Criminal impaired driving DUI cases, including refusing to provide a breath sample, result in a criminal conviction if found guilty. If you have a document that tells you that you must go to court, you may have a criminal impaired driving case. Kyla Lee has successfully defended hundreds of criminal DUIs in courthouses around BC. The criminal lawyers at Acumen have succeeded in cases where the breathalyzer tests showed readings 5 times the legal limit, and where the blood test showed the driver being well over 5 times the legal limit.

Re: Impaired Driving – DUI / Over .08 (Client 2219)

Client driving his vehicle home from a private party collides with a number of parked vehicles. Charged with impaired driving, “over .08” as well as being issued a 90-day ADP Administrative Driving Prohibition.

CASE FACTS:

Vancouver police, fire department and ambulance attend following a dramatic collision with parked cars on a Vancouver street. The driver is pulled from the burning vehicle and held for emergency responders. The client is arrested and provides breath samples in excess of the legal limit.

HELD: NOT GUILTY

The ADP is revoked on the application for review of Mr. Doroshenko. The evidence for the criminal charge does not establish a lawful arrest and the breath samples are inadmissible. The evidence of impairment is insufficient to ground a conviction for impaired driving.

Re: Impaired Driving and Over 80mg% Criminal Charges (Client 3918)

After a rollover collision, the client was taken to hospital where blood samples were taken. Later analysis showed the blood alcohol concentration more than five times the legal limit.

CASE FACTS:

Client was involved in a rollover accident. After being extracted from the vehicle, she was taken to the hospital where blood samples were taken for medical purposes. Police obtained a search warrant for the blood samples and forensic analysis revealed that the blood alcohol level was nearly five and a half times the legal limit.

HELD: CHARGES REDUCED TO MOTOR VEHICLE ACT OFFENSE

Numerous disclosure requests for specific blood testing information went unanswered. The prosecution failed to provide evidence respecting the analysis of the blood samples at the forensic laboratory. The evidence was not provided in a timely manner.

Re: Impaired Driving and Over 80mg% Charges (Client 3924)

 

Location: Edmonton Alberta. Officer on his way home observes client asleep at the wheel. Officer calls 911, attends to the vehicle and removes the driver. On-duty police arrive and arrest the driver for care and control while impaired. Breath samples obtained showing a high blood-alcohol level.

CASE FACTS:

Special traffic police officer on his way home from his shift drives by the client asleep at the wheel. He turns his vehicle around, calls 911 and attends to the vehicle. The driver is asleep with the engine running in the middle of a controlled intersection. The off-duty officer removes the driver and directs him to stand at the curb. On-duty police arrive and arrest the driver for care and control while impaired. Breath samples are obtained showing a high blood-alcohol level. Client also charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol level over .08.

HELD: NOT GUILTY

Not guilty on both counts. The arrest was unlawful because the arresting officer lacked the necessary information concerning care and control which was needed to come to the opinion that he had arrested the right person. The blood-alcohol evidence held inadmissible. The evidence of impairment did not prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

Re: Impaired Driving – DUI / Over .08 / Dangerous Driving (Client 1711)

 

Client charged with impaired driving, “over .08” and Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle after a collision and obtaining breath samples.

CASE FACTS:

North Vancouver RCMP arrive on a single-vehicle accident scene approximately 3 minutes after the collision. Two civilians who saw the collision approach the vehicle and find the driver seated on the curb beside the open vehicle door. The vehicle is still running. The client is arrested and provides breath samples indicating a BAC of 190.

HELD: NOT GUILTY

It is not apparent that the officer turned her mind to the time of driving when she made a demand for a breath samples. Given that she has not addressed this issue when forming her opinion, it is impossible to assess whether she had the correct grounds to make a breath demand. The breath readings cannot be considered by the court. The evidence is insufficient to prove the driver was impaired by alcohol or that he drove in a manner dangerous to the public.

Re: Impaired Driving – DUI / Over .08 (Client 3203)

 

After failing an ASD test, and being taken back to the detachment, the client provided two breath samples in excess of the legal limit.

CASE FACTS:

Client was stopped at an RCMP roadblock for impaired driving. She was asked to exit the vehicle for a sobriety test. Once outside the vehicle, the driver admitted to consuming alcohol. The officer made a formal approved screening device demand. The client provided a sample, which resulted in Fail. The client then was taken to the police detachment, where she provided two samples that registered over 80 mg of alcohol.

HELD: NOT GUILTY

The approved screening device demand was not lawful. The officer formed his grounds for the demand when the subject was asked to exit the vehicle. The grounds at this point were not sufficient for the demand. The evidence obtained from the breath samples was excluded at trial. The evidence of at trial fails to show that the driver was impaired in her ability to operate a motor vehicle.

Re: Impaired Driving (DUI) and Refusing To Provide a Breath Sample Criminal Charges (Client 3578)

 

After failing an ASD test, and being taken back to the detachment, the client was charged with refusing to provide breath samples into an approved instrument.

CASE FACTS:

Client was stopped for weaving within his lane. The police officer made an approved screening device demand, and a Fail reading was obtained. There was open liquor located in the vehicle. At the detachment, the client was videotaped arguing with police, burping, and behaving like a jerk. He failed to provide samples after four attempts to blow into an approved instrument.

Held: NOT GUILTY

The initial traffic stop was unlawful. The ASD demand was unlawful. The officer could not rely on the ASD test results. The officer did not use an approved screening device. The breath demand was therefore unlawful and the subject did not have to comply.

Re: Impaired Driving / Refusal To Blow (Client 1657)

 

Client charged with impaired driving and refusing to blow into an ASD divide at the roadside.

CASE FACTS:

Kamloops RCMP respond to a 911 caller reporting a driver who is “all over the road.” The client is arrested a few blocks away after having been observed swerving and driving up on a curb. Upon smelling alcohol on her breath, RCMP demand that she provide a sample forthwith into a roadside screener. She demands to speak to her lawyer before providing a sample. The RCMP charge her with impaired operation and refusal to provide a breath sample.

HELD: NOT GUILTY

It is reasonably possible that the explanation provided by the accused is truthful and in this circumstance it raises as reasonable doubt about whether she was impaired by alcohol. Refusal charge withdrawn on pre-trial challenge by defense counsel.

Re: Impaired Driving and Over 80 mg% (Client 3930)

 

Client was reported by witnesses for swerving on the Sea-to-Sky Highway. He was arrested and breath samples were taken showing a blood alcohol concentration four and a half times the legal limit.

CASE FACTS:

Client was stopped for swerving after witnesses called police. The police officer made an approved screening device demand, and a Fail reading was obtained. There was open liquor located in the vehicle. At the detachment, the client was asked to blow into an approved instrument, and breath samples more than four times the legal limit were obtained.

HELD: CHARGES DROPPED

The officer could not rely on the ASD test results to make the breath demand. There was no way the readings would be admissible. There was insufficient evidence to prove impaired driving.

Re: Impaired Driving and Over 80 mg% Criminal Charges (Client 2987)

 

After being stopped for driving on a rim, client was given a breath test and provided samples over the legal limit.

CASE FACTS:

Client blew out a tire hitting a curb and was driving on a rim. Witnesses followed and reported her to the police. When police stopped her, an approved screening device was used. Client was then given a breath demand and provided samples well above the legal limit.

HELD: CHARGES DROPPED

Lawyer Kyla Lee pointed out a number of weaknesses in the Crown’s case, including problems with the right to counsel and delays in administering the approved screening device test and making the breath demand. There was no chance of a successful prosecution.

Re: Impaired Driving / Over 80 mg (Client 1671)

 

Client charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood/alcohol concentration over 80 mgs.

CASE FACTS:

Following a serious head-on collision, the accused was transported to the hospital where blood samples were obtained by the Burnaby RCMP showing a blood/alcohol concentration of 240 mgs in 100 ml of blood.

HELD: NOT GUILTY

No evidence that the blood/alcohol concentration was over 80 mgs at the time of driving. Symptoms of impairment observed are equally consistent with a head injury resulting from the collision.

Re: Impaired Driving and Refusal to Blow (Client 3163)

 

Police received a report of a vehicle high-centered on a parking divider in a park. The driver was believed to be impaired. He refused to provide breath samples.

CASE FACTS:

Client was located in a park, with his vehicle high-centered on a parking divider. The police attended and spoke with the driver. The officer suspected he was impaired and used an approved screening device. Client blew a Fail. At the detachment, the client refused to provide breath samples.

HELD: CHARGES REDUCED TO MOTOR VEHICLE ACT OFFENSE

The case proceeded to trial. During cross-examination, the officer’s evidence was so weakened that the Crown could no longer have confidence in securing a conviction. The charges were reduced to careless driving and the client was acquitted of the criminal charges.

Re: Impaired Driving / Over 80 mg (Client 680)

 

Accused client charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood/alcohol concentration over 80 mgs.

CASE FACTS:

Accused client found near her damaged vehicle in a parking lot near the location of a collision. The investigating officer overheard her make a statement indicating that she was the driver. Three witnesses provide descriptions of the woman driver. After failing an approved screening device test, she was arrested and transported to the Burnaby RCMP detachment where she provided 2 samples of her breath both indicating a blood/alcohol concentration of 170 mg in 100 ml of blood.

HELD: NOT GUILTY

The breath samples are inadmissible because the officer did not have the requisite opinion of who was driving at the time of making the ASD demand. The impaired charge is dismissed because the Crown’s evidence falls significantly short of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the client is the driver.

Re: Impaired Driving / Over 80 mg (Client 827)

 

Client charged with impaired driving, driving with a blood/alcohol content over 80 mg, and dangerous driving.

CASE FACTS:

Vancouver police conduct a high speed pursuit over Burrard Inlet and ending near the city center. The motorcycles are described as traveling up to 110 kph, swerving and narrowly avoiding a collision. Following the stop of one motorcyclist, the client is charged with three criminal code offenses.

HELD: NOT GUILTY:

On pre-trial application by defense, charge of over 80 mg stayed. At trial held “the officers must have been mistaken about the speed the motorcycle was traveling”. Insufficient evidence to find that his ability to drive was impaired. ACQUITTED ON ALL CHARGES.

Re: Over 80 mg (Client 908)

 

Client charged in Brampton Ontario with driving while over .08% alcohol in his blood.

CASE FACTS:

Client and his cousin pulled over by the Peel Regional Police driving from a notorious tavern. He is arrested and taken to the detachment. When asked if he has a lawyer he says “I do in Vancouver.” The police officer says in Ontario “we have a 1-800 number.” The client responds “sure wonderful” and allows the police to make the call. After speaking with a duty-counsel lawyer, he blew over 80 mg in a 100 ml on the Intoxilyzer.

HELD: NOT GUILTY

The accused clearly indicated that he had a lawyer in Vancouver. He was entitled to call his Vancouver Criminal lawyer, but the police did not inform him of this right or assist him. The police obstructed his right to call his criminal lawyer in Vancouver. The evidence of the Intoxilyzer is not admissible. Case dismissed.

Re: Impaired Driving / Over 80 mg (Client 946)

 

Accused client charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood/alcohol concentration over 80 mgs.

CASE FACTS:

Accused pulled over by the West Vancouver police for swerving over the center line, odor of liquor, failed a roadside breath test. Arrested and transported to the police station where breath tests were made showing a blood/alcohol concentration of 180 mgs in 100 ml of blood.

HELD: NOT GUILTY

The breath samples are inadmissible evidence because the demand for the samples is invalid. Evidence of swerving over the line is consistent with driving a large vehicle on a narrow road.

Re: Impaired Driving and Refusing to Blow (Client 10679)

 

Lawyer: Kyla Lee

Kyla Lee’s client charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device.

CASE FACTS:

The client was involved in an accident in Whitehorse where the vehicle rolled over. Police arrived and conducted an investigation which resulted in grounds to make a breathalyzer demand for a roadside breathalyzer test. The client tried several times to provide a sample but was unsuccessful in doing so. The police arrested the client and charged the client with impaired driving and refusing to blow.

HELD: CHARGES DROPPED MID-TRIAL

After extensive cross-examination by Kyla Lee at trial, the Crown agreed that the cross-examination conducted in the case demonstrated that the officer had not had a valid basis to demand a sample. The cross-examination by Kyla Lee revealed that the officer had failed to consider all the mandatory portions of grounds for a breathalyzer sample and had engaged in impermissible guesswork. The Crown dropped the charges following this successful cross-examination.

Re: Refusing the Roadside Breathalyzer (Client 00559)

Lawyer: Kyla Lee

 

Kyla Lee’s client charged with refusing to take a roadside breathalyzer test.

CASE FACTS:

A police officer on duty in Whitehorse observed what she thought was a fight between a husband and wife. The husband got into the vehicle driven by the client. The client drove off and police stopped the vehicle to investigate the potential assault. In the course of that investigation, police started to investigate the client who was driving for impaired driving. The officer made a breathalyzer demand for a roadside screening device sample. The client refused, explaining that he was concerned about COVID-19 infection.

HELD: NOT GUILTY

Kyla Lee successfully argued at trial that when the investigation shifted from the passenger and into the driver and from an assault investigation to an investigation for impaired driving, the client was entitled to be immediately told why he was detained. The fact that the police did not provide this information to the driver meant that the investigation went places it may not have gone. The client’s rights were violated and the evidence of refusal was excluded from consideration.

Re: Refusing the Roadside Breathalyzer (Client 06959)

 

Lawyer: Kyla Lee

Kyla Lee’s client charged with refusing to take a roadside breathalyzer test.

CASE FACTS:

A police officer drove to a liquor store for an unrelated investigation. When he arrived in the parking lot, he saw the client’s vehicle drive in and park. The client got out and walked into the liquor store. In the liquor store, the officer thought he saw signs of impairment and alcohol consumption. When the client started walking back to his car, the police officer stopped the client and asked him to take a roadside breathalyzer test. The client attempted to blow but was not successful in providing a sample.

HELD: NOT GUILTY

Kyla Lee successfully argued at trial that the officer violated her client’s Charter rights by not advising him immediately why he was being detained. This was not an ordinary traffic stop where the context could inform the client as to why the officer was asking about drinking and what he was under investigation for. The fact that the police did not read the client his Section 10(a) Charter rights was fatal to the case. The evidence of the unsuccessful breathalyzer attempts was inadmissible.

Re: Impaired Driving and Driving at or Over 80 mg% (Client 01620)

 

Lawyer: Kyla Lee

 

Kyla Lee’s client charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level at or over 80 mg%.

CASE FACTS:

Police stopped the client and conducted a roadside breathalyzer test. The client provided a Fail reading on the roadside breathalyzer. The client was then taken to the police station and given two breath tests showing blood alcohol level above the legal limit. He was charged with impaired driving.

HELD: NOT GUILTY

The police officer did not serve the necessary paperwork on the client at the time the breathalyzer tests were taken. Although the Crown was entitled to serve the documents on Kyla Lee as counsel for the client later on, the documents were not properly served on the lawyer either. The Crown failed to provide adequate notice of their intention to rely on the documents in court and they were therefore not admissible at trial.