A Motor Vehicle Department hearing will be scheduled to determine whether 1) police had proper cause to seize the vehicle being operated by the accused, 2) whether police had sufficient probable cause to believe operator of the vehicle was intoxicated and driving while impaired in Hudson Valley 3) whether police properly advising
the accused of their breath test refusal rights.
Not exact matches
The seminar will cover recent changes and challenges to DWI law, how to defend those
accused of marijuana and opiate DWIs, tips for successful trial (criminal, «implied consent,» and forfeiture), expert challenges to
breath testing devices, a view from the Appellate Court, and more.
«We were not arguing that the Crown could not admit evidence
of breath tests in court,» he adds, but that where the demand for the
breath test was not made on lawful grounds, the Crown would have to revert to traditional methods
of presenting evidence: namely, expert evidence given in a courtroom, rather than hearsay evidence
of the certificate recording
of the
accused's
breath readings.
«An
accused person can seek to have the results
of the
breath tests excluded,» Garson adds.
The defence used a toxicologist to calculate the
accused's blood alcohol level and demonstrate that it was likely under the legal limit at the time
of driving even though it was over the legal limit at the time
of the taking
of the
breath tests.
Further given the significant impact on the
accused's Charter protection interests and that the ASD and
breath testing was without requisite Criminal Code and Charter grounds results in serious breaches
of Section 9 and Section 8.
Lastly, in my discussions with the Crown through previous correspondence and during the meeting in chambers with the Judge, I emphasized that I would seek to exclude the
breath readings due to the improper administration
of the roadside
breath test which took place without any inquiry as to the time
of the
accused's last drink.
In relevant part, the Alcohol Breathalyzer Refusal Form advises the
accused that he is required by law to take a
breath test and that a refusal to do so constitutes a violation
of N.J.S.A. 39:4 - 50.2 and will result in a fine
of not less than $ 250.00 and a license suspension
of six months.
In January 2013, an Alberta Court
of Queen's bench decision on a summary conviction appeal held that maintenance logs for evidentiary
breath testing instruments (such as the Intoxilyzer 5000C) must be disclosed by the Crown to an
accused person on request: R. v. Kilpatrick, 2013 ABQB 5.
R. v. Manchulenko (M.) 2013 ONCA 543 Civil Rights — Right to counsel — General — Denial
of — Evidence taken inadmissible The
accused was acquitted on alcohol related driving charges after the trial judge excluded the evidence from the two
breath tests (Charter, s. 24 (2)-RRB-, because
of a breach
of the
accused's right to counsel (Charter, s. 10 (b)-RRB-, prior to the first
test.