Vancouver Criminal Law

OUR LOCATIONS:

Vancouver: 604 685 8889
Richmond: 604 370 3050
Surrey: 604 593 8580
Victoria: 250 384 0100
Nanaimo: 250 754 9558
Kelowna: 250 860 2766
Kamloops: 250 372 3448
Fort McMurray: 780 750 7588
Prince George: 250 564 8835

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2016 Acumen Law Corporation.
All Rights Reserved.

Call 24 Hrs

604 685 8889

Call Us For Free Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Locations
 

IRP Case Results – Lawyer Sarah Leamon

Most successful in BC for Roadside Prohibition Cases

Richmond Lawyer Sarah Leamon has been vigorously defending IRP 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibitions since they were introduced in BC. She has secured the return of driver’s licenses to hundreds of BC drivers.

IRP Case Results - Lawyer Sarah LeamonRe: 90-day IRP Immediate Roadside Prohibition (Client 3314)

 

IRP Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Client received a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition after providing two breath samples using an Approved Screening Device, both of which registered as ‘Fail’ readings.

 

CASE FACTS:

The client was stopped by police in the driveway of his home. The client was questioned by police, and ultimately admitted to consuming alcohol. The officer did not ask what time the client had consumed alcohol. An ASD demand was issued and the client provided two breath samples, over the course of 15 minutes, which both resulted in ‘Fail’ readings. On review, the client provided evidence from both himself and witnesses that he had finished drinking wine only seconds prior to encountering the police officer.

 

ARGUMENT:

The results of both breath tests are rendered unreliable due to the presence of mouth alcohol.

 

CASE RESULTS: PROHIBITION LIFTED

“As your lawyer, Sarah Leamon, pointed out, the second test was not necessarily conducted outside the fifteen-minute window. The officer’s timeline should not be considered accurate given that he did not even turn his mind to when your last drink was. I agree. Further, even if the timeline of fifteen minutes was accurate that would mean the test was conducted at a time anywhere between 14 ½ minutes and 15 ½ minutes, which means mouth alcohol could have affected both tests. I am not satisfied that your BAC was over 80 mg%.”

RE: 90-DAY IRP IMMEDIATE ROADSIDE PROHIBITION (CLIENT 3312)

 

IRP Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Client received a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition after providing two breath samples using an Approved Screening Device, both of which registered as ‘Fail’ readings.

 

CASE FACTS:

The client was stopped by police after parking his vehicle in the driveway of his home, following a civilian complaint about erratic driving. The client was questioned by police and ultimately admitted to consuming alcohol. An ASD demand was issued and the client provided a breath sample that registered as a ‘Fail.’ After the first test, the client consumed alcohol, while standing in the driveway. The officer provided the client with the opportunity to perform a second test. The client performed the test and another ‘Fail’ result was obtained. Client was issued with 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.

 

ARGUMENT:

Client consumed alcohol in between first and second breath tests, therefore the results are unreliable.

 

CASE RESULTS: PROHIBITION LIFTED

“Having considered all of the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the ASD registered a ‘Fail’ as a result of your BAC exceeding 80 mg%.”

Re: 90-DAY IRP IMMEDIATE DRIVING PROHIBITION (CLIENT 2644)

 

IRP Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Client received a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition after providing one breath sample using an Approved Screening Device, which registered a ‘Fail’ reading.

 

CASE FACTS:

The client was stopped by police for speeding relative to road conditions and subsequently questioned about alcohol consumption. Client admitted to consuming alcohol. A breath demand was issued and client provided a sample of breath that registered as a ‘Fail.’ No second test was performed. Client was issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.

 

ARGUMENT:

Client provided evidence that they were not informed of right to second test at the roadside. Client was denied the right to perform second test.

 

CASE RESULTS: PROHIBITION LIFTED

“Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that you were advised of your right to a second test as required by the Act.”IRP REVOKED

Re: 90-DAY IRP IMMEDIATE DRIVING PROHIBITION (CLIENT 2643)

 

IRP Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Client received a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition after allegedly refusing to provide a breath sample to a roadside breathalyzer (ASD).

 

CASE FACTS:

The client encountered police after being involved in a single vehicle motor vehicle accident. Client was subsequently questioned about alcohol consumption and admitted to consuming alcohol. Police made an Approved Screening Device demand and client refused to provide a sample. Client was issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.

 

ARGUMENT:

The evidence provided by the police officer with respect to the timeline of events was unreliable. Based on his evidence, one cannot be satisfied that a valid Approved Screening Device demand existed. Therefore, client was not required to comply with the demand.

 

CASE RESULTS: PROHIBITION LIFTED

“In view of the officer’s timeline, I am not satisfied that a valid demand was made. In summary, based on the officer’s evidence before me, I am not satisfied that you refused or failed to comply with the officer’s ASD demand.”IRP REVOKED

Re: 90-DAY IRP IMMEDIATE DRIVING PROHIBITION (CLIENT 2461)

 

IRP Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Client received a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition after providing two breath samples using Approved Screening Devices, both of which registered as ‘Fail’ readings.

 

CASE FACTS:

The client was stopped by police. Client admitted to consuming alcohol prior to operating the motor vehicle. A breath demand was issued and client provided a sample of breath that registered as a Fail. Client was informed of right to a second breath test and opted to provide second breath sample. Client provided second breath sample, with some difficulty, using a different device. That sample also registered as a Fail. Client was issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition. Upon reviewing police report, Sarah determined that the police officer recorded certain information with respect to the second device that indicated the device was not functioning correctly.

 

ARGUMENT:

By the officers own evidence, the device cannot be said to be functioning properly. Therefore, the client’s second breath sample is unreliable and the client was not provided an adequate opportunity to conduct a second breath test on a reliable device.

 

CASE RESULTS: PROHIBITION LIFTED

“Ms. Leamon made submissions with respect to the reliability of the ASD the officer used for the second test in your case. Having reviewed the evidence, I am not satisfied the ASD was reliable. In turn I am not satisfied that the officer provided you an adequate opportunity for a second sample. As a result, I revoked your driving prohibition, monetary penalty and vehicle impoundment.”

 

IRP REVOKED

Re: 90-DAY IRP IMMEDIATE DRIVING PROHIBITION(CLIENT 2442)

 

IRP Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Client received a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition after providing a breath sample using an Approved Screening Device that registered Fail.

 

CASE FACTS:

The client was stopped by police. Client admitted to consuming alcohol prior to operating the motor vehicle. A breathalyzer demand was issued and the client provided a sample of breath that registered Fail. Client was informed of right to a second breath test and opted to provide second breath sample. However, client failed to provide breath sample after multiple attempts. Client was issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition for failing or refusing to provide a breath sample.

 

ARGUMENT:

There was no evidence that the client failed or refused to provide a breath sample. The second breath sample was voluntary. A failure to provide a second breath sample does not constitute a refusal at the roadside.

 

CASE RESULTS: PROHIBITION LIFTED

“I note that the charge indicated on the Notice was for failing to comply with a demand to provide a sample of breath for analysis by an ASD. The Report to Superintendent [indicates] that you complied with the demand and provided a breath sample. The officer submitted no persuasive evidence of a failure or refusal to comply with a demand. Accordingly, I do not find that you failed to comply with a demand.”

 

IRP REVOKED

Re: 90-DAY IRP IMMEDIATE DRIVING PROHIBITION(CLIENT 2419)

 

IRP Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Client providing two breath samples using Approved Screening Devices, both of which registered ‘fail’ readings.

 

CASE FACTS:

The client was questioned by police after being involved in a motor vehicle accident. A breath demand was issued and client provided a sample of breath that registered as a ‘fail.’ Client was informed of right to a second breath test and opted to provide second breath sample. Second breath sample also registered as a ‘fail.’ Client was issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.

 

ARGUMENT:

No evidence was produced to prove that the Approved Screening Device that was used was reliable. Therefore, we cannot rely on the results obtain from the device.

 

CASE RESULTS: PROHIBITION LIFTED

“Without this evidence, I am unable to determine the calibration and service expiry date for this device. Consequently, I cannot be satisfied that the ASD was reliable.”

 

IRP REVOKED

Re: 3-DAY IRP IMMEDIATE DRIVING PROHIBITION FOR REFUSAL (CLIENT 2428)

 

IRP Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Client encountered by police officer after being reported as a possible impaired driver. Officer demanded a breath sample into an Approved Screening Device. Client refused to provide a sample. A review was conducted before the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

 

CASE FACTS:

The driver became lost in a residential construction zone and encountered some construction workers. The driver exited the vehicle and became involved in a verbal altercation. The driver was reported to police as being possibly impaired. Police attended the scene but could not detect an odor of liquor coming from the driver. No other indicia of impairment were noted. When questioned, the driver denied consuming alcohol earlier. A demand for a breath sample was made. The driver outright refused to comply with the demand.

 

ARGUMENT:

“Your lawyer argues that the demand was not reasonable and has referred me to case law in support. I concur regarding the validity of the demand. I note that the officer did not witness any of the dangerous driving behavior that was reported by the construction workers. Moreover, the officer did not conclusively smell alcohol on you, nor did he note that he detected any of the symptoms consistent with alcohol consumption.”

 

CASE RESULTS: PROHIBITION LIFTED

“I am not satisfied that you failed or refused to comply with a demand made under the Criminal Code to provide a sample of breath for analysis by means of an ASD. I therefore revoke your driving prohibition, monetary penalty and vehicle impoundment as required by the Act.”

 

PROHIBITION LIFTED, VEHICLE RELEASED, TOWING AND STORAGE PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT

Re: 90-DAY IRP IMMEDIATE DRIVING PROHIBITION FOR WARN (CLIENT 2393)

 

IRP Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Client was stopped by police while operating motor vehicle. Police officer made a breath demand using an Approved Screening Device. Client provided a breath sample resulting in a ‘Warn.’ A review was conducted before the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

 

CASE FACTS:

The driver was stopped by a police officer while driving. When questioned, the driver admitted to consuming alcoholic drinks earlier in the evening. The driver was asked to provide a breath sample using an ASD. The driver complied and the sample registered as a ‘Warn’ indicating a BAC above 50 mg% but under the Criminal threshold. The driver was then issued with an Immediate Roadside Prohibition for 3-days.

 

ARGUMENT:

“Ms. Leamon pointed out that the ASD used by the officer indicated the calibration expiry date is well beyond 30 days and therefore the test result cannot be accepted as reliable.”

 

CASE RESULTS: PROHIBITION REMOVED FROM DRIVING RECORD

“I concur that the ASD result is unreliable. Therefore, based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the ASD registered a ‘warn.’”

 

PROHIBITION REMOVED, TOWING AND STORAGE PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT

Re: 3-DAY IRP IMMEDIATE DRIVING PROHIBITION FOR WARN (CLIENT 2510)

 

IRP Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Client received a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition after providing two breath samples using Approved Screening Devices, both of which registered ‘fail’ readings.

 

CASE FACTS:

The client was stopped by police and questioned about alcohol consumption after parking vehicle. Client admitted to consuming alcohol. A breath demand was issued and client provided a sample of breath that registered as a ‘Fail.’ Client was informed of right to a second breath test and opted to provide second breath sample. Second breath sample also registered as a ‘Fail.’ Client was issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.

 

ARGUMENT:

A Certificate of Qualified ASD Calibrator was provided which indicated that the second device was out of calibration expiry range. Therefore, the device which formed the basis of the prohibition was unreliable.

 

CASE RESULTS: PROHIBITION REMOVED FROM DRIVING RECORD

“As pointed out by your lawyer, Sarah Leamon, the officer provided a certificate of a qualified ASD calibrator, which showed that the calibration expiry date has passed. Given this, I am not satisfied that the ASD was reliable.”

 

PROHIBITION REMOVED, TOWING AND STORAGE PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT

Re: 90-DAY IRP IMMEDIATE DRIVING PROHIBITION FOR WARN (CLIENT 2212)

 

IRP Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Client was issued a notice of 90-day driving prohibition after registering a FAIL on a roadside breath testing device (ASD). A review was conducted by Ms. Leamon before the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.

 

CASE FACTS:

Client was pulled over by an officer in Burnaby after being observed speeding in front of an unmarked police vehicle. The officer made a breath demand and the client provided one breath sample using a roadside breath testing device (ASD). That sample registered “fail”.

 

ARGUMENT:

The evidence does not establish that an ASD was used, despite the officer stating in his report that he used an Alco-Sensor IV.

 

CASE RESULTS: PROHIBITION REVOKED

“Having reviewed your lawyer’s submissions and the report by the officer, I am unable to determine that the officer used an ASD to obtain your breath sample. I am satisfied that an ASD did not register a fail.”

 

PROHIBITION REVOKED, VEHICLE RELEASED, TOWING AND STORAGE PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT

Call us at 604-685-8889 for a free consultation and learn how we can successfully help you.

IRP Case Results – Lawyer Sarah Leamon was last modified: by