The accused appealed his conviction for exceeding .08.  Defence counsel argued that the breath samples were not obtained as soon as practicable. The appeal was dismissed and the Court referred to an earlier case, R. v. Bazil, 2012 BCSC 274,  in stating what is required by an investigating officer: " .. the correct approach is to ask whether there is a reasonable explanation for any delay and in assessing that reasonableness whether it is logically connected to the officer's duties in relation to investigating the incident."  The Court concluded that the officer in Mr. Agnew's case provided reasonable explanations for each step that was taken and that each step taken was connected to his routine investigatory duties.  R. v. Agnew, 2012 BCSC 1905