DUI & IRS Recent Cases Cases

We were hired to represent Mr. S. when he had been pulled over and issued a driving suspension for impaired operation of a motor vehicle. The suspension was appealed and argued by Mr. Wyman in front of an administrative panel. The client had been pulled over by the officer for having burnt out tail lights. In his discussion with Mr. S., he detected an odor of alcohol and placed him under arrest. Back at the police station, the client attempted to contact a lawyer but then changed his mind and ultimately provided breath samples. Mr. Wyman argued that the brevity of the investigation made the detention arbitrary in nature. It was further argued that the officer ought to have provided a formal waiver of the right to counsel to the client after he had changed his mind about talking to a lawyer. The panel agreed with Mr. Wyman and the administrative driving suspension was overturned.

Mr. G., a Professional Engineer, had been referred to our office by prior clients. He had been charged with impaired/.08 charges after he had been pulled over on his way home from drinks with friends. The matter was set down for trial where Mr. Wyman argued that the officers had failed to comply with the Criminal Code provisions affiliated with roadside breath testing. It was argued that the failure to comply resulted in a violation of our client’s section 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The trial judge agreed and excluded the breath sample. As no other evidence existed to ground a conviction our client was found not guilty.

Mr. G. was referred to our office by his father a retired police officer. Mr. G. had been charged with impaired/.08 offences following an accident on his motorcycle. The collision was a serious one that required the attendance of emergency personnel. Following an examination by EMS the officers brought our client to the police station where breath sample readings exceeded 200 mg/%. After reviewing the evidence, it became apparent that no witnesses would be capable of establishing the time of driving, an essential prerequisite for admissibility of the Certificate of Analyst. The matter proceeded to trial where the Crown was put on notice of this fatal flaw. As the case was no longer salvageable the charges were withdrawn.

This client came as a referral from a Provincial Court Judge. The Judge’s nephew had been stopped for speeding by the Airdrie RCMP. During the stop, the client admitted to consuming 5 beers prior to driving. A roadside breath sample was requested and an E31 message obtained, this error indicates that a sample is over range. The officer elected to arrest the client and later obtained breath samples at the detachment more than double the legal limit. In reliance upon the FST Operating manual, Mr. Wyman was able to argue that the officer should not have relied upon the error reading and ought to have conducted a re-test to allow for the dissipation of mouth alcohol. The argument was a convincing one and the charges were dismissed.

The client, a northern Alberta welder, was charged with his 5th impaired driving offence out in Peace River. Should a conviction follow, the client was looking at a very lengthy jail sentence. Prior to trial, Mr. Wyman filed written argument, alleging that the client’s arrest was unlawful and that the breath samples procured (which were more than 3 times the legal limit) ought to be suppressed. The argument focused on the brevity of the officer’s investigation as well as the lack of indicia of impairment which on which the officer grounded the arrest. Notwithstanding the high blood alcohol readings and the prior convictions, this argument carried the day. All charges against the accused were withdrawn.

Mr. B. contacted our office after being charged with refusing to provide a breath sample. The client had relatively few defences but instructed our office to proceed to trial as he did not have a criminal record. At trial, the primary officer was asked if he could identify the type of roadside screening device that was used in the investigation, he could not. Crown counsel then sought to assist the officer by posing a question that suggested the appropriate answer. Mr. Wyman properly objected as the question was leading and impermissible. The trial judge agreed and the crown was unable to establish that the roadside sample was taken from an approved device. As such, the charges were withdrawn mid trial. This case is an example that anything can happen at trial. The result was unexpected by obviously welcomed by our client.