A common argument at exceed .08 trials is the argument that the officer did not have reasonable grounds to make the breath demand. The Courts have once again stated the test to be used in reviewing an officer's decision:
One must consider all of the circumstances to assess whether the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to make the demand. R. v. Slippery, 2014 SKCA 23
Two other quotes from the case are interesting. One cautions Courts about second-guessing officers' roadside decisions. The other relates to the usefulness of in-car camera systems:
The police, in the performance of their duties, often operate in less than ideal circumstances. It is necessary for the trial judge to bear this in mind in assessing whether a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe a person is impaired. [Para. 33]
Video evidence is generally considered a valuable tool in an investigation. Cory J. stated in R. v. Nikolovski, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197 that “the video camera on the other hand is never subject to stress. Through tumultuous events it continues to record accurately and dispassionately all that comes before it. Although silent, it remains a constant, unbiased witness with instant and total recall of all that it observed. The trier of fact may review the evidence of this silent witness as often as desired”. [Para. 41]