The Information to Obtain ("ITO") stated, among other things, that "uring the course of the investigation police learned that the was taken to hospital and basic trauma blood work and urine were drawn for medical purposes", and that the respondent's "blood and urine were tested and registered positive and well above the legal limit for alcohol." (This statement was inaccurate in part, because at the time the ITO was prepared, the police had no information about the results of the respondent's blood test.) The ITO also stated that P.C. "The police obtained search warrants authorizing the seizure of the respondent's medical records pertaining to her treatment in hospital following the collision, as well as the samples of her blood and urine that were taken while she was there.
Subsequent analysis of the blood revealed that, at the time of the collision, the respondent's blood alcohol concentration was well over the legal limit." (Para 2) Urine and blood samples were taken at the hospital and eventually seized under warrant. One of the officers noticed a faint odour of alcohol, but did not suspect that the respondent was impaired or that she had done anything to contribute to the collision. While there, she responded to the questions of two police officers. The respondent was brought to the hospital. Unfortunately, the occupant of the second car died of her injuries. "On October 27, 2014, the respondent's car collided head on with another car that was travelling in the wrong direction. This case is an excellent example how fortuitous happenstance that gives a police officer grounds for further conduct that would otherwise infringe Charter rights should be suspect and is deserving of special scrutiny by the Courts. Placing police officer evidence beyond credibility and reliability scrutiny by the Court is often at the root of a reversal of the onus of proof in criminal trials. Defence counsel should not have to bring case law to show that police can and do lie or are unreliable historians, but where there are similarities, it cannot hurt to be prepared.
Often, their recollections are biased in favour of their legal position even when they are attempting to provide an unbiased factual account. Ultimately, police can and do lie in court.
Jydge ito advise caution trial#
The Court of Appeal upheld this finding because it was within the discretion of the trial judge. Campbell (ONCA) Section 8 - Warrantless Request for Hospital Alcohol Testing - 24(2) - Seriousness: Intentional Warrantless Seizure of Medical Results - Impact: Right to Privacy in Medical Records and Samples Collected - Credibility Finding Against Police Officer - 2019 ONCA 258 ĪUTHOR’S NOTE: This case turned on the trial judge's finding that the police officer that overheard the utterances about the Accused's urine alcohol content at the hospital (following a collision investigation) didn't just fortuitously happen.
0 kommentar(er)
