Re: 90-Day IRP Immediate Driving Prohibition (Client 2303)

Driving Lawyer: Paul C. Doroshenko
Client detained in a Boston Pizza parking lot at 12:45 a.m. RCMP obtain a “fail” sample on an Approved Screening Device and issue a 90-day IRP. A review was conducted before the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.

CASE FACTS:
The client was observed in the driver’s seat of his vehicle with the headlights and brake-lights on. The Surrey RCMP Corporal observed the client earlier in the evening drinking in the restaurant. The Corporal reported that the client tried to hide when he drove by in his cruiser. A strong odour of liquor was noted noted on the client’s breath and he admitted consuming alcohol. A “fail” sample was obtained on the ASD. The client’s truck was impounded for 30 days and he was issued a 90-day IRP by the Corporal.

ARGUMENT:
“In your oral submissions you provided context to the facts presented by the corporal. Your lawyer, Paul Doroshenko, provided a court case, R. v. Sedora, in which the court addressed what constitutes care and control of a motor vehicle.”

HELD: PROHIBITION LIFTED
“Given the evidence, I find that on a balance of probabilities you did not have care and control. I revoke your driving prohibition and monetary penalty. You may resume driving. Your vehicle impound is revoked. The Superintendent will pay for towing and the impound.”
PROHIBITION REVOKED AND VEHICLE RETURNED

Re: Impaired Driving / Over .08 / Dangerous Driving (Client 1711)

Lawyer: Paul Doroshenko
Client charged with impaired driving, “over .08″ and Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle after a collision and obtaining breath samples.

CASE FACTS:
North Vancouver RCMP arrive on a single-vehicle accident scene approximately 3 minutes after the collision. Two civilians who saw the collision approach the vehicle and find the driver seated on the curb beside the open vehicle door. The vehicle is still running. The client is arrested and provides breath samples indicating a BAC of 190.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
It is not apparent that the officer turned her mind to the time of driving when she made a demand for a breath samples. Given that she has not addressed this issue when forming her opinion, it is impossible to assess whether she had the correct grounds to make a breath demand. The breath readings cannot be considered by the court. The evidence is insufficient to prove the driver was impaired by alcohol or that he drove in a manner dangerous to the public.

Re: Impaired Driving / Refusal to Blow (Client 1657)

Lawyer: Paul C. Doroshenko
Client charged with impaired driving and refusing to blow into an ASD devide at the roadside.

CASE FACTS:
Kamloops RCMP respond to a 911 caller reporting a driver who is “all over the road.” The client is arrested a few blocks away after having been observed swerving and driving up on a curb. Upon smelling alcohol on her breath, RCMP demand that she provide a sample forthwith into a roadside screener. She demands to speak to her lawyer before providing a sample. The RCMP charge her with impaired operation and refusal to provide a breath sample.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
It is reasonably possible that the explanation provided by the accused is truthful and in this circumstance it raises as reasonable doubt about whether she was impaired by alcohol. Refusal charge withdrawn on pre-trial challenge by defence counsel.

Re: Impaired Driving / Over 80 mg (Client 671)

Lawyer: Paul C. Doroshenko
Client charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood/alcohol concentration over 80 mgs.

CASE FACTS:
Following a serious head-on collision, the accused was transported to the hospital where blood samples were obtained by the Burnaby RCMP showing a blood/alcohol concentration of 240 mgs in 100 ml of blood.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
No evidence that the blood/alcohol concentration was over 80 mgs at the time of driving. Symptoms of impairment observed are equally consistent with a head injury resulting from the collision.

Re: Impaired Driving / Over 80 mg (Client 680)

Lawyer: Paul C. Doroshenko
Accused client charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood/alcohol concentration over 80 mgs.

CASE FACTS:
Accused client found near her damaged vehicle in a parking lot near the location of a collision. The investigating officer overheard her make a statement indicating that she was the driver. Three witnesses provide descriptions of the woman driver. After failing an approved screening device test, she was arrested and transported to the Burnaby RCMP detachment where she provided 2 samples of her breath both indicating a blood/alcohol concentration of 170 mg in 100 ml of blood.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
The breath samples are inadmissible because the officer did not have the requisite opinion of who was driving at the time of making the ASD demand. The impaired charge is dismissed because the Crown’s evidence falls significantly short of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the client is the driver.

Re: Impaired Driving / Over 80 mg (Client 827)

Lawyer: Paul C. Doroshenko
Client charged with impaired driving, driving with a blood/alcohol content over 80 mg, and dangerous driving.

CASE FACTS:
Vancouver police conduct a high speed pursuit over Burrard Inlet and ending near the city centre. The motorcycles are described as traveling up to 110 kph, swerving and narrowly avoiding a collision. Following the stop of one motorcyclist, the client is charged with three criminal code offences.

HELD: NOT GUILTY:
On pre-trial application by defence, charge of over 80 mg stayed. At trial held “the officers must have been mistaken about the speed the motorcycle was traveling”. Insufficient evidence to find that his ability to drive was impaired. ACQUITTED ON ALL CHARGES.

Re: Over 80 mg (Client 908)

Lawyer: Paul C. Doroshenko
Client charged in Brampton Ontario with driving while over .08% alcohol in his blood.

CASE FACTS:
Client and his cousin pulled over by the Peel Regional Police driving from a notorious tavern. He is arrested and taken to the detachment. When asked if he has a lawyer he says “I do in Vancouver.” The police officer says in Ontario “we have a 1-800 number.” The client responds “sure wonderful” and allows the police to make the call. After speaking with a duty-counsel lawyer, he blew over 80 mg in a 100 ml on the Intoxilyzer.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
The accused clearly indicated that he had a lawyer in Vancouver. He was entitled to call his Vancouver Criminal lawyer, but the police did not inform him of this right or assist him. The police obstructed his right to call his criminal lawyer in Vancouver. The evidence of the Intoxilyzer is not admissible. Case dismissed.

Re: Impaired Driving / Over 80 mg (Client 946)

Lawyer: Paul C. Doroshenko
Accused client charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood/alcohol concentration over 80 mgs.

CASE FACTS:
Accused pulled over by the West Vancouver police for swerving over the center line, odour of liquor, failed a roadside breath test. Arrested and transported to the police station where breath tests were made showing a blood/alcohol concentration of 180 mgs in 100 ml of blood.

HELD: NOT GUILTY
The breath samples are inadmissible evidence because the demand for the samples is invalid. Evidence of swerving over the line is consistent with driving a large vehicle on a narrow road.