R. v. Slauenwhite

R. v. Slauenwhite

The arrest and breathalyzer demand were supported by both subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds (swerve, rolled down windows, odour of alcohol, glassy eyes, licence/plate irregularities); therefore there were no Charter breaches of ss.8, 9 or 10(a) that would justify exclusion under s.24(2); breathalyzer results were admissible and the accused is guilty of the charged offence(s).

Citation
2008 NSPC 20
Parties
Crown: R.; Accused: Tammy Lee Slauenwhite
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving (s.253 Criminal Code) / Voir Dire on Charter Issues With Evidence Read Into Trial; Determination and Conviction
Outcome
Accused found guilty of impaired driving and driving with blood alcohol concentration over legal limit (s.253(a) and (b) Criminal Code)
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Breathalyzer Demand, Reasonable and Probable Grounds, Section 8 Search and Seizure, Section 9 Arbitrary Detention, Section 10(a) Right to Be Informed, Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Charter Traffic Law Evidence Law Impaired Driving Breathalyzer Demand Reasonable and Probable Grounds Section 8 Search and Seizure +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.

Crown

Tammy Lee Slauenwhite

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving (s.253 Criminal Code) / Voir Dire on Charter Issues With Evidence Read Into Trial; Determination and Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and breathalyzer demand
  2. 2 Whether breathalyzer readings were obtained in breach of Charter s.8 (unreasonable search)
  3. 3 Whether the accused was arbitrarily detained contrary to Charter s.9

Ratio Decidendi

The arrest and breathalyzer demand were supported by both subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds (swerve, rolled down windows, odour of alcohol, glassy eyes, licence/plate irregularities); therefore there were no Charter breaches of ss.8, 9 or 10(a) that would justify exclusion under s.24(2); breathalyzer results were admissible and the accused is guilty of the charged offence(s).

Court Disposition

Accused found guilty of impaired driving and driving with blood alcohol concentration over legal limit (s.253(a) and (b) Criminal Code)

Orders

  • Breathalyzer test results and certificate admitted into evidence
  • Conviction entered against Tammy Lee Slauenwhite