| Revision as of 02:34, 13 August 2009 editPKT (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers253,285 editsm →References← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:36, 19 April 2010 edit undoFrescoBot (talk | contribs)Bots1,135,457 editsm Bot: links syntax and spacingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Merge|Approved instrument|date=August 2009}} | {{Merge|Approved instrument|date=August 2009}} | ||
| {{Cleanup|date=July 2007}} | {{Cleanup|date=July 2007}} | ||
| An '''approved screening device''' is a device used to measure the ] level of a suspected ]. It is defined in the ] as: <blockquote>approved screening device means a device of a kind that is designed to ascertain the presence of alcohol in the blood of a person and that is approved for the purposes of this section by order of the Attorney General of Canada.<ref>Criminal Code of Canada section 254 (1)</ref></blockquote> An approved screening device demand can be made whenever a police officer reasonably suspects that a motorist has alcohol in his or her body.<ref>Criminal Code of Canada section 254(2)</ref> In Ontario, Canada police have a general power to stop drivers to check sobriety.<ref>Ontario Highway Traffic Act section 48 and 216 (1)</ref> | An '''approved screening device''' is a device used to measure the ] level of a suspected ]. It is defined in the ] as: <blockquote>approved screening device means a device of a kind that is designed to ascertain the presence of alcohol in the blood of a person and that is approved for the purposes of this section by order of the Attorney General of Canada.<ref> Criminal Code of Canada section 254 (1)</ref></blockquote> An approved screening device demand can be made whenever a police officer reasonably suspects that a motorist has alcohol in his or her body.<ref> Criminal Code of Canada section 254(2)</ref> In Ontario, Canada police have a general power to stop drivers to check sobriety.<ref> Ontario Highway Traffic Act section 48 and 216 (1)</ref> | ||
| The ''Approved Screening Devices Order''<ref>Canada Regulations SI/88-136, s. 1; SOR/93-263, s. 2; SOR/94-193, s. 1; SOR/94-423, s. 1; SOR/96-81, s. 1; SOR/97-116, s. 1 </ref> establishes certain devices as approved screening devices for use in Canada. These devices are commonly known as ''roadside testers'' or simply as an ''ASD''. In the United States they are known as a '']'', which stands for preliminary breath test. | The ''Approved Screening Devices Order''<ref> Canada Regulations SI/88-136, s. 1; SOR/93-263, s. 2; SOR/94-193, s. 1; SOR/94-423, s. 1; SOR/96-81, s. 1; SOR/97-116, s. 1 </ref> establishes certain devices as approved screening devices for use in Canada. These devices are commonly known as ''roadside testers'' or simply as an ''ASD''. In the United States they are known as a '']'', which stands for preliminary breath test. | ||
| It is a criminal offence in Canada to refuse an approved screening device demand that has been lawfully made. Section 254(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides as follows: | It is a criminal offence in Canada to refuse an approved screening device demand that has been lawfully made. Section 254(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides as follows: | ||
| <blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
| (5) Every one commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a demand made to him by a peace officer under this section.<ref>Criminal Code of Canada section 254(5)</ref> | (5) Every one commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a demand made to him by a peace officer under this section.<ref> Criminal Code of Canada section 254(5)</ref> | ||
| </blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| Possible defences to this offence include challenges to the lawfulness of the demand. Sometimes a demand is unlawful because it is not made forthwith or sometimes the device in question is not used forthwith.<ref>See particularly R. v. Woods</ref> The demand should be made by the same officer who formed the reasonable suspicion.<ref>R. v. Pavel</ref> Lack of an opportunity to speak to counsel prior to the screening device test is not a defence. <ref>R. v. Thomsen</ref> The results of the screening device test can only be used to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the ] demand, not for evidentiary purposes on the trial proper in Canada.<ref>R. v. Coutts, R. v. Milne</ref> | Possible defences to this offence include challenges to the lawfulness of the demand. Sometimes a demand is unlawful because it is not made forthwith or sometimes the device in question is not used forthwith.<ref> See particularly R. v. Woods</ref> The demand should be made by the same officer who formed the reasonable suspicion.<ref> R. v. Pavel</ref> Lack of an opportunity to speak to counsel prior to the screening device test is not a defence. <ref> R. v. Thomsen</ref> The results of the screening device test can only be used to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the ] demand, not for evidentiary purposes on the trial proper in Canada.<ref> R. v. Coutts, R. v. Milne</ref> | ||
| The Crown generally discloses compliance by the police with standards by providing copies of maintenance and calibration records for the screening device.<ref>See R. v. Neil Campbell as well as notes respecting relevance of such disclosure</ref> Police are expected to wait 15 to 20 minutes to administer the test if they suspect alcohol is present in the suspect's mouth.<ref>R. v. Bernshaw</ref> | The Crown generally discloses compliance by the police with standards by providing copies of maintenance and calibration records for the screening device.<ref> See R. v. Neil Campbell as well as notes respecting relevance of such disclosure</ref> Police are expected to wait 15 to 20 minutes to administer the test if they suspect alcohol is present in the suspect's mouth.<ref> R. v. Bernshaw</ref> | ||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 06:36, 19 April 2010
 | It has been suggested that this article be merged with Approved instrument. (Discuss) Proposed since August 2009. |
 | This article may require cleanup to meet Misplaced Pages's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can. (July 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
An approved screening device is a device used to measure the blood alcohol level of a suspected drunk driver. It is defined in the Criminal Code of Canada as:
approved screening device means a device of a kind that is designed to ascertain the presence of alcohol in the blood of a person and that is approved for the purposes of this section by order of the Attorney General of Canada.
An approved screening device demand can be made whenever a police officer reasonably suspects that a motorist has alcohol in his or her body. In Ontario, Canada police have a general power to stop drivers to check sobriety.
The Approved Screening Devices Order establishes certain devices as approved screening devices for use in Canada. These devices are commonly known as roadside testers or simply as an ASD. In the United States they are known as a PBT, which stands for preliminary breath test.
It is a criminal offence in Canada to refuse an approved screening device demand that has been lawfully made. Section 254(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides as follows:
(5) Every one commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a demand made to him by a peace officer under this section.
Possible defences to this offence include challenges to the lawfulness of the demand. Sometimes a demand is unlawful because it is not made forthwith or sometimes the device in question is not used forthwith. The demand should be made by the same officer who formed the reasonable suspicion. Lack of an opportunity to speak to counsel prior to the screening device test is not a defence. The results of the screening device test can only be used to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the approved instrument demand, not for evidentiary purposes on the trial proper in Canada.
The Crown generally discloses compliance by the police with standards by providing copies of maintenance and calibration records for the screening device. Police are expected to wait 15 to 20 minutes to administer the test if they suspect alcohol is present in the suspect's mouth.
See also
References
- Criminal Code of Canada section 254 (1)
- Criminal Code of Canada section 254(2)
- Ontario Highway Traffic Act section 48 and 216 (1)
- Canada Regulations SI/88-136, s. 1; SOR/93-263, s. 2; SOR/94-193, s. 1; SOR/94-423, s. 1; SOR/96-81, s. 1; SOR/97-116, s. 1
- Criminal Code of Canada section 254(5)
- See particularly R. v. Woods
- R. v. Pavel
- R. v. Thomsen
- R. v. Coutts, R. v. Milne
- See R. v. Neil Campbell as well as notes respecting relevance of such disclosure
- R. v. Bernshaw