So you’ve been pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving. In your haste, you make a few stupid statements to the officer at the roadside and now the officer is alleging you have driven after consuming too much alcohol. If the case goes to court, can those stupid statements be used to incriminate you?
Often, those statements may be found inadmissible in court. Whether these statements can be used depends on a few factors. In one case, a driver was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. One of the issues raised on appeal had to do with the driver first denying he had anything to drink, then later admitting he had “a couple of beers” while fishing earlier in the day. The driver’s point was that, yes, he had drinks much earlier in the day, but wasn’t drunk behind the wheel.
Making such statements, such as admitting you’ve been driving drunk, will most certainly mean that an officer will find additional ways to verify your inebriation.
Did the driver’s earlier stupid statements incriminate him of drunk driving?
Initially, a judge rejected his argument, and even determined that the driver’s credibility was questionable since he had apparently lied to the officer about whether he had been drinking or not, when first questioned at the roadside. At appeal, however, the first ruling was overturned – the driver’s first statement to the officer at the roadside was made before he was told he could speak with a lawyer, and could not be used to assess his credibility in court.
Whether these stupid statements made before a driver has been properly informed of his or her rights was addressed in 2005 at the Supreme Court of Canada, where the majority decided:
“…the evidence obtained as a result of the motorist’s participation without the right to counsel can only be used as an investigative tool to confirm or reject the officer’s suspicion that the driver might be impaired. It cannot be used as direct evidence to incriminate the driver.”
When can the court use a stupid statement made at the roadside as evidence?
The courts have generally determined that, before a driver is properly detained and informed of their rights, statements made by the driver can be used by officers as a reason to investigate further and perhaps obtain additional evidence the driver was drinking. The statement itself, unless you informed of your legal rights, does not qualify as evidence in itself.
Making a stupid statement to an officer, however, is fundamentally different from stumbling around, slurring, or showing other signs of intoxication that can be observed by an officer. While there are limitations on using your statements against you, these limitations do not cover observations of additional signs of impairment made by the officer, even if you had not been given a chance to speak with a lawyer.
As a judge said in 1996:
“Thus, by way of example, an officer may observe signs of impairment in a driver, such as a strong odour of alcohol, blood-shot and glassy eyes, dilated pupils, slurred speech, unsteadiness of gait upon the driver exiting the vehicle, or other similar signs. These observations would be admissible at trial to prove impairment.”
Don’t make stupid statements at the roadside
Despite what the courts have said, it is not a good idea to freely make stupid statements while at the roadside. Making such statements, such as admitting you’ve been driving drunk, will most certainly mean that an officer will find additional ways to verify your inebriation. They could request that you take a Standard Field Sobriety Test, for example. Or more commonly, require you to submit a breath sample for analysis. It is not a good idea to give police a reason to seek for further evidence to incriminate you.
However, know that if you have already said something stupid and incriminating, you may have options. Consult a lawyer. We can examine the specifics of your case and set out the best course for you to challenge the allegations.