R. v. Schmautz

R. v. Schmautz

A statutory breathalyzer demand under s.235(1) constitutes a 'detention' for s.10 purposes because criminal liability for refusal creates the necessary compulsion; in the present facts a Charter warning given at the outset of a short investigative interview was sufficiently and factually linked to that detention so s.10(b) was satisfied and the refusal evidence need not be excluded under s.24(2).

Citation
[1990] 1 SCR 398
Parties
Appellant/accused: Jerry Ervin Schmautz; Respondent/the Crown: Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 March 1990
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From British Columbia Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel, Detention, Breathalyzer Demand (s.235 Criminal Code), Section 10(b) Charter, Section 24(2) Charter
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Charter Law Right to Counsel Detention Breathalyzer Demand (s.235 Criminal Code) Section 10(b) Charter Section 24(2) Charter

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jerry Ervin Schmautz

Appellant/accused

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent/the Crown

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From British Columbia Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a breathalyzer demand under s.235(1) constitutes a 'detention' for the purposes of s.10(b) of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether a Charter warning given prior to detention satisfied s.10(b) and whether evidence should be excluded under s.24(2)

Ratio Decidendi

A statutory breathalyzer demand under s.235(1) constitutes a 'detention' for s.10 purposes because criminal liability for refusal creates the necessary compulsion; in the present facts a Charter warning given at the outset of a short investigative interview was sufficiently and factually linked to that detention so s.10(b) was satisfied and the refusal evidence need not be excluded under s.24(2).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed by Supreme Court of Canada
  • Conviction for failing to comply with a breathalyzer demand under s.235(2) of the Criminal Code upheld