SafeRoads v. G.S.

(SafeRoads/Roadside Sanction/NAP - Impaired Operation). GS was issued a roadside sanction for impaired operation of a motor vehicle.  In this case, the accused attempted to flee the scene of an accident, but was apprehended by a Good Samaritan. While "Good Samaritan" is term that has a religious component, in social circumstances, a "Good Samaritan" is a somebody who is helpful to a person in distress.  In this case, the other party in the vehicle collision was not physically able to track down the recipient. When police attended, a rather perfunctory investigation was conduced. The investigation was outlined in the police notes.

The reason I highlight the recipient's flight from the accident scene is to show that there is a reasonable chance that police went immediately to an arrest for impaired driving because they thought the accused was running away due to being impaired. In law, "post offence conduct" is certainly a kind of circumstantial evidence that can be considered by a judge. However, for post offence conduct to carry the day, the inference of guilt from the post offence conduct must be the only reasonable inference available on the facts. When people flee car accident scenes, there are often a variety of reasons doing so. 

In this case, the police investigation was not supported by much more than a short narrative about what transpired. The adjudicator stated: "Turning my attention to the information provided by...the issuing officer, I note scant details have been entered into the Portal, including driver information which is populated automatically,...details about the occurrence date, time and location, seizure and vehicle information details". The adjudicator went on to properly criticize the officer for failing to include any details about the traffic stop, arrest or detention of the recipient. There were no handwritten notes, nor a meaningful narrative outlining what transpired. 

The Director is responsible for complying with bare minimum informational requirements laid out in the Legislation.  In this case, notwithstanding some aggravating issues surrounding GS, the adjudicator did a nice job separating the optics for the purpose of applying the law. The roadside sanctions were cancelled.

There are a number of quality roadside sanctions lawyers in Alberta to choose from. David Chow is a full service impaired driving lawyer, roadside sanctions lawyer and criminal defence lawyer in Alberta who strongly encourages all people who are in need of criminal law services or Notice Of Administrative Penalty services. to act with all due diligence when selecting a lawyer. The best criminal defence lawyers in Alberta are not necessarily the lawyers who a high number of Google Reviews. Just because a lawyer has 100 or 500 Google Reviews doesn't mean you should stop your search at that. While the Internet it is a very useful tool, it has become a playground for advertisers, fraudsters, marketers and businesses who will do just about anything to get your dollars.  Of course, website presence and online reviews are useful tools, but remember, any lawyer can create a website. This Calgary criminal lawyer is aware of business tactics whereby certain businesses pay for reviews. That means that not every review that you see is credible. Also, some lawyers or businesses have negative reviews. Remember, lawyers often represent unhappy people who are in a difficult spot. Sometimes the lawyer cannot make a case resolve the way the client wishes. This Calgary criminal lawyer is aware of some business practices involving questionable tactics to remove negative reviews.  The bottom line, put in the work before choosing to hire a criminal lawyer or roadside sanctions lawyer. If you wish to hire me, please understand, I only accept a certain number of cases every year. I can also be uncomfortably blunt with clients. Some clients appreciate this, some do not. I don't hold hands. I don't babysit. I represent my client to the best of my ability within the boundaries of the law and ethical conduct.