A patrol officer was dispatched to a report of a vehicle being driven "all over the road". Within about ten minutes the officer located the vehicle in a parking lot. Mr. Ackerman had gone to report for work, but came out of the building to speak with the officer as a result of a message the officer had sent via another worker. In response to questions by the officer, Mr. Ackerman identified his vehicle and told the officer that he had parked the car there. The officer noted an odour of alcohol on Mr. Ackerman’s breath and that his speech was slurred. She told Mr. Ackerman that she was investigating a report of an impaired driver and that his vehicle was the one in question. She asked Mr. Ackerman to accompany her to the police vehicle where the officer made an ASD demand. A "fail" was obtained and it was only at that time that Mr. Ackerman was advised of his rights to counsel. The trial judge concluded that Mr. Ackerman's right to counsel had not been infringed and the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal upheld the conviction:
The fact that the erratic driving, together with information to identify the vehicle, was provided by a concerned citizen has no effect on the analysis. It is clearly within the authority of the police to investigate potential offences reported by members of the public. Mr. Ackerman’s right to counsel under section 10 (b) of the Charter was infringed when he was initially detained. However, that infringement was justified under section 1 of the Charter given the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the police officer’s investigation, and the officer’s action in advising Mr. Ackerman of his right to counsel upon his arrest at the conclusion of the investigation phase. R. v. Ackerman, 2014 NLCA 26