Section 10(b) - TELLING SUSPECT THAT HE WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE SAMPLE REGARDLESS OF WHAT LAWYER SAYS IS A BREACH

The accused was arrested for impaired driving. He asked to speak to duty counsel. Messages were left and after 90 minutes of waiting, the officer told him that he would have to provide samples regardless of whether he spoke to counsel. The accused provided samples without speaking to counsel. The right to counsel was breached. The officer improperly interfered with the accused's right to make an informed decision about contacting counsel. R. v. Legere, 2011 ONSC 5153

SENTENCE - THE BOOZE BRACELET

Courts in the United States are utilizing a ankle bracelet called a SCRAM. It operates like a breathalyzer. Every 30 minutes the device measures the alcohol content in the wearers perspiration. The SCRAM will identify blood alcohol levels as low as .02. Lindsay Lohan had the pleasure of sporting the booze bracelet for awhile. The Body Odd - MSNBC

PRESUMPTION OF BAC - IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DRINK UPSIDE DOWN

Police found the accused's vehicle on its roof. The accused and his 90 year old mother were both still belted into their seats and hanging upside down. There were open drink containers found inside the vehicle. The accused argued that the Crown failed to prove that there was no consumption after the crash. The court disagreed - it would have been impossible for the accused to drink substantial quantities of alcohol while hanging upside down. R. v. Murray, 2011 ONSC 3735

SECTION 10(B) - DEMAND BEFORE RIGHT TO COUNSEL

The officer made a blood demand on the accused, and then demanded answers before informing him of his 10(b) rights. The court held that prior to making a blood/breath demand, or at least demanding answers to the demand, police must inform the accused of his 10(b) rights and give him an opportunity to exercise those rights. R. v. Lawler, 2011 MBPC 53

CERTIFICATE - DECIMAL POINTS = ACQUITTAL

The accused appealed his conviction for driving while over .08. At trial, the defence argued that the certificate did not prove that the accused's blood alcohol level exceeded 80. The certificate read .200 and .190 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood. The judge found that it was simply a typographical error and convicted the accused. The appellate court held that the trial judge was not entitled to make such an assumption and correct the certificate without evidence being led that it was an error. R. v. Michel, 2011 SKQB 356