780-686-7948

Available 24 hrs

Always here for you!

780-686-7948

Call Us Today!

Contact Us
logo
mobile logo
 

best lawyer in edmonton Tag

Edmonton Criminal Lawyer Ziv > Posts tagged "best lawyer in edmonton"
08 January
0 Comments
Sticky

The Intoxilyzer

Posted by Rory
in Intoxylizer Operation

Operating the Breath Instrument (Intoxilyzer) Correctly

 

An excellent decision was provided by Judge Higgerty in Edson, Alberta. The defence counsel in the case was Alan Pearse.

Burping into the Intoxilyzer

The evidence was that the Accused was taken out of the phone room after speaking with a lawyer and asked to provide a breath sample. Given that 15 minutes had not elapsed between being taken out of the phone room and positive evidence that the accused had not burped the judge had reasonable doubt that the machine was not being operated properly. Here is an excerpt:

Depending on whether one is a defence lawyer or a prosecutor, one tends to refer to an Intoxilyzer as a machine or an instrument; being an ex-prosecutor, I will refer to it as an instrument. Certainly a very precise instrument authorized by Parliament to be the centrepiece, if you will, a tool of great use in weeding out impaired drivers on the road, but the fact remains that in many cases an accused is being convicted by an instrument. And I only say that, and it is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration, a bit of a stretch, but I say that in all seriousness because that underscores that the instrument must be operated correctly in order to bring it within the parameters of the Criminal Code of Canad which essentially allows hearsay evidence, a certificate, to be essentially the entire case against an accused.

The requirement is 15 minutes, as set out by the manufacturer, although it seems to be acknowledged by the case law that in most cases 5 minutes would be sufficient, but the manufacturer says 15 minutes. And there is a very good reason for this, the presence of mouth alcohol can result in an unreliable reading.

I did have a question earlier on, and I can perhaps answer my own question, does the accused have to adduce positive evidence that he burped or belched or chewed on a cough drop, that type of thing, during that 15-minute run-up to the first sample and, indeed, I suppose, prior to the second sample as well? And in the real world, given that Officer Jackson had difficulty on the subject of slurred speech, how could we expect an ordinary accused to remember if he or she burped within the 15 minutes prior to providing a sample? So I find that this 15-minute requirement is just as important for the operator to ensure as flipping the right switch at the right time. The 15-minute requirement is an integral part of the operation of the Intoxilyzer and the manufacturer’s requirement was not complied with. I will not speculate as to, and I am lapsing into the vernacular, aw, shucks, golly, it does not mean that much anyway. I will not go there. The facts, to me, are the instrument was operated incorrectly, the manufacturer required that 15 minutes, that 15 minutes was not observed and, therefore, in my view, the instrument was not operated correctly and the presumption cannot be relied upon. Therefore, on the over 08 charge, I also find the accused not guilty.

For a copy of the decision please contact my office at 780-429-4004.Intoxilyzer

 

04 November
0 Comments
Sticky

Pretext Stops

Posted by Rory
in Charter Rights, detention

The “real” reason for the stop (pretext stops)

In Canada, Police are given generous police power when stopping motor vehicles. For example, they are allowed to conduct random stops to check that a driver is properly licensed and has his papers in order. However, Canadian law does draw a line. If it can be shown that that the sole purpose of the stop was to further the other criminal investigation and that there was no intention at all to investigate or pursue the other traffic infraction, the police action can be classified as a ruse or pretext (a pretext is a reason you give to hide the real reason you are doing something.)

The police stop – pretext stop

In R. v. Gayle 2015 ONCJ 575, Justice B. W. Duncan concluded that the a stop of a traffic infraction was nothing more than a ruse to investigate a subject about whether he was in fact following bail conditions (something that the police cannot stop a person for).  In deciding whether a stop has been carried out for a legitimate purpose or as a mere ruse the following questions are useful:

·        Did the traffic concerns continue to manifest themselves throughout the detention concurrently with the other investigation?

·        Was the traffic investigation immediately non-existent or almost immediately abandoned?

·        Was a ticket issued for the traffic violation or was it issued much later in the investigation?

·        Was the stop valid absent the traffic violation i.e. were there grounds for stopping the vehicle absent a traffic violation?

The Supreme Court of Canada

The leading case from the Supreme Court of Canada on this issue is R. v. Nolet [2010] 1 SCR 851. At para 39 of that decision the Courts stated:

Police power, whether conferred by statute or at common law, is abused when it is exercised in a manner that violates the Charter rights of an accused. This is a better framework of analysis, in my opinion, than the “predominant purpose” test applied here by the trial judge. If the Charter is violated, it makes little difference, I think, that the police had in mind multiple purposes. A valid regulatory purpose, whether predominant or not, would not sanitize or excuse a Charter violation.

In Nolet a regulatory search led to the discovery of drugs. Although the officer had suspicion that something was out of place, his reason for searching a bag which ultimately was found to have drug-money in it was to search for vehicle related documents.

Some may view Nolet as being a very pro-Crown friendly case, but I beg to differ. Nolet is very factual. In most cases I suspect the door will be left wide open for a trial judge to find that a police authority was using regulatory authority as a pretext for conducting a criminal search. In Nolet the following para (44) illustrate the point I am making:

The trial judge did not express any doubt about the officer’s evidence that relevant papers were frequently dispersed around a cab, often collected in a bag similar to the one at issue here, and that when he “pushed down on the duffel bag, [he] felt and heard paper products inside” (A.R., vol. 2, at p. 181). In other words, the officer did not proceed immediately to open the bag without some preliminary evaluation of its likely relevance to the regulatory search. The paper contents felt more like items connected to the H&TA inquiry than if the contents had felt solid in a way that might have indicated personal clothing (or drugs). In the circumstances, it was not unreasonable, given the appellants’ very limited privacy interest, for the officer to open the bag. At that point, the cash was in plain view.

19 October
0 Comments
Sticky

Detention

Posted by Rory
in detention

Psychological Detention

R. v. Wong 2015 OJ No 5049

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says “everyone has the right on arrest or detention  …  to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right;”

The Decision

In a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision, R. v. Wong [2015] ONCA 657 the Court reaffirmed the proposition that detention includes psychological detention and not only physical detention. In the Wong decision a fully dressed police officer entered into an apartment with the consent of the accused. He started noticing some drug related items but didn’t arrest or formally detain the accused.

The Court concluded that as the interaction between Ms. Wong and the officer continued, the officer’s conduct became “increasingly authoritative”.  The detention in this case crystalized when the officer asked questions like “what’s going on here” “if the scale was for baking where are the baking supplies” “I could arrest you for being in possession of drug paraphernalia” .

The Court then also re-emphasized that “without delay” means “immediately” and therefore at the moment Ms. Wong was detained she was required to be informed of her right to counsel, immediately, and because this did not happen all subsequent evidence found (statements and drugs) were ruled inadmissible.  The Court concluded:

In this case, the officer did not know what the law was. He did not understand the circumstances giving rise to detention and he did not appreciate either his responsibilities or the appellant’s rights. The appellant’s rights were trammelled in his search for evidence. The administration of justice would be brought into disrepute by the admission of the evidence, and, in my view, it should have been excluded.

Conclusion

As a criminal defence lawyer who often utilizes the Charter in defence of clients’ it is sometimes very difficult to analyze when a police interaction with a person has become a de facto detention of arrest.  It is critical to know when this Rubicon has been reached because as Wong demonstrates, if evidence is gathered without proper Charter compliance then evidence could be excluded.