DUI Charge Dismissed After Unlawful Roadside Breath Demand

Challenge

The defence raised two Charter issues. First, whether police had lawful grounds to demand a roadside breath sample. Second, whether the subsequent station tests were admissible if the initial demand was invalid. Mr. R was stopped late at night in downtown Toronto after leaving a restaurant. The officer testified that a faint smell of alcohol and “slightly red eyes” justified the roadside screening demand.

However, disclosure revealed inconsistencies regarding:

Whether any admission of drinking was made The strength and source of the alleged odour Environmental conditions at the time of the stop The officer’s notes recorded hours after the arrest

Our Process

01 Planning the case We conducted a detailed review of cruiser dash camera footage, body-worn camera recordings, and notebook entries to determine whether reasonable suspicion objectively existed. 02 Evaluating the stop We analyzed whether the observations described met the legal threshold required under the Criminal Code before a roadside screening demand can be made. 03 Challenging Grounds in Court Through cross-examination, we demonstrated that the officer could not clearly articulate how his observations formed reasonable suspicion prior to the demand. 04 Addressing Charter Breaches We argued that without lawful grounds for the roadside screening, all subsequent breath samples were obtained unlawfully and must be excluded.

Result

The court found that the officer’s evidence lacked sufficient detail to establish reasonable suspicion at the time of the roadside demand. The breathalyzer results were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Without admissible breath evidence, the Crown withdrew the charges. Mr. R left court without a criminal conviction.