R. v. Upshaw

R. v. Upshaw

The officer's conduct — following and then stopping the vehicle to check license, registration, insurance and sobriety — fell within the statutory/common law authority described in Ladouceur and the scope articulated in Orbanski/Elias and MacLennan; the questioning and ASD/breath demands were lawful, produced reasonable suspicion and grounds for demand, and did not require exclusion of evidence; application to exclude dismissed.

Citation
2010 NSPC 39
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Kevin Andrew Upshaw
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving (charter Application) / Pre Trial Charter Application to Exclude Evidence (s.8, S.9, S.10(b))
Outcome
Application to exclude evidence dismissed.
Legal Topics
Random Vehicle Stops, Arbitrary Detention (s.9), Search and Seizure (s.8), Right to Counsel (s.10(b)), Sobriety Testing and Approved Screening Device, Exclusion of Evidence (s.24(2))
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional/charter Law Road Traffic Law Random Vehicle Stops Arbitrary Detention (s.9) Search and Seizure (s.8) Right to Counsel (s.10(b)) Sobriety Testing and Approved Screening Device +1 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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Kevin Andrew Upshaw

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving (charter Application) / Pre Trial Charter Application to Exclude Evidence (s.8, S.9, S.10(b))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the officer's U-turn and following constituted a detention under s.9
  2. 2 Whether police questioning about drinking without s.10(b) violated the Charter and rendered answers inadmissible
  3. 3 Whether Orbanski and Elias apply in Nova Scotia and govern the scope of random stops and questioning

Ratio Decidendi

The officer's conduct — following and then stopping the vehicle to check license, registration, insurance and sobriety — fell within the statutory/common law authority described in Ladouceur and the scope articulated in Orbanski/Elias and MacLennan; the questioning and ASD/breath demands were lawful, produced reasonable suspicion and grounds for demand, and did not require exclusion of evidence; application to exclude dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude evidence dismissed.

Orders

  • Application to exclude evidence dismissed