Immediate Roadside Prohibitions

Case File: 0019-770

Charges: 90-day Administrative Driving Prohibition

Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Facts:  An anonymous police report was made concerning two males who were causing a disturbance.  Police attended and the males had departed. However, police located the client, who was sleeping inside a parked vehicle. The client was seated in the driver’s seat. The vehicle was in ‘park’ and the keys were not in the ignition. The keys were visible on the center console. The client was woken and an Approved Screening Device Demand was read. The client provided a breath sample, resulting in a ‘FAIL’ reading. The client was arrested, Chartered and warned and taken to the detachment where they provided two further breath samples. The client was issued with a 90-day Administrative Driving Prohibition.

Result: The client filed for a review of the driving prohibition. On review, Defence argued that the client was not a driver or in care or control of the vehicle. The adjudicator accepted this argument and the prohibition was revoked. 

Case File: 0019-659

Charges: 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition

Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Facts: Police were dispatched to a single vehicle accident where they located a vehicle on its side in a ditch. Police identified the driver as the client and spoke to them.  Police detected an odour of liquor on the clients’ breath.  The client denied consumption when questioned.  An Approved Screening Device demand was read and the client provided two breath samples, both resulting in ‘fail’ readings on two separate devices. 

Result: Counsel filed for a review of the driving prohibition the client’s behalf.  The client provided an affidavit and a forensic expert report on review.  Defence counsel conducted the hearing and argued that the client’s blood alcohol concentration was under the legal limit at the time of driving and that they could not be considered a driver within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act.  The IRP was revoked.

Case File: 0019-716

Charges: 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition

Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Facts: Several individuals called into police dispatch, complaining of a possible impaired driver.  Police attended the scene and located the vehicle in question.  The vehicle was parked and the client was sitting in the driver’s seat.  Police detected a strong odour of liquor on the breath in combination with other symptoms of alcohol impairment.  An Approved Screening Device demand was read and the client refused to comply.  They made no attempt at providing a sample. 

Result: Counsel filed for a review of the driving prohibition on the client’s behalf.  The client provided an affidavit on review.  Defence counsel conducted the hearing and argued that the client could not be considered to be a driver or in care or control of the motor vehicle as defined under the Motor Vehicle Act.  The client therefore had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the police demand.  The IRP was revoked. 

Case File: 0019-741

Charges: 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition

Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Facts: Police observed the client’s vehicle leaving the parking lot of a licensed drinking establishment.  A vehicle stop was conducted to check on the client’s sobriety.  Police observed a strong odour of liquor on the client’s breath.  When questioned, the client admitted to having consumed alcohol while at the pub.  An Approved Screening Device demand was read and the client provided two breath samples using two different devices.  Both samples resulted in ‘fail’ readings. 

Result: Counsel filed for a review of the driving prohibition on the client’s behalf.  The client provided an affidavit on review.  Defence counsel conducted the hearing and argued that both breath samples were unreliable due to the recent consumption of alcohol.  The IRP was revoked.

Case File: 0019-500

Charges: 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition

Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Facts: Police received a complaint about a single vehicle car crash in a residential neighborhood.  Police arrived and located the client’s vehicle.  The client was outside the vehicle and the vehicle was undriveable.  The client admitted to driving.  An odour of liquor was detected on the client’s breath.  An Approved Screening Device demand was read.  The client made no attempt to provide a sample.  

Result:  Counsel filed for a review of the driving prohibition on behalf of the client.  On review, the client provided an affidavit.  Defense counsel represented the client and argued that the client had not refused to provide a breath sample but had instead asked to use the washroom.  It was the officer’s attitude and conduct that ultimately led to the deemed refusal.  The IRP was revoked on that basis.  

Case File: 0019-353

Charges: 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition

Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Facts: The client drove into a roadblock and was identified by a police officer.  The officer observed bloodshot eyes and an odour of liquor on the client’s breath, as well as inside the vehicle.  When questioned, the client admitted to have consumed alcohol, approximately three hours prior to the vehicle stop.  An Approved Screening Device Demand was read and two samples were collected.  Both resulted in ‘fail’ readings.

Result: Defence counsel represented the client and argued that the samples were not reliable due to mouth alcohol, caused by burping and regurgitation.  The IRP was revoked.