R. v. Roberts – Video Evidence & Impaired Driving
How Video Evidence Must Support Impairment in DUI Cases
In R. v. Roberts, the court examined whether the police had enough evidence to support an impaired driving charge and a lawful breathalyzer demand.
The officer’s observations suggested impairment, but police video told a different story and contradicted important parts of the officer’s evidence.
The case came down to whether the Crown had enough reliable evidence to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge found that it did not, and Roberts was found not guilty.As impaired driving lawyers, we often refer to court decisions from higher courts to defend a charge against you.
There is more to an impaired driving case than simply whether you were driving and blew over the legal limit. Video evidence should support what the police say happened. When it doesn’t, those differences can raise serious questions about the impaired driving charge.
Charged with a drinking and driving offence, speak to Toronto DUI lawyer Nicholas Charitsis at 416-731-7113.
What Happened in R. v. Roberts?
Constable Danyluk-Gough told the court that he noticed Roberts’s vehicle travelling unusually slowly.
The officer said he followed Roberts and observed him make several driving movements that he considered suspicious, including turning without signalling and driving close to the curb. Roberts eventually pulled into a gas station.
The officer approached Roberts and spoke with him. The officer said he noticed an odour of alcohol on his breath, bloodshot eyes and what he believed was slurred speech. When questioned Roberts admitted that he had consumed alcohol. The police officer also believed Roberts was unsteady when he got out of his vehicle and had difficulty maintaining his balance.
Based on everything he had observed, the officer formed the opinion that the man’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired due to the consumption of an alcoholic beverage and the officer arrested Roberts for impaired driving.
Rather than giving Roberts a roadside screening test, the officer took him directly for a breathalyzer test at the police station. At the police station, Roberts was asked to provide breath samples. Roberts refused to give the breath samples, which led to a second charge of refusing to comply with a breath demand.
Police dash-camera, body-camera and breath-room video recorded much of what happened during the investigation and arrest.
Relevant Case Law:
R. v. Roberts — Ontario Court of Justice (Year and citation to be confirmed)
[View the full decision on CanLII (Canadian Legal Information Institute)]
The Legal Issue in R. v. Roberts
R. v. Roberts raised two legal questions about impaired driving and refusing a breath test.
- First, did the Crown have enough evidence to prove that Roberts was impaired by alcohol beyond a reasonable doubt?
- Second, did the police officer have reasonable grounds to make a breathalyzer demand?
- If the demand was lawful, Roberts could be convicted for refusing to provide a breath sample. If the officer did not have the required grounds, Roberts had no legal obligation to provide one.
The court considered whether:
- The officer’s observations were enough to establish impairment
- The officer had reasonable grounds to demand a breath sample
- The police video supported the officer’s observations
- Roberts could lawfully be convicted of refusing the breath demand
The video evidence became particularly important because it allowed the judge to compare what the officer said he observed with what was actually recorded during the investigation.
What the Court Decided in R. v. Roberts
The judge found that the Crown had not proven that Roberts was impaired by alcohol beyond a reasonable doubt. Although “the officer believed” Roberts was impaired, several of his observations were not supported by the police video evidence.
The judge also found that the officer did not have reasonable grounds to make the breathalyzer demand. Because the demand for a breathalyzer test was not lawful, Roberts could not be convicted for refusing to provide a breath sample.
The court found that:
- The evidence did not prove impaired driving beyond a reasonable doubt
- The video did not support several of the officer’s observations
- The officer lacked reasonable grounds for the breath demand
- Roberts therefore had no legal obligation to provide the requested breath sample
Roberts was found not guilty of both impaired driving and refusing the breath demand.g convictions require strong, legally compliant evidence.
Why Video Evidence Matters in Impaired Driving Cases
Many times video evidence can work in favor of the accused.
Video evidence is becoming increasingly important in impaired driving cases. Police cruisers, body-worn cameras and police stations may record parts of an impaired driving investigation, providing evidence that can later be compared with what an officer wrote in their notes or says in court.
R. v. Roberts shows why this matters. The police video allowed the judge to compare the officer’s observations with what was actually recorded. When the two did not fully match, it raised important questions about the officer used to support the impaired driving arrest and breath demand.
That is why an impaired driving case should be carefully reviewed by a DUI lawyer. The police reports may tell only part of the story. Video, breath-testing records and other evidence may reveal issues that are not obvious when you are first charged.
Before deciding how to deal with an impaired driving or refusal charge, speak with Nicholas Charitsis about the evidence against you and whether it can be challenged.
Frequently Asked Questions About R. v. Roberts
Q. Do all police officers wear body cameras in Ontario?
No. Not every police officer in Ontario wears a body-worn camera. Whether an encounter is recorded depends on the police service, the officer and the circumstances. An impaired driving investigation may also be captured by a police cruiser dashcam or other police video systems.
Q. Are impaired driving investigations recorded on video?
They can be. Video may come from police body cameras, cruiser dashcams, police station booking areas or breath-testing rooms. Depending on the case, these recordings can show how a person was driving, speaking, walking and interacting with police.
Q. What happens if police video contradicts the officer’s testimony?
Video can be important when it does not support what an officer says they observed. In R. v. Roberts, the judge compared the officer’s observations with the available video and found that several important observations were not supported by the recordings. This contributed to the judge’s concerns about the evidence resulting in the not guilty decision.
Q. Can police video help fight an impaired driving charge?
Yes. Video can sometimes provide independent evidence of what happened during an impaired driving investigation. A DUI lawyer can compare the recordings with the officer’s notes and testimony to determine whether claims about slurred speech, balance, driving behaviour or other signs of impairment are supported by what was actually recorded.
Q. Can video evidence affect whether a breathalyzer demand was lawful?
Yes. Police must have the legally required grounds for certain breath demands. Video may help show whether the observations relied upon by the officer actually occurred. In Roberts, the video was part of the evidence the judge considered in deciding that the officer did not have objectively reasonable grounds for the breath demand.
