The police received a complaint about a suspected impaired driver. The driver was stopped by the police for further investigation. The officer noted an odour of alcohol and the driver admitted to consuming alcohol. The officer made a breath demand into the Approved Screening Device (ASD). At first the driver refused to provide a breath sample and requested to speak to a lawyer. The driver changed their mind about providing a breath sample and 18 minutes later requested to provide a breath sample. The officer denied this request and issued a 90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition for a Refusal.
Driving Offences
90 Day IRP
The driver went through a roadblock and exhibited minimal symptoms of impairment. The driver was honest to the office and admitted to consuming 3 beers throughout the evening. The driver provided two “Fail” readings into the Approved Screening Device (ASD). The devices were calibrated properly and were not expired. The driver was issued a 90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
90 Day IRP
There was a complaint about a possible impaired driver. The officer’s stopped the driver after they witnessed the vehicle swerve in the lane. An odour of alcohol was detected on the breath of the driver, but the driver denied consuming any alcohol. The officer made a demand for a breath sample. The driver blew two “Fail” readings. The devices were calibrated properly and were not expired. The driver was issued a 90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
90 Day IRP
The driver was stopped by the police after a report by a concerned citizen about a suspected impaired driver. The officer stated that the driver had a strong odour of liquor on the breath and speech was slightly slurred. The driver only provided one breath sample that registered a fail. The officer stated that the driver declined the second test.
90 Day IRP – Refusal
The driver was pulled over by the police for going through a red light. The driver had difficulty rolling down the window. An odour of alcohol was detected on the driver’s breath. The driver admitted to the recent consumption of alcohol. A breath demand was made by the officer. The driver provided 6 samples of breath into the Approved Screening Device (ASD) but none were suitable breath samples. The officer deemed the driver to be refusing to provide a breath sample. The driver was issued a 90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
90 Day IRP 0
The driver was pulled for by the officer for speeding. The officer noted a strong odour of alcohol coming from the inside of the vehicle. The officer demanded a sample of the driver’s breath. The driver provided two “Fail” readings. The driver was issued a 90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition – Blood Sample
The driver had struck a traffic light pole, causing significant damage to his vehicle. The paramedics and fire department was on the scene. The officer’s first observation of the driver was that he was not injured but was being transferred to Vancouver General Hospital by ambulance. The officer noted a strong smell of alcohol on Mr. Hung and while on route to the hospital, the driver began to vomit. After the accused vomited, the officer made a blood demand rather than a breath demand. Once at the hospital the driver refused to provide a blood sample to the officer.
90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition – Refusal
The accused was stopped for going through a stale amber light. The officer stated that he detected an odour of liquor on the breath of the driver, but the accused denied consuming any alcohol whatsoever. The accused had witness statements corroborating that they did not consume any alcohol. The accused deposed that they had genuinely attempted to provide two breath samples into the Approved Screening Device (ASD). The officer deemed the accused to be refusing to provide a breath sample because of his inability to provide a breath sample.
90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition
The driver was stopped for driving in excess of the speed limit. The officer noted an intoxicating odour of liquor on the breath of the driver. The driver deposed that they had consumed two beers earlier in the evening. The driver deposed that they were feeling sick, had a fever and had recently consumed NyQuil before providing two breath samples into an Approved Screening Device (ASD). Both ASDs registered a fail.
90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition
The accused was issued a notice of 90-day immediate roadside driving prohibition by the officer, on the basis that two samples of her breath registered a “Fail” on two different Approved Screening Devices (ASD) and her ability to drive was affected by alcohol. However, there was a clear defect in both certificates in that the qualified calibrator did not certify that she was qualified to calibrate the type of ASD in question. The certificates have two boxes to indicate the type of ASD to which the certificate relates, but on both of these certificates, neither box was checked.
90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition – Refusal
The accused was stopped at a police roadblock. The officer detected a strong odour of liquor coming from the passenger compartment of the vehicle. The accused admitted to only having a sip of beer. The officer asked the accused get out of the vehicle so that he could better assess his sobriety. The officer noted in his Report that he detected a strong odour of liquor coming from the accused’s breath but did not report any other signs of impairment. The officer than made a demand that the accused provide a sample of his breath for analysis. The accused was permitted to make six attempts to provide a sample but on each attempt failed to do so. The officer issued a 90 day Immediate Roadside Prohibition for a Refusal.
Driving Prohibition Overturned on Appeal
On the hearing date, the Court denied the defendant’s application for an adjournment, the defendant pleaded guilty and the matter was ordered to return for sentencing. Before the sentencing hearing, the defendant paid the fine amount set out on his violation ticket, the matter was struck from the court list, and the offence was recorded on the defendant’s driving record. The Traffic Court Judge set aside the paid fine and summoned the offender to a sentencing hearing and ordered a 90-day driving prohibition in addition to fine. Cathryn Moore was retained for the sentencing appeal. She successfully argued that the Traffic Court erred in ordering a driving prohibition because, after a guilty plea, a Traffic Court is without jurisdiction to order a driving prohibition above and beyond the violation ticket amount.