As roadside demand can be justified by the smell of alcohol on the driver’s breath.
See today’s brief decision in R v. Carson, 2009 ONCA 157:
With respect, the Summary Conviction Appeal Judge erred in concluding that the investigating officer could not conclude, for purposes of making a roadside demand under s. 254(2) of the Code, that a driver has alcohol in his body by the smell of alcohol on his breath. This court in R. v. Lindsay (1999), 134 C.C.C. 463 held otherwise. We affirm the correctness of that decision.
1 comment:
Thanks for posting this James. I've been very interested this last while in non-Arrest detentions like roadside stops, and I'm eagerly awaiting the SCC's ruling in Suberu.
Any thoughts on publishing your own law report online? Are any of the cases you write about unreported?
Post a Comment