Recent Cases

R.v.Client
The Client was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The police were called and the client was taken to a police station to provide a breath sample. The client provided two samples; the first sample read 170 and the second sample sample also 170.
There was a trial before a Provincial Court Judge, and the defense argued that the police officer did not have sufficient reasonable and probable ground to demand a breath sample; the Judge agreed with the defense motion and excluded both readings. The client was found not guilty.

R. v. Client
The Client was driving his father’s SUV and was stopped for a traffic infraction. The police searched the motor vehicle and found cocaine under the passenger seat, wrapped in a zip lock plastic bag. Note: no fingerprints were found on the bag. The Client went to trial and was found not guilty as, the Prosecutor could not prove knowledge and control.

R.v.Client
The Client was found by the police to be asleep in his truck while lying across the bench seat of his truck with the key in the ignition. He was taken to the police station to provide two breath samples. The Client provided two samples; the first sample read 160 and the second sample 170. Defense convinced the Prosecutor that they would not get a conviction as they could not prove the intention to drive.

R.v Client
The Client was stopped by the police who had reports that the driver of motor vehicle was weaving on the road. The Client was taken to police station, where he provided three breath samples: the first sample read 210, the second sample was invalid, the third sample read 210. Defense counsel had asked Prosecutor’s office to preserve and send video of the Client’s booking-in procedure at police station. Prosecutor disclosed that video had been destroyed after request had been received by them. On the trial date, the Prosecutor did not have the breath technician there to explain the extra breath sample. Defense convinced the Prosecutor not to proceed with case.

R.v.Client
The Client was driving her two friends home after a party and was stopped by police. The police demanded that the Client to go to station to provide breath samples. While there, the Client provided two breath samples. The first sample read 190, and the second sample read 180. The Client had tried to contact Defense Counsel as he had successfully defended friends of hers previously; however, the police did not provide her with the proper assistance in getting a lawyer. The Prosecutor did not proceed, as the Defense Counsel convinced the Prosecutor that they would not succeed as the Client’s right to counsel was not properly complied with.

R.v.Client
The Client was pulled over by the police. The police requested that client provide a breath sample on a roadside screening device. The Client refused to provide breath sample, and the Client was charged with one count of refusing to provide breath sample. On the trial date Prosecutor did not proceed with charges as Defense Counsel convinced them that there were too many problems in the calibration of the roadside screening device, and that the proper demand put by the police.

R.v Client.
Client was pulled over at 10:30 AM for speeding. He was driving a Jeep convertible with a boat in tow. The Police Officer told the Court that he detected the odor of liquor, glassy eyes, and asked the Client to blow into a roadside Breathalyzer; the client failed. He was taken to Police Station where he provided two breath samples of 240 and 230 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood. Police officer had not established “reasonable suspicion” to ask the Client to provide a roadside sample; therefore, the breath readings at the Police station were excluded from the trial. Client was found not guilty.

R.v.Client
The Client was driving in the company truck. He was pulled over by police for speeding, and eventually the Police found a quantity of Cocaine under the driver’s seat in a plastic bag. Prosecutor took the charge to trial, there was no fingerprint evidence introduced. Client found not guilty as there was no proof of knowledge that Client knew Cocaine was under truck seat.

R. v. Client
The Client approached a female standing on street in an area of Vancouver which is know to have prostitutes. The Client discussed with female the purchase of sex in exchange for money, unfortunately for the Client the female was an undercover Police Officer posing as a prostitute. The Client was charged; however, after having gone to court and presenting the defense, the Client successfully left court with no Criminal Record.