investigation. The police officer was gathering evidence of a self-incriminating nature and was required to halt his investigation until he had satisfied himself that the accused did not want to contact legal counsel.

Re: R v. Client 6
Vancouver Criminal Lawyer: Brian E. Mickelson
Accused successfully appeals conviction on over 08 charge.

CRIMINAL DEFENCE CASE FACTS:
The accused was taken to hospital after he drove his motor vehicle into a building. The police officer noted an overwhelming odour of liquor on the accused and accompanied him by ambulance to the hospital. The police officer obtained a warrant and blood samples were taken. The accused was convicted at trial and appealed.

HELD: APPEAL ALLOWED, CONVICTION QUASHED
The warrant was defective. The constable had not obtained the opinion from a qualified medical practitioner that the appellant was "unable to consent to the taking of samples of his blood". There was no urgency or other circumstances to justify a warrantless seizure. The evidence was ruled inadmissible and the conviction quashed.

Re: R v. Client 7
Vancouver Criminal Lawyer: Brian E. Mickelson
The accused was pulled over by the police on a seatbelt violation. The officer made an Approved Screening Device demand. The police officer waited five minutes to take the roadside sample.

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 police officer did not conduct the Roadside Breathalyzer test forthwith; therefore, he could not rely on the "fail" result on the roadside screening device. Accordingly, without the result of that test, he had no grounds upon which to base the Breathalyzer demand and the Breathalyzer results were therefore ruled inadmissible.

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: Brian E. Mickelson
Accused client charged with driving without due care and attention under the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act.

CRIMINAL DEFENCE CASE FACTS:
Accused client was driving a friend's vehicle with which he was unfamiliar. While attempting to pass another vehicle, the accused crossed the broken white dividing line on a two-lane highway and struck the oncoming vehicle.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
Although the client caused the accident, the circumstances were such that he did not depart sufficiently from the required standard of due care and attention to warrant a conviction.

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: Brian E. Mickelson
Accused client charged with impaired driving, driving with a blood/alcohol concentration over 80 milligrams, and hit and run.

CRIMINAL DEFENCE CASE FACTS:
Ruling on evidentiary motion whether the demand made by the police officer of the accused for a breath sample met the requirements of the Criminal Code of Canada. The accused was detained for between 8 and 11 minutes before being given an Approved Screening Device demand.

HELD: EVIDENCE EXCLUDED - NOT GUILTY OF DRIVING WITH A BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL OVER 80 MILLIGRAMS
The detention of the accused for a period of 8 to 11 minutes before the demand was made was contrary to the accused's rights under the Charter of Rights. The certificate of analysis in this case was excluded.

Re: R v. Client 14
Vancouver Criminal Lawyer: Joel Whysall
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 Burnaby R.C.M.P. for swerving and sharply varying speeds. Police officer detected an odour of liquor, red watery eyes, and poor balance. Accused was arrested and transported to the police station where breath tests were taken showing a blood/alcohol concentration of three times the legal limit.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
The breath samples were inadmissible evidence because of a violation of the client's right to counsel. The symptoms of impairment were insufficient to establish that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired.

RECENT CASES - Impaired Driving Cases