R. v. Knoblauch (T.A.), (2015) 478 Sask.R. 97 (PC)

• Judge: Hinds, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 23, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2015), 478 Sask.R. 97 (PC);2015 SKPC 112

R. v. Knoblauch (T.A.) (2015), 478 Sask.R. 97 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.074

Her Majesty the Queen v. Taylor A. Knoblauch

(Information: 24507081; 2015 SKPC 112)

Indexed As: R. v. Knoblauch (T.A.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Hinds, P.C.J.

July 23, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving while his blood-alcohol content exceeded the legal limit. He applied for exclusion of the Certificate of Analyses from evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing that his s. 10(b) Charter rights to counsel were violated.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that there was no breach of s. 10(b). The Certificate of Analyses was admitted into evidence and the accused was convicted of driving while his blood-alcohol content exceeded the legal limit. He was acquitted of impaired driving.

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - General - Denial of or interference with - What constitutes - A police officer arrested Knoblauch for impaired driving at 9:30 p.m. and advised him of his right to counsel - However, the officer did not ask Knoblauch whether he wanted to call a lawyer until approximately 10:30 p.m. when they were at the police station - Knoblauch argued that asking an accused person whether he wanted to call a lawyer was an essential component of the right to counsel and that his s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached when the officer failed to ask him that question at 9:30 p.m. - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court rejected this argument - The right to counsel advice given by the officer at the roadside made it clear that Knoblauch could contact any lawyer he wished and that immediate and free legal advice was available - Moreover, the officer reinforced the informational component of s. 10(b) at 9:37 p.m. when Knoblauch made a general inquiry and the officer responded by stating that Knoblauch would be taken to the police station where he would have an opportunity to talk to a lawyer and provide breath samples - The words used by the officer satisfied the informational component of s. 10(b) - Knoblauch understood his right to counsel - See paragraphs 20 to 30.

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - General - Denial of or interference with - What constitutes - Knoblauch was charged with impaired driving offences - He argued that his s. 10(b) Charter right to retain and instruct counsel without delay was breached when he was held at the roadside for 28 minutes while the arresting officer waited for another officer to arrive for the purpose of having Knoblauch's vehicle towed from the scene - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court rejected this argument - The 28 minute delay in departing the scene was reasonable in the circumstances - A music festival was being held nearby and police were busy - The officer was dealing with Knoblauch and also Knoblauch's passenger, both of whom he believed were intoxicated - His attention was divided - Responsible officers did not let intoxicated people walk home - Where Knoblauch did not assert his right to counsel, there was no need for the officer to provide him with a cell phone at the roadside - See paragraphs 31 to 34.

Civil Rights - Topic 4609

Right to counsel - General - Duty to notify accused of or explain right to counsel - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4609.1

Right to counsel - General - Duty of police investigators - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4610

Right to counsel - General - Impaired driving (incl. demand for breath or blood sample) - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4617.1

Right to counsel - General - Notice of - Sufficiency of - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1362

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence and proof - Knoblauch was charged with impaired driving based on the following observations: (1) he had a bunch of sunflower seeds in his mouth; (2) a smell of alcohol came from his vehicle; (3) he had a staggered walk; (4) he admitted to consuming alcohol; and (5) he had droopy and glassy eyes - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found Knoblauch not guilty - A number of the above observations could be attributed to causes other than impairment by alcohol - For instance, Knoblauch was in bare feet - In addition, there was nothing unusual about Knoblauch's manner of driving, he promptly pulled to the side of the road when signalled to do so, he was responsive to the officer's questions and directions, he had no difficulty exiting his vehicle or entering the patrol car, and he gave the officer directions on how to depart from the scene and go to the town where the police station was located - See paragraphs 37 to 41.

Counsel:

Ms. M. Landry, for the Crown;

Ms. S. Fox, for the accused.

This voir dire and trial were heard at Regina, Saskatchewan, before Hinds, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision and judgment on July 23, 2015.