[Maritime Q-Scout]

BBS the reason he thinks he has a grounds for appeal (as do I, and hockeycop and a few others) is as follows:

Any reasonable person would believe he has alcohol in his system.

However, the standard is NOT what a reasonable person would believe, but proof beyond all reasonable doubt. There is a difference. An officer's belief does not equate proof beyond all reasonable doubt, it mearly equates to likely on a balance of probabilities.

There was a poster back somewhere in the dredge of 16 pages that said something similar happened to them, but when given the breathalyser he passed. Should they have still been charged? No.

Here the officer (if the information given is correct) did not properly execute his/her power. The system is set up so police cannot abuse their powers, part of this check is to ensure they follow procedure to ensure proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

With the information given, again I say with the information given, I believe that on a balance of probabilities the OP had alcohol in his system, however I cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt he did. I could if the police officer did their job properly (provided what we're told is accurate they did not).

If anything it will be getting off on a technicality. As the statute says in order to be charged a breathalyser must be given or refused. But if the officer did their job properly (which we pay them to do) we'd know for sure and there wouldn't be any debate.


The technicality is there so a police officer can't just pull over a teenager at 2:30 and say I smell alcohol, you lose your car for 30 days. If the OP admitted to having a drink, then the officer should have said "this will be real easy, blow here".