Skip to main content


Refusing a Breathalyzer Test: 5 Legal Defenses Explained
A breathalyzer test refusal is a serious DUI criminal charge, but understanding your legal options is crucial. We regularly see cases where specific legal defences can significantly impact the outcome of a breathalyzer refusal charge. Let's examine five powerful defences that could help fight this charge.


1. The Invalid Demand Defence


Many people are unaware that police officers must follow specific protocols when requesting a breath sample. The law requires what's called a "clear and unequivocal demand." This isn't just legal jargon – it's a crucial distinction that could affect your case.


For instance, there's a significant legal difference between an officer asking, "Would you like to take a breath test?" and stating, "I demand you provide a breath sample." This subtle distinction has led to dismissed cases when officers phrase their request as a question rather than a proper demand. The law requires absolute clarity, and any ambiguity could work in your favour.

2. Charter Violations Defence


Your Charter rights provide essential legal protections, and any violation of these rights could potentially lead to a successful defence. Here are key Charter considerations in breathalyzer refusal cases:

- Right to legal counsel at the police station (though this doesn't apply to roadside testing)


- Lawfulness of detention


- Reasonable grounds for breath sample demand


- Timing and potential unreasonable delays

Any breach of these rights could result in your case being thrown out.


3. The Reasonable Excuse Defence


Perhaps the most misunderstood defence is the concept of a "reasonable excuse." Contrary to popular belief, you don't need to prove your excuse beyond all doubt. The legal standard only requires raising what's called an "air of reality."


Several conditions might qualify as reasonable excuses:

- Medical conditions such as asthma or COPD


- Physical limitations like broken ribs


- Severe anxiety


- Age-related difficulties

Once you present a reasonable excuse, the burden shifts to the Crown to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.


4. Problems with the Device


Technical issues with breathalyzer devices can provide a strong defence. These sophisticated instruments require the following:

- Regular maintenance


- Proper calibration


- Correct setup procedures

Any technical failures in these areas could potentially invalidate the refusal charge. Device maintenance records and calibration data can be crucial evidence for this defence.


5. The Mouth Alcohol Defence


The timing of your last drink can significantly impact breathalyzer results. If you consumed alcohol within 15 minutes of the test, this could affect the validity of the demand. Police officers should observe a waiting period before demanding a breath sample, mainly if they know you've just left a bar. This waiting period isn't just a procedural formality – it's essential for accurate results.


Conclusion


Breathalyzer refusal cases are more complex than they might initially appear. While these five defences can be powerful tools in fighting a refusal charge, their effectiveness depends largely on proper legal expertise and application.


If you're facing a breathalyzer refusal charge, seeking professional legal counsel who can evaluate your situation and determine which defences might apply to your case is crucial.

https://youtu.be/4S9OlhjeekM https://www.nextlaw.ca/?p=31284

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Office Location is Irrelevant When Choosing Ontario's Best Stunt Driving Lawyer When facing stunt driving charges under Section 172(1) of Ontario's Highway Traffic Act, many defendants make a critical error that could compromise their defence: choosing legal representation based solely on proximity to their courthouse. Jon Cohen, legal representative at Nextlaw—Ontario's leading stunt driving lawyer—explains why this geography-based approach is not only outdated but potentially harmful to your case outcome. The Virtual Court Revolution Changed Everything Since 2021, Ontario's court system has undergone a fundamental transformation that most defendants don't realize. Court appearances for legal representatives are now conducted one hundred percent online across all fifty-two Provincial Offences Courts in Ontario. This shift to virtual proceedings means that whether Nextlaw operates from its Toronto office at 250 University Avenue or any other location in On...
Post a Comment
Read more
Challenging a distracted driving charge in Ontario is not a lost cause. With the right strategies, you can successfully defend yourself. Here are the most effective defences that have brought relief to many facing these charges. 1. Insufficient Evidence Officer's Observations The prosecution must prove that you were using a prohibited device while driving. The officer's testimony must be clear and consistent about what they observed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in their observations, this can create reasonable doubt about your guilt. 2. Emergency Situation Defence Legitimate Emergencies Ontario law recognizes exceptions for emergencies. If you can demonstrate that you were using your device to: - Call 911 - Contact emergency medical services - Respond to a genuine emergency This defence can be valid, though you must provide concrete evidence to support your claim. 3. Technical Device Defence Device Status and Mounting This defence focuses on...
Post a Comment
Read more
Distracted driving has become one of the most significant road safety issues in Ontario and across Canada in recent years. To address this growing problem, the Ontario government introduced Section 78(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, which prohibits using hand-held devices while driving. This article provides a detailed overview of Section 78(1), its implications for drivers, and its impact on road safety in Ontario. Background and Context With the proliferation of smartphones and other mobile devices, distracted driving emerged as a significant concern. Studies have shown that using a phone while driving significantly increases the risk of accidents. In response, Ontario first banned hand-held devices while driving in 2009. Section 78(1) was later introduced to strengthen and clarify these laws. Key Provisions of Section 78(1) - Section 78(1) of the Highway Traffic Act states: "No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held wireless co...
Post a Comment
Read more