R. v. Turnbull

R. v. Turnbull

On the totality of the circumstances — complaint of erratic driving, matching vehicle and plate, time of night, vehicle stopped with engine running, and the accused's admission of consuming a glass of wine — the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect alcohol under s.254(2), the ASD demand and subsequent breath tests were lawful and admissible, and therefore the accused is guilty of s.253(1)(b) but not guilty of s.253(1)(a).

Citation
2014 NSPC 70
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Ronald James Turnbull
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial (voir Dire and Disposition)
Outcome
Convicted under s.253(1)(b); Acquitted under s.253(1)(a)
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Reasonable Suspicion, Section 254(2) ASD Demand, Section 253 Criminal Code, Section 8 Charter, Section 24(2) Exclusion, Search and Seizure
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Traffic Offences Impaired Driving Reasonable Suspicion Section 254(2) ASD Demand Section 253 Criminal Code Section 8 Charter +2 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Ronald James Turnbull

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial (voir Dire and Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether officer had reasonable grounds to suspect alcohol under s.254(2)
  2. 2 Whether the ASD demand was lawful
  3. 3 Whether breath tests should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of the circumstances — complaint of erratic driving, matching vehicle and plate, time of night, vehicle stopped with engine running, and the accused's admission of consuming a glass of wine — the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect alcohol under s.254(2), the ASD demand and subsequent breath tests were lawful and admissible, and therefore the accused is guilty of s.253(1)(b) but not guilty of s.253(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Convicted under s.253(1)(b); Acquitted under s.253(1)(a)

Orders

  • Guilty verdict on s.253(1)(b) (having care and control with blood alcohol over .08)
  • Not guilty verdict on s.253(1)(a) (impairment)