R. v. C.C

(Lethbridge PC) Client was charged with impaired driving and refusing to supply a breath sample. The client was acquitted of all charges due to the trial judge having a reasonable doubt. In this case, the police relied upon an approved screening device (ASD) to confirm suspicions that the driver may be impaired. The takeaway from the use of the ASD is that the police officer could not observe indicia of impairment sufficient for him to have reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for impaired driving.  Or course, when this, it begs the question, if the officer who was on scene could not form reasonable grounds for arrest, how can a trial judge conclude "beyond a reasonable doubt" that based on the observations by the police, that the accused was in fact impaired. An ASD is an investigative took, the results of which are not admissible to prove the substance of an impaired driving case. CC tried by failed to supply a sample. He gave evidence about his efforts that left the trial judge with a reasonable doubt that he intended to thwart the approved screening device. David Chow defends impaired driving cases on a quotidian basis.  He is a proven Lethbridge DUI lawyer/impaired driving lawyer who offers a free telephone consultation.