The police received a call regarding an impaired driver who was sitting inside truck in a driveway.
When the police arrived they found the accused sitting in the driver’s seat of the vehicle. The truck was parked in the driveway with the keys in the ignition, the engine was running and the radio was on.
The Police asked the driver to step out of the vehicle.
The man had a strong odour of alcohol on his breath, his eyes were red, glassy and his speech was slurred. Upon exiting the vehicle he was swaying back and forth, and was unsteady on his feet.
The man needed to hold himself up with the railing from the stairs to stop from falling on the ground. Inside the vehicle, police found 2 empty cans of Budweiser beer. In the center console there was an opened bottle of Miller Genuine Draft that the accused admitted to be drinking.
The police officer formed the opinion that man’s ability to have care or control of his motor vehicle was impaired by the consumption of alcohol. The police officer then arrested the man at 10:17pm for the charge of care or control while impaired.
At the trial, Toronto Criminal Lawyer Nicholas Charitsis argued that Mr. CV had no intention of putting his vehicle into motion.
Mr. Charitsis submitted that the call to police was made at 9:57pm and police didn’t arrive on scene until 10:06pm-10:12pm.
Charitsis argued that if the accused was in fact going to drive he would have made that decision and driven away in the 9-15 minutes prior to the police arriving at the scene.
The Crown Attorney argued that because the accused was so impaired, there was a risk or danger that the accused might have changed his mind and put the vehicle in motion. The crown attorney argued that the public was only spared because the police arrived just in time.
In cross examination of the police officers, defence lawyer Charitsis established that the police did not do a thorough investigation of the vehicle.
Defence Lawyer Charitsis asked the police officer “Did you do a walk around the vehicle to inspect it for any damages?”; the officer answered “No”; Charitsis then asked the officer if he recalled that the rear passenger side tire of the vehicle had a flat.
The police officer could not say for sure whether it did or didn’t. Charitsis then made submissions stating that is was not possible for the vehicle to be put in motion, therefore there was no risk of danger to the public. The accused also testified at the trial and gave evidence about the condition of his vehicle and confirmed that he had a flat tire.
The accused stated that he went into his vehicle to seek refuge from an argument he just had with his wife and admitted that he was consuming alcohol and listening to music in his vehicle to cool off.
Justice Keaney agreed that the crown did not prove the charge of Care and Control while Impaired beyond a reasonable doubt, that he believed that the accused had no intent to drive.
The Judge found the accused not guilty.
Experience counts in criminal defence. Knowing the court system, the crown attorney’s, police and judges and having them know you can have dramatic implications.
