The British Columbia Court of Appeal has delivered a judgment that is similar to the Alberta Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Phung (see March 9, 2013 blog entry). The result of the BC case shows that it is important for officers to describe their training and experience in both their reports and in their testimony. Although the BC case is a drug case, officers can certainly refer to training and experience in investigating impaired drivers in the same manner that drug investigation experience is referred to in the paragraph below:
Both [officers] have specialized skill and training that the trial judge failed to take into account when deciding whether there were objectively valid grounds for arresting Mr. Messina. These were experienced officers who had been involved in numerous drug investigations. Their observations, considered in their totality, were sufficient to support objectively reasonable grounds that Mr. Messina was engaged in drug dealing. They did not have to rule out all other possible innocent explanations for Mr. Messina’s conduct or each event. They were entitled to use their training and experience to conclude from the totality of their observations that Mr.Messina was trafficking in drugs from his car. R. v. Messina, 2013 BCCA 499