Earlier Court decisions in Mr. Mitchell's case had held: The absence of a proper investigation, including the taking of a history of Mitchell’s alcohol consumption, was fatal to a finding that the constable had reasonable suspicion.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal held differently and reinstated a conviction for driving over .08:
I am not prepared to go as far as saying that a simple admission of alcohol consumption by a driver is, in and of itself, sufficient to provide reasonable grounds on which to base an ASD demand, as each case must be considered on its own facts. From a common sense perspective, however, it would be rare, if ever, that there would be an admission of alcohol consumption with nothing else – i.e., evidence as to why the vehicle was stopped, when (especially the time of the day and of the year) and where it was stopped, what was the driver’s condition, how did he or she react to the police, what were the driver’s exact words and how were they spoken, etc. These are all important factors to take into account. It is important to remember that it is the totality of the circumstances known to the officer, viewed together, that must be considered in determining whether there was a reasonable basis for his or her suspicion. Each indicia or piece of evidence is not to be examined in isolation. For the reasons I have already stated, rarely will there be a need for a police officer to obtain an alcohol consumption history from a driver. That is not what the legislation requires or what was intended by it. R. v. Mitchell, 2013 MBCA 44