No Grounds for Impaired Driving Arrest
If you are searching for DUI lawyers near me, you are likely trying to understand what happened and whether the police had the right to arrest you. This is one of the first and most important issues in any impaired driving case.
At Charitsis Law, our DUI lawyers review whether police had proper legal grounds to stop, investigate, and arrest you. If those grounds are weak or missing, it can affect the entire case.
If you need to speak to a lawyer, call Charitsis Law at 647-930-0200.
Synopsis – Drive over 80 – Weak Grounds for Arrest
On Saturday, August 19th, 2017 at approximately 3:20 AM, Officers responded to a radio call for a personal injury collision at Keele Street and Sheppard Ave. West, Toronto. Upon arrival, the officer observed a two door white motor vehicle had crashed into a wooden hydro pole.
There were no occupants inside the vehicle and the airbags inside the vehicle had been deployed. The police officer was approached by three females, who advised they had been inside the vehicle at the time of the accident. All parties refused an ambulance, stating that none of them were injured.
The driver of the vehicle identified herself verbally to the officer as AB.
The officer learned that the above parties had been drinking at a licensed establishment. They had left the bar and headed southbound on Keele St. approaching Sheppard Ave. West.
The driver (AB) advised that she was reaching for CD’s in her glove box, when she lost control of her vehicle.
The three women were separated and an investigation commenced.
The officer spoke with AB and could smell an odour of an alcoholic beverage coming from her breath, and her eyes appeared glossy. AB advised that she consumed one bottle of beer during her time at the nightclub.
A roadside breathalyzer was requested and at approximately 3:55 AM a roadside test was conducted. The result of the breath test was that AB, the driver registered a “FAIL” on the instrument.
At 3:57 AM, the officer placed AB under arrest for Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle, read her her rights to counsel and a second demand for a breathalyzer test.
At 4:18 AM, the accused AB was transported to 32 Division to provide a breath sample.
At 5:05 AM, the accused AB provided her first sample, and a reading of 174 mg of alcohol in 100 mi of blood was obtained.
At 5:27 AM, the accused provided her second sample, and a reading of 158 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood was obtained.
The accused was further advised that as a result of her readings she would also be charged with Impaired Operation of Motor Vehicle with Over 80mgs of Alcohol in her blood.
The accused AB was released from the police station once she was sober.
Analysis – Were There Proper Grounds for Arrest?
This case may appear strong because of the breath readings. However, the law requires police to have proper grounds at the time of the arrest, not after the fact.
What Police Must Show Before an Arrest
Before making an arrest for impaired driving, A police officer must have reasonable and probable grounds that the driver has committed the offence of operating a motor vehicle while their ability to do so has been impaired, due to the consumption of an alcohol and drug. Normally a police officer does this by:
- observable driving problems such as swerving, speeding, or loss of control
- clear physical signs like slurred speech or poor balance and a smell of an alcoholic beverage
- behaviour that shows impairment, not just alcohol consumption
- consistent evidence that supports a belief the driver was impaired
These signs must exist before the arrest is made.
What Was Actually Present in This Case
In this situation, the officer relied on only a few limited observations.
- a smell of alcohol on the driver’s breath
- slightly glossy or glassy eyes
There were no other clear indicators of impairment.
What Was Missing From the Evidence
Many of the usual signs seen in impaired driving cases were not present.
- no slurred or unclear speech
- no issues with balance or coordination
- no signs of confusion or disorientation
- no evidence of erratic or aggressive driving
- no problems entering or exiting the vehicle
Even the officer acknowledged that, before being directed by another officer, he did not believe he had reasonable grounds to arrest.
Why This Matters
There is an important legal difference between suspicion and grounds for arrest.
- suspicion allows police to investigate further
- reasonable grounds are required to make an arrest
- proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required to convict
If the arrest is not properly supported, it raises serious concerns about the strength of the case.
Judge’s Decision
The court found the case to be straightforward.
There was no issue that the accused had been driving. The accident clearly showed that she had care and control of the vehicle.
However, unlike many accident cases, there was credible evidence explaining what happened. The driver had been operating the vehicle normally before becoming distracted while reaching into the glove box.
The judge found that:
- there was no evidence of aggressive or unsafe driving
- there was no speeding, swerving, or traffic violations
- the driving before the accident appeared normal
The court also carefully examined the signs of impairment relied on by the Crown.
- a slight odour of alcohol
- slightly glossy eyes
The judge noted that these were very minor observations. In fact, the evidence of impairment was so limited that it required close examination to even identify them as concerns.
The officer’s own evidence was also important. He stated that he did not believe he had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest before being instructed by another officer.
The court compared the evidence to what is normally seen in impaired driving cases, including:
- speech
- balance
- walking
- coordination
- general behaviour
None of these factors supported impairment in this case.
At the end of the day, the court was not satisfied that the Crown had proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
The charge was dismissed.
What This Means for Your Case
If you are facing an impaired driving charge, it is important to understand that a breath reading alone does not decide the case.
The legality of the stop, the investigation, and the arrest all matter.
What Can Be Challenged
If proper grounds are not clearly established, several parts of the case may be challenged.
- whether the arrest was legally justified
- whether the investigation followed proper procedures
- whether the evidence should be relied upon
- whether the Crown can meet the legal burden of proof
Careful review of these issues can make a meaningful difference.
Speak with a DUI Lawyer
If you are facing an impaired driving charge, do not assume the case is strong just because you were arrested or gave a breath sample.
At Charitsis Law, our DUI lawyers carefully review every step of the case, including the stop, the investigation, and the arrest.
Call 647-930-0200 to speak with a DUI lawyer. Your consultation is free and confidential.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. Can a DUI charge be dismissed even with high breath readings?
A. Yes. The court still looks at whether the arrest was lawful and whether proper grounds existed. If the process is flawed, the case may be challenged.
Q. What are proper grounds for an impaired driving arrest?
A. Police must rely on clear and objective signs of impairment. Minor observations may not be enough to justify an arrest.
Q. Does an accident automatically prove impairment?
A. No. An accident alone does not prove impairment. The court looks at the full context, including how the driving occurred before the incident.
Q. Why is the officer’s opinion important?
A. The officer’s observations and beliefs play a key role. If the officer admits there were no proper grounds, it can weaken the case.
Q. What should I do if I’ve been charged with impaired driving?
A. Speak with a DUI lawyer as soon as possible. Early review of the evidence helps you understand your options and avoid mistakes.
