[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Sorry I should clarify on what I mean...you can use a roadside screening device as part of your grounds to arrest for impaired driving. A police officer needs to believe that your ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol, and a roadside can help come to that conclusion. Courts usually put into their exhibits the calibration records for said roadside and accept that a "fail" warning is sufficient grounds for a justifiable arrest...numerous case law on this and this is pretty much common practice if you're asked to provide a sample on a roadside. Obviously the reading of "fail" is based on the officers testimony, as there is no print out or such like a breathalyzer.

Thus, in that respect, a "fail" reading on a roadside is enough to get you arrested for impaired driving. Furthermore, you could just get charged on impaired driving based on the indicia of alcohol within your system and the "fail" on the roadside. The second charge (ie. blowing over 0.08), is based on the results from the breathalyzer. The majority of time they go hand in hand and you get charged with both (or refusal if you refuse to provide a sample on the roadside or on the breathalyzer).

I know first hand that such things are common practice in Calgary and I'd presume Alberta as well. But ultimately, just cause you blow a fail, doesn't mean it can't be used against you in court. There's a reason you are read a breath demand before they administer it and explains the jeopardy you can be facing if you refuse.

Its definitely not something to take lightly and I hope people take it first hand that all this debate aside on the proposed amendments that being on the wrong side of the roadside is a horrible, (should be) life changing experience and I'd hope no one has to go through it if they put themselves in that position to drive. Chances are, charges will be dropped or a deal is plead, and quite often you come out of it pretty scotch free for all the hoopla (there's a reason that there is so much case law for impaireds...I believe some of the most for a criminal matter) but hopefully take this to heart that even the process is a horrible thing to be involved in.

Sounds like we agree--sorry for the confusion.

In my experience, people are generally charged with both "Impaired" and "Over .08"--and the Crown only has to make out one of the two charges. Usually, the Over .08 is easier for them, unless there's a Charter issue that winds up excluding some of the evidence--which since R v Grant is harder.