IMPAIRMENT - CONVICTION UPHELD BASED ON OFFICER'S OBSERVATIONS

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving. He appealed and argued, among other things, that the trial judge erred in considering the police officer's observations of slurred speech as evidence of impairment. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction : The first attending officer testified that he observed the appellant to have bloodshot eyes, a flushed face, slurred speech, a dry mouth and a strong odour of alcohol. [A]n officer may observe signs of impairment in a driver, such as a strong odour of alcohol, blood-shot and glassy eyes, dilated pupils, slurred speech, unsteadiness of gait upon the driver exiting the vehicle, or other similar signs. These observations would be admissible at trial to prove impairment. None of the observations of the first attending police officer, including his observation of slurred speech, were as a result of conscripted or compelled evidence from the appellant. The indicia of impairment was available as evidence because of observations of the police officer and not because the appellant was compelled to do anything. R. v. Rodgers, 2013 SKCA 16