Client issued a 90 day Immediate Roadside Prohibition [IRP] hearing for refusing to provide a breath sample. The client lost at the IRP hearing. Meghan Forhan appealed the loss by way of a Judicial Review in BC Supreme Court. Meghan Forhan argued that the IRP adjudicator wrongly dismissed the client’s argument that the police officer was not required to attach a certificate of calibration for the ASD.
IRP Judicial Review Cases
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.