Right to Privacy in DUI Cases
Many people charged with impaired driving wrongly think they have no defence and are ready to plead guilty. In this case, that is exactly what the client believed.
However, a careful review by our team of DUI lawyers identified a serious breach of the client’s privacy rights, which led to the evidence being excluded and a finding of not guilty.
At Charitsis Law, our DUI lawyers review each case carefully, examining the details that are often overlooked and identifying issues that can change the outcome. This focused approach has led to consistent results and successful outcomes for our clients.
Where you need to speak to a criminal lawyer, call Charitsis Law at 647-930-0200.
Synopsis – Privacy Breach at the Police Station
On January 13th, 2018 at approximately 11:35 p.m., a police officer conducted a traffic stop on a black Mercedes travelling westbound on the QEW in St. Catharines for speeding. The driver was identified and spoke with the officer at the roadside.
During the interaction, the officer detected an odour of alcohol and the driver admitted to drinking. A roadside breath test was conducted shortly after.
What Happened at the Roadside
Police proceeded with a standard impaired driving investigation based on what they observed during the stop. The steps taken at the roadside followed a typical pattern seen in many DUI cases.
- the driver provided a roadside breath sample which resulted in a fail on the approved screening device
- he was placed under arrest for driving with over 80 milligrams of alcohol in his blood
- his right to counsel was read to him and he confirmed that he understood his rights
- a formal breath demand was made requiring him to provide samples at the police station
At this point, the investigation moved from the roadside to the police station. Based on these steps alone, the case appeared to be strong and likely to proceed in a straightforward way.
What Happened at the Police Station
After the arrest, the driver was transported to the Niagara police detachment where the breath technician took over the investigation. The focus at this stage was on obtaining reliable breath samples.
- the driver provided two breath samples into an approved instrument at the station
- the first sample registered 120 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood
- the second sample registered 100 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood
- the driver was given the opportunity to speak with duty counsel before the testing process was completed
Following the testing, the driver was formally charged and later released with a future court date. Based on the breath readings, the case appeared to meet the legal threshold for prosecution.
The Issue That Changed the Case
While in custody, the driver was placed in a holding cell that was under continuous video surveillance. The only available toilet in the cell was also positioned within view of the camera.
- the driver had no choice but to use a toilet that was fully visible to the surveillance camera
- the video recording captured him during the use of the toilet, including highly private moments
- no steps were taken by police to block or limit the camera’s view during this time
- there were no alternative facilities or privacy measures provided to the driver
This issue became the central focus of the case and raised serious concerns about a breach of the driver’s privacy rights. Although the investigation appeared routine at first, this overlooked detail ultimately changed the direction of the case and led to a very different outcome.
Evidence at Trial – Breach of Privacy Rights
At trial, the main issue was not the breath readings, but how the driver was treated while in custody. The court had to decide whether the police respected the driver’s right to privacy while he was detained at the station.
The Use of Video Surveillance in Cells
Police commonly use video surveillance in holding cells for safety reasons. The court recognized that monitoring detainees can help prevent harm and ensure proper supervision.
- police are allowed to use cameras to monitor detainees in custody
- video surveillance can help prevent self-harm or other safety risks
- courts have accepted this practice as part of normal police procedures
- public safety concerns often justify general monitoring inside cells
However, the use of surveillance must still respect a person’s dignity and basic privacy rights. Even in custody, individuals do not lose their right to be treated with respect.
The Privacy Issue With the Toilet Area
The problem in this case was not the use of cameras itself, but how they were used. The court focused on what happened when the driver needed to use the toilet.
- the toilet in the cell was fully visible to the camera at all times
- the driver had no alternative location to use the washroom
- the camera captured private and personal activity without restriction
- no effort was made to block or limit the recording of sensitive areas
This created a situation where the driver’s most private moments were recorded without any protection. The court found this to be a serious concern.
What Police Could Have Done
The court noted that this issue has been raised in previous cases and that solutions are available. Police are expected to take reasonable steps to protect privacy where possible.
- other police services have used digital masking to block the toilet area
- simple adjustments can be made to reduce unnecessary exposure
- courts have previously suggested ways to balance safety and privacy
- these measures allow monitoring without recording private body parts
In this case, no such steps were taken. The court found that the police failed to consider or implement available options.
Why the Breach Was Serious
The court considered how the breach affected the driver’s rights. The impact of recording someone in this way goes beyond a minor or technical issue.
- the video captured highly personal and sensitive images
- the driver had no real choice but to use the monitored toilet
- the recording created a permanent record of private activity
- the situation affected the dignity and privacy of the individual
Because of this, the court found that the breach was significant. This finding played a major role in how the case was ultimately decided.
Judge’s Decision – Evidence Excluded
After reviewing all of the evidence, the court focused on whether the driver’s privacy rights were breached and what impact that breach should have on the case. The key question was whether the evidence obtained by police should still be used.
The Court’s Findings on Privacy
The judge accepted that police did not violate the driver’s right to counsel. However, the court found that the driver’s right to privacy had been breached while in custody.
- the driver was required to use a toilet that was fully visible on camera
- the recording captured highly private and sensitive personal activity
- there were no measures taken to protect the driver’s dignity
- the driver had no alternative option available
The court found that this went beyond what is acceptable, even in a custodial setting.
Why the Breach Led to Exclusion
The court applied the legal test used to decide whether evidence should be excluded. This involves looking at how serious the breach was and how it affected the individual.
- the breach was not minor and had been raised in prior cases
- police had not taken steps to address known privacy concerns
- the impact on the driver’s dignity was significant
- the recording created a serious intrusion into personal privacy
The court also noted that this issue had been identified in other cases and that police services had made changes in response. In this case, no changes had been made.
The Court’s Final Conclusion
The judge found that the privacy breach was serious enough to affect the fairness of the case. As a result, the evidence relied on by the Crown could not be used.
- the breath test evidence was excluded from the trial
- without that evidence, the Crown could not prove the charge
- the prosecution could not proceed
As a result, the charge was dismissed.
What This Means for Your Case
Many people believe that once breath samples are over the legal limit, the case is decided. However, this case shows that what happens after the arrest can be just as important as the test results themselves.
Where you need to speak to a criminal lawyer, call Charitsis Law at 647-930-0200.
Why the Details Matter
Every step taken by police must follow the law, including how you are treated while in custody. Even issues that seem unrelated to the charge can affect whether evidence is used in court.
- the way you are treated in custody must respect your dignity and privacy
- police must take reasonable steps to protect highly personal activity
- known legal issues must be addressed, not ignored
- even standard procedures must comply with Charter rights
These details are often overlooked, but they can have a major impact on the outcome of a case. A careful review of what happened at the station can reveal issues that change the direction of the defence.
What Can Be Challenged
When privacy rights are breached, it can lead to serious legal consequences for the prosecution. These issues can form the basis of a strong defence.
- whether the conditions in custody respected your privacy rights
- whether video surveillance went beyond what is legally acceptable
- whether reasonable steps were taken to protect your dignity
- whether the breach affected the fairness of the case
- whether the evidence should be excluded as a result
These are not technical arguments. They are legal protections that apply to every person in custody and must be taken seriously.
Why Early Review Is Important
The strength of a case is not always clear at the beginning. What matters is how closely the details are examined.
- police procedures must be reviewed carefully
- the full sequence of events must be understood
- legal issues must be identified early in the process
- a defence strategy must be built based on those findings
Speaking with our DUI Lawyers can make a meaningful difference. Issues like this are often missed unless the case is reviewed closely from the start.
Speak with a DUI Lawyer
If you are facing an impaired driving charge, it is important to understand that your case is not just about the breath readings. What happens after your arrest, including how you are treated in custody, can have a serious impact on the outcome.
At Charitsis Law, our DUI lawyers review every stage of the case, including police conduct at the station and whether your Charter rights were respected. Issues like privacy breaches are often overlooked, but they can lead to evidence being excluded and charges being dismissed.
Speaking with a lawyer early allows you to understand your situation clearly and avoid mistakes that could affect your case. A careful review of the details can reveal opportunities that many people do not realize exist.
Call 647-930-0200 to speak with a DUI lawyer. Your consultation is free and confidential, and you will receive clear guidance on your next steps.
