DUI Defence: Drinking Driving Charges Make No Sense

Jason is an estate agent. He can’t afford to lose his driving license because of his work. One night, while he was coming back from an event, he ended in the ditch on the 30 highway. When police officers arrived on the scene, Jason was outside his car. There was no witness of the accident and nobody saw Jason driving his car. Police officers asked him who was driving the car, and he answered that it was him. Police officers then suspected for some reason that his ability to operate his vehicle might be affected by alcohol and asked him to blow in an screening device roadside. Jason failed that test and was transported to the police station where he provided two breath samples with results of 169 and 165 mgs of alcohol per 100 ml of blood.

Jason was accused of impaired driving. He decided to consult Mr Benoît Gariépy since his career was on the line. He thought, like many others, that since he had high results, there was nothing that could be done. However he was wrong. Besides other arguments which could have been exploited at trial, there was one major flaw in the evidence: the only evidence that Jason was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident was the statement he made roadside when the police officers reached the scene. This admission could not be used against Jason at his trial because it was made after the police officer asked him questions. Indeed, these questions which placed him in the obligation to answer were done before Jason was given his rights, more importantly his right to speak to a lawyer and his right to remain silent.

In course of the trial, Mr Benoît Gariépy asserted this argument and the judge decided that the way the police officers acted was illegal. Since the prosecution was missing an essential element of the offense, Jason was therefore acquitted of all the charges.

Written judgment available if requested.