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:
We conducted a detailed review of cruiser dash camera footage, body-worn camera recordings, and notebook entries to determine whether reasonable suspicion objectively existed.
We analyzed whether the observations described met the legal threshold required under the Criminal Code before a roadside screening demand can be made.
Through cross-examination, we demonstrated that the officer could not clearly articulate how his observations formed reasonable suspicion prior to the demand.
We argued that without lawful grounds for the roadside screening, all subsequent breath samples were obtained unlawfully and must be excluded.
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.
Case Study
“I was facing my third DUI charge in Toronto and thought jail was unavoidable. The charges were ultimately withdrawn. I got my life back.”
“After being stopped at a RIDE checkpoint, I was terrified about losing my license permanently. The case was dismissed.”
“DUI Lawyer Toronto negotiated with the Crown and avoided jail time entirely. Their professionalism in court was impressive.”
“From the first consultation, I felt supported and informed. My case was resolved without custody.”