Saturday, December 1, 2012 at 7:49PM The Crown's case was read in without any witness testimony. At 4:20 a.m. RCMP members saw Mr. Andersen's vehicle parked in Oxbow with its headlights on, engine running. Mr. Andersen was sitting in the driver's seat and appeared to be sleeping. They saw that...
Saturday, December 1, 2012 at 7:25PM On December 9, 2009 officers were dispatched to a report of two youths drinking alcohol on Cameron Road in Inverness County. A vehicle was stopped and when the officer approached it he immediately noticed a very strong odour of burnt marijuana. When the driver, Mr. MacDonald, was asked if he had been consuming alcohol his response was, "No, just smoking weed" and the impaired...
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 8:31PM The officer was investigating a driver who had collided with two pedestrians in High Prairie at about 3:30 p.m. on December 24th, 2009. The officer saw that the ASD that was brought to the scene had a calibration sticker that read "do not use beyond calibration date, due 09/12/23", thus "expiring" about 15 hours prior to it being used. He testified that it was a "practice" to recalibrate the instrument every 14 days...
Sunday, November 25, 2012 at 9:49AM Pursuant to s. 258 (1)(c), an accused who wants to rebut the presumption that the blood alcohol readings were accurate and conclusive proof of the accused’s blood alcohol levels at the time the samples were taken requires evidence tending to show that the approved instrument was malfunctioning or was operated improperly. For example, the accused might rely on a maintenance log that shows that the instrument was not maintained properly or on admissions by the technician that there had been erratic results. The accused can request the disclosure of any relevant evidence that is reasonably available in order to be able to present a real defence. It should be noted that the defence created by Parliament is not illusory simply because accused persons will rarely succeed in raising a reasonable doubt that the instrument was functioning or was operated properly.
Sunday, November 25, 2012 at 9:07AM Anyone found inebriated and behind the wheel with a present ability to drive will – and should – almost invariably be convicted. It hardly follows, however, that a conviction in these circumstances is, or should be, “automatic”. The accused may escape conviction by adducing evidence that the vehicle was inoperable. Likewise, use of the vehicle for a manifestly innocent purpose should not attract the stigma of a criminal conviction.
The facts in Mr. Boudreault’s case were very unique. The taxi driver who was called to pick up an intoxicated Mr. Boudreault was the person who called the police. While waiting for his taxi to come on a cold February morning, Mr. Boudreault got into his truck, started the engine and turned on the heat. He then fell asleep behind the wheel and that is where he was when the taxi driver arrived. Mr. Boudreault was acquitted at trial and the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the acquittal.
As always, “the investigation is never over”. Warned statements from care or control suspects are useful: When did the suspect arrive in this location? Where did the suspect intend to go? How did the suspect intend to get there? Also, when faced with an inoperable vehicle at the scene, the investigation can turn to determining how the vehicle got there in the first place which can lead to a possible impaired operation charge.