The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding 80 mg and the resulting sentence.
The appellant argued that the roadside screening demand lacked reasonable suspicion under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter and that the breath test evidence failed to comply with s. 258(1)(c)(iv) of the Criminal Code because two different technicians were involved in the testing process.
The court held that the trial judge properly considered the constellation of observable indicators supporting reasonable suspicion and applied the correct legal standard.
The court also found no error in the interpretation of the Criminal Code requirement that breath samples be analyzed by an approved instrument operated by a qualified technician, concluding that the involvement of two officers in preparatory and analytical steps did not violate the provision.
The sentence, including an $1,200 fine and 18‑month driving prohibition based on high breath readings, was within the trial judge’s discretion.
