R. v. Garland

R. v. Garland

Waiting approximately 20–25 minutes for a trained officer to arrive to administer field sobriety tests does not satisfy the Criminal Code requirement that roadside screening/testing be done 'immediately' under s.320.27; because the subsequent breath demand was predicated on those invalid test results, the demand was unlawful and the refusal charge cannot stand.

Citation
2020 NSPC 47
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Devyn Scott Garland
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Decision
Outcome
Accused found not guilty of refusal charge; impaired operation charge dismissed
Legal Topics
Impaired Operation, Refusal to Provide Breath Sample, Roadside Screening, Field Sobriety Testing, Detention Timing
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Procedure Impaired Operation Refusal to Provide Breath Sample Roadside Screening Field Sobriety Testing Detention Timing

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Devyn Scott Garland

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a 20+ minute delay before administering roadside field sobriety tests satisfies the requirement that testing be done 'immediately' under s.320.27(1)(a) of the Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether a breath demand based on results of delayed field sobriety testing is lawful
  3. 3 Whether a refusal charge can stand where the underlying breath demand was unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

Waiting approximately 20–25 minutes for a trained officer to arrive to administer field sobriety tests does not satisfy the Criminal Code requirement that roadside screening/testing be done 'immediately' under s.320.27; because the subsequent breath demand was predicated on those invalid test results, the demand was unlawful and the refusal charge cannot stand.

Court Disposition

Accused found not guilty of refusal charge; impaired operation charge dismissed

Orders

  • Accused acquitted of refusal charge under s.320.15(1)
  • Impaired operation charge dismissed