This decision addresses the validity of a roadside demand for a breath sample under section 320.27(1) of the Criminal Code.
The accused, Andrew Ackers, was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample and impaired operation of a motor vehicle.
The impaired driving charge was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
The key issue was whether the police had reasonable suspicion to demand a breath sample.
The court found that despite some procedural missteps and lack of direct communication of all grounds between officers, the totality of objectively discernable facts—including the vehicle accident, the accused fleeing the scene, witness reports of intoxication, and the accused’s glossy eyes—constituted reasonable suspicion.
The accused was found guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample.
