Weighing the Accused Violated Her Constitutional Rights
In R. v. McLachlan, 2017 ONSC 1471, breath samples of an individual
charged with “over 80 mg” were taken more than two hours after the offence;
therefore, the Crown was unable to rely on the presumption of identity in
section 258 the Criminal Code.
In order to establish that no
bolus drinking has occurred, the Crown’s toxicologist required evidence of the
weight of the accused. While the accused
was in the cellblock, she was required to stand on a scale and provide her
weight to the breath technician officer, as was Ottawa Police Service policy.
This constituted a search under section 8 of
the Charter, as the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her weight when the evidence was going to be a key element in the finding of guilt.
R. v. McLachlan, at para 45.
The Criminal Code nor the Identification
of Criminals Act, nor any other statute authorize such a procedure, and the
procedure/search was not for any of the purposes authorized under the common law doctrine
of search incident to arrest.
The evidence of the accused’s
weight, obtained in violation of the Charter,
was excluded pursuant to section 24(2).
[FN: the bolus drinking defence is
ordered around the hypothesis that at the time the individual had care and control
of the motor vehicle her blood alcohol content was not over the legal limit,
though her blood alcohol content did thereafter exceed the legal limit. This phenomenon is a result of the time it
takes for recently consumed alcohol to transfer to the bloodstream.]
Comments
Post a Comment