The accused was charged with Over 80 following a drinking and driving investigation.
The officer's approved screening device malfunctioned, resulting in an eight-minute delay while a second device was obtained.
During this delay, the accused was placed in the police car and subjected to a pat-down search.
The accused was arrested and advised of his right to counsel six minutes later.
The defence raised six Charter breaches.
The court found that the ASD demand and test were conducted forthwith despite the delay caused by device malfunction.
The court found breaches of sections 8 and 9 regarding the detention in the police car and search, and a technical breach of section 10(b) regarding the delay in right to counsel advice.
However, applying the section 24(2) test from R v Grant, the court found that admission of the breath test evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the minor impact of the breaches on the accused's Charter-protected interests and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.
The accused was found guilty.