R. v. Pringle (J.D.), 2003 ABPC 7

• Judge: Lefever, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 07, 2003
• Citations: 2003 ABPC 7;(2003), 324 A.R. 352 (PC)

R. v. Pringle (J.D.) (2003), 324 A.R. 352 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. MR.005

Her Majesty the Queen v. Jeffrey Donald Pringle

(16019531; 2003 ABPC 7)

Indexed As: R. v. Pringle (J.D.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Lefever, P.C.J.

February 7, 2003.

Summary:

An accused was charged with impaired driving (count 1), failure to comply with a breathalyzer demand (count 2), failing to stop his vehicle while being pursued by police officers (count 3) and assaulting a police officer engaged in the lawful execution of his duty (count 4).

The Alberta Provincial Court concluded that the Crown had proven the essential elements for counts 2 and 4, but not counts 1 and 2. However, the court acquitted the accused on all charges where the police had violated his s. 8 and 9 Charter rights by subjecting him to a strip search.

Civil Rights - Topic 1216

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - Strip searches - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that "[R. v. Golden (I.V.) (S.C.C.)] has clearly established that an arbitrary policy of conducting strip searches when a person is detained without contextually more information to suggest that there is a risk that the individual may be either carrying drugs or a weapon would be an unjustified search. As is pointed out in Golden, much will depend upon the context and reliable information available to police officers. There is simply no single rule which will apply to each contextual situation that arises." - See paragraph 111.

Civil Rights - Topic 1216

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - Strip searches - An accused was charged with impaired driving (count 1), failure to comply with a breathalyzer demand (count 2), failing to stop his vehicle while being pursued by police officers (count 3) and assaulting a police officer engaged in the lawful execution of his duty (count 4) - The incident leading to count 4 occurred while the accused was being detained in relation to the other charges - After that incident, the arresting officer decided not to release the accused as previously intended and transferred him to the detention unit - That decision automatically engaged a strip search policy - The Crown was able to prove the essential elements for counts 2 and 4, but not counts 1 and 2 - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the officer's decision to the keep the accused in custody was arbitrary and not required for any legitimate law enforcement or public safety reasons and violated the accused's s. 9 Charter rights - The s. 9 breach was temporally connected to a resulting s. 8 breach - The strip search was a gross violation of bodily integrity - The court directed an acquittal on all charges - Alternatively, the court would have stayed the charges - See paragraphs 156 to 175.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 1216 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8369

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Dismissal of charge or acquittal - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 1216 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 1216 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that "... the law now is clear that where a breach of an accused's Charter rights occurs within a criminal investigation, it is a matter of discretion for the trial judge to determine if, from the full panoply of Charter remedies, a judicial stay should be entered. Where the Charter breach arises outside of the offences being tried in the sense that the breach did not 'equate to a recognized defence in law or ... create evidence which should be excluded under the application of s. 24(2)', or where the Charter breach may constitute a 'civil tort and a constitutional tort', by application of s. 24(1), a court of competent jurisdiction may issue a judicial stay (or other Charter remedies) in respect of the criminal proceedings." - See paragraph 95.

Criminal Law - Topic 1362

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence and proof - At approximately 5:00 a.m. a police officer observed the accused's vehicle quickly turning onto a street - The officer observed what appeared to be equipment hanging from the front of the vehicle - The officer activated his cruiser's overhead lights - The accused stopped 4.5 blocks later when his vehicle spun out on gravel and he lost control - His speed had not exceeded 60 km/hr - When the officer apprehended the accused he noted a smell of alcohol, slurred speech and glossy eyes - The accused refused to comply with a breathalyzer demand - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the officer had formed a subjective belief that the accused might have been impaired at the onset of the pursuit - Equally, the indicia of impairment combined with the driving pattern, gave the officer reasonable and probable grounds to make a breathalyzer demand - However, although the evidence might have supported a charge of driving without due care and attention under the Highway Traffic Act, it did not support a charge of impaired driving - See paragraphs 121 to 125.

Criminal Law - Topic 1372

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Demand - Reasonable grounds - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1362 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1372

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Demand - Reasonable grounds - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that "... the law requires the existence of a subjective belief by the investigating officer that a driver has alcohol in his or her body while operating a motor vehicle and that the level of alcohol has impaired that individual's ability to operate his or her motor vehicle before that officer makes the demand for a breath sample. In addition, the circumstances upon which the officer relied must, when viewed by an objective standard, support a conclusion of reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the driver's ability to operate his or her motor vehicle had been impaired by alcohol or a drug." - See paragraph 61.

Criminal Law - Topic 1407

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Flight to evade - What constitutes - At approximately 5:00 a.m. a police officer observed the accused's vehicle and activated his cruiser's overhead lights - The siren was not activated - The accused's vehicle did not stop - The officer followed without attempting to catch up - The accused did not exceed 60 km/hr - After making a couple of turns, the accused turned into an alley - He proceeded in the alley, crossing one street without stopping and continuing to a second street at which he attempted to turn and lost control - The pursuit was roughly 4.5 blocks - The Alberta Provincial Court convicted the accused of failing to stop his vehicle while being pursued by police officers - Although he might have initially been unaware that he was being pursued, when the cruiser followed him into the alley, any reasonable person would have concluded that the police were in pursuit given the absence of any other traffic - See paragraphs 127 to 133.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Bernshaw (N.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254; 176 N.R. 81; 53 B.C.A.C. 1; 87 W.A.C. 1; 35 C.R.(4th) 201; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 193; [1995] 3 W.W.R. 457; 8 M.V.R.(3d) 75, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Schram (D.R.) (2002), 309 A.R. 357 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Kissen, [1978] A.J. No. 266 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Hutton (K.L.) (1990), 106 A.R. 116 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. McClelland (B.L.) (1995), 165 A.R. 332; 89 W.A.C. 332 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Warford (1981), 32 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 211; 91 A.P.R. 211; 61 C.C.C.(2d) 489 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Babineau (1981), 37 N.B.R.(2d) 699; 97 A.P.R. 699; 11 M.V.R. 204 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Huddle (1990), 102 A.R. 144; 21 M.V.R.(2d) 150 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Dumont (D.L.) (2002), 308 A.R. 334 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Derose (A.S.) (2002), 313 A.R. 47; 94 C.R.R.(2d) 152 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. La (H.K.) et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680; 213 N.R. 1; 200 A.R. 81; 146 W.A.C. 81; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 97, folld. [para. 66].

R. v. Vu - see R. v. La (H.K.) et al.

R. v. F.C.B. (2000), 182 N.S.R.(2d) 215; 563 A.P.R. 215; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 540 (C.A.), affd. (2000), 262 N.R. 398; 196 N.S.R.(2d) 396; 613 A.P.R. 396; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 540 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Simpson (D.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 449; 178 N.R. 145; 127 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 171; 396 A.P.R. 171; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 96, affing. (1994), 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 110; 365 A.P.R. 110; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 377 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 72, 73].

R. v. Simpson, [1993] N.J. No. 292 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Cutforth (1987), 81 A.R. 213; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 253 (C.A.), consd. [para. 88].

R. v. Golden (I.V.) (2001), 279 N.R. 1; 153 O.A.C. 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; [1996] 2 W.W.R. 153; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 44 C.R.(4th) 1; 29 W.C.B.(2d) 152, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Carosella (N.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80; 207 N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81: 142 D.L.R.(4th) 595; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 96].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391; 218 N.R. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 443, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241; 66 C.R.(3d) 297; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 296, refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Monney (I.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 652; 237 N.R. 157; 119 O.A.C. 272, refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Morrison (1987), 20 O.A.C. 230; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 437 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Ferguson (1990), 41 O.A.C. 149; 1 C.R.(4th) 53 (C.A.), consd. [para. 103].

R. v. Flintoff (1998), 11 O.A.C. 305; 16 C.R.(5th) 248 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. S.F., [2003] O.J. No. 92 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 161].

Counsel:

J. McCombe, for the Crown;

T. Engel, for the accused.

This matter was heard by Lefever, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the judgment at Edmonton, Alberta, on February 7, 2003.