R. v. Handley

R. v. Handley

Where the statutory elements of s.320.27(2) were objectively satisfied (lawful traffic stop, observed operation of a vehicle, officer in possession of an approved screening device), the ASD demand was lawful under that subsection even though the officer subjectively believed she was relying on s.320.27(1)(b); no s.8 breach arose on these facts, the informal roadside s.10(b) advice followed by a prompt verbatim reading at the detachment satisfied the informational duty, the ASD and subsequent breath samples were admissible under s.24(2), and the Crown proved the s.320.14(1)(b) over‑80 mg offence and the offences for operating while prohibited and breaching an undertaking but failed to...

Citation
2024 NSPC 39
Parties
Crown: His Majesty the King; Accused: Curtis Leroy Handley
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Decision (blended Trial and Charter Voir Dire)
Outcome
Accused found not guilty of Count #1 (impaired operation) and guilty of Counts #2, #3 and #4; ASD and breath sample evidence admitted.
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Approved Screening Device (asd) Demand, Reasonable Suspicion, Mandatory ASD Demand S.320.27(2), Section 8 Search and Seizure, Section 10(b) Right to Counsel, Section 24(2) Exclusionary Rule, Driving Prohibition, Breach of Undertaking
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Canadian Charter Rights Procedural Law Impaired Driving Approved Screening Device (asd) Demand Reasonable Suspicion Mandatory ASD Demand S.320.27(2) Section 8 Search and Seizure +4 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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Crown

Curtis Leroy Handley

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Decision (blended Trial and Charter Voir Dire)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the ASD demand lawful given the officer subjectively relied on s.320.27(1)(b) despite objective insufficiency of reasonable suspicion?
  2. 2 Were Mr. Handley’s s.8 Charter rights breached by the ASD demand and subsequent searches and seizures?
  3. 3 Were Mr. Handley’s s.10(b) rights violated by the officer’s informal reading of rights before a formal reading at the detachment?

Ratio Decidendi

Where the statutory elements of s.320.27(2) were objectively satisfied (lawful traffic stop, observed operation of a vehicle, officer in possession of an approved screening device), the ASD demand was lawful under that subsection even though the officer subjectively believed she was relying on s.320.27(1)(b); no s.8 breach arose on these facts, the informal roadside s.10(b) advice followed by a prompt verbatim reading at the detachment satisfied the informational duty, the ASD and subsequent breath samples were admissible under s.24(2), and the Crown proved the s.320.14(1)(b) over‑80 mg offence and the offences for operating while prohibited and breaching an undertaking but failed to...

Court Disposition

Accused found not guilty of Count #1 (impaired operation) and guilty of Counts #2, #3 and #4; ASD and breath sample evidence admitted.

Orders

  • Count #1: Not guilty (s.320.14(1)(a))
  • Count #2: Guilty (s.320.14(1)(b) - blood alcohol concentration exceeded 80 mg/100 ml)