APPROVED SCREENING DEVICE - OFFICERS ARE ENTITLED TO RELY ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY WITNESSES

In Ms. Greeley’s case, the investigating officer arrived on the scene after there had been a single vehicle crash.   The police officer spoke to Ms. Greeley about the crash which, given the extent of damage to the pole and the vehicle, was characterized as serious.  The officer noted that no alcohol was present in the vehicle.  The officer did not notice a smell of alcohol on Ms. Greeley and was prepared to allow her to leave the scene. However,  the two witnesses who were first on the scene, prior to the officer arriving, asked the officer about a roadside demand for a breath sample based on their having noticed the smell of alcohol when they opened the door beside Ms. Greeley. The officer made an approved screening device demand, and Ms. Greeley was eventually convicted at trial, with the trial judge stating:

[The officer] also knew that there was no alcohol of any sort open or broken in the car.  If these people who had an opportunity to come into first contact collectively smelled alcohol at the opening of the car door given the fact that there were no other passengers, where did the smell come from? R. v. Greeley, 2016 NLCA 30

The case cites an important line from the Supreme Court of Canada’s R. v. Bernshaw case from over 20 years ago: The roadside screening test is a convenient tool for confirming or rejecting a suspicion regarding the commission of an alcohol-related driving offence under s. 253 of the Code.