Digest: R v Uffelman, 2018 SKPC 8

• Date: February 12, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKPC 8

Docket Number: 24485090 , PC17102

Court: Provincial Court

Date: 2018-02-12

Judges:

• Baniak

Subjects:

• Criminal Law � Motor Vehicle Offences �Impaired Driving � Driving/Care or Control with Excessive Alcohol � Roadside Screening Devices
• Constitutional Law � Charter of Rights, Section 8, Section 9

Digest: The accused was charged with having care or control of a vehicle while his ability to operate it was impaired by alcohol contrary to s. 255(1) and s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and with having care or control of a vehicle while his blood alcohol content exceeded the legal limit contrary to s. 253(1)(b) and s. 255(1) of the Code. The defence made a Charter application alleging that the accused�s s. 8 and s. 9 rights had been infringed. It argued that the results of the ASD test could not be relied upon to create the reasonable grounds for a breath test pursuant to s. 254(3) of the Code because the ASD machine had not been maintained as its annual maintenance had not been conducted. The officer�s pat-down search of the accused prior to the administration of the ASD test violated his s. 8 Charter rights. The officer responded to a call late at night made from a rural farmstead. The owners reported that a parked vehicle with its engine running was in one of their fields. They said that they could not see anyone inside the vehicle. When the officer found the vehicle, the accused was in it. She spoke to him and noticed that he had alcohol on his breath. The accused said that he had had his last drink two hours earlier. The officer asked the accused to get out of his vehicle to take an ASD test. The accused had trouble opening the vehicle�s door and the officer saw an open bottle of liquor on the seat. The officer testified that because she was alone and in a remote location and she was concerned for her safety, she searched the accused for weapons and alcohol before putting him in the police cruiser. With regard to the ASD machine, the officer testified that it was within the current accuracy date which led her to believe that it was within the annual maintenance check date. The accused failed the test. Later it was found that the annual check date was two weeks before the ASD test was given to the accused.
HELD: The court found that there had been no breach of the accused�s Charter rights. The court found that s. 8 had not been breached because the search was reasonable as the officer was...