Skyway bridge crash: Judge cites charter, rules out breath tests

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
12,709
2,601
113
What a bunch of incompetent idiots. Can you imagine if this happened in the Marco Muzzo crash? Someone should lose their job over this, but won't.



Breath tests showing that an Ontario man had more than twice the legal limit of alcohol in his bloodstream five hours after he crashed his dump truck into the Skyway bridge have been ruled inadmissible as evidence.

On Monday at the Ontario court of justice in Hamilton, Judge Fred Campling ruled the tests and their analysis inadmissible because they were collected more than three hours after the collision. That delay amounts to a violation of an accused's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Campling ruled.

Sukhvinder Rai faces numerous charges including impaired driving, driving over 80 mgs, dangerous driving and four counts of mischief endangering life in connection with a collision on the Burlington Skyway on July 31, 2014. He's pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Campling said excluding the breath samples will result in an acquittal on the over-80 mgs charge and likely an acquittal on the impaired driving charge. It could also have some impact on the dangerous driving charge and the mischief charge.

Campling wasn't convinced by Crown arguments that the evidence should be allowed because of the unique circumstances of the crash and the chaotic "mess" officers encountered on the bridge.

Since the trial began March 2, the court has heard testimony from several OPP officers who interacted with Rai. Two of those officers, Const. Andrew Halliday and Const. Hermano Clerigo, testified they forgot about the three-hour window in which they were legally allowed to demand a breath sample from Rai.

The crash happened at 3:35 p.m. and the demand for a breath sample didn't come until after 7 p.m.

Halliday, who held Rai in the back of his police vehicle for hours following the crash, did not notice the smell of alcohol on Rai's breath until after 7:10 p.m.

'They made a mistake'

Campling quoted Section 8 of the charter — which states everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure — and said the officers violated this right when they obtained breath samples outside of the legal three-hour window.

He then cited section 24(2) of the charter, which says evidence obtained through a violation of an accused's charter rights will be inadmissible in court.

"They did not follow the law. They made a mistake," Campling said, speaking of the officers.

"To me, it would be strange, approaching Alice in Wonderland strangeness, and unconscionable if the police and the Crown were better off for making a mistake than they would have been if they had followed the law.

"Accordingly, I rule your breath samples and the analysis of them inadmissible."

Campling made his ruling without hearing arguments from the defence.

The crash caused roughly $1.2 million in damages and closed the Skyway for four days over the August long weekend in 2014.

Not a normal investigation

Last week, Clerigo, a breath technician with the Burlington police detachment, testified that Rai registered a score of 226 mg per 100 ml of blood on a breath test taken roughly five hours after the collision.

In Ontario, it's illegal to drive with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.

Assistant Crown attorney Todd Norman argued the breath test results should still be admissible. While conceding police made several errors while dealing with Rai, the breaches stemmed from the chaos and uncertainty officers faced on the bridge following the crash.

Halliday said he didn't think about the three-hour window when he demanded a breath sample from Rai, something Norman said was believable when the situation on the bridge was taken into account. This was "completely atypical of a normal impaired investigation and that has to affect the way police officers do their jobs," he testified.

Campling agreed the incident was a departure from a typical roadside impaired investigation, but added the circumstances don't make the breath tests any less illegal.

Campling said if officers had followed the law, the only evidence about alcohol would be the smell of an alcoholic beverage on the accused's breath several hours after the collision, and the liquid in a bottle in the truck that smelled like an alcoholic beverage.

The trial continues on Tuesday.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/skyway-bridge-crash-judge-cites-charter-rules-out-breath-tests-1.3490223
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,489
11
38
What a bunch of incompetent idiots. Can you imagine if this happened in the Marco Muzzo crash? Someone should lose their job over this, but won't.
The trial is still underway, the Crown can try to make the case he was driving dangerously and with impaired abilities even without the blood tests.

It is a bitter reminder of the consequences of over-reliance on technology to do the job simple educated observation can do though. It appears the cops ignored all the old-fashioned field sobriety stuff ('glazed eyes, inability to follow focus, slurred speech etc.') because they were too busy gawking and talking about the bridge damage. And since they had numerical readouts to convict with, who needed that Victorian-era stuff?

Who's the supervisor who let them get that careless? For what possible reason was the driver still sitting on the bridge hours later? Was there no one in charge?

But it ain't as if Niagara Region was noted for competent cops. As for competent Crowns, we shall see, Hard to imagine driving even a few feet on the Skyway with a dumptruck box in the air wouldn't count as prima facie dangerous driving.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,489
11
38
Police should be reprimanded but the guy was clearly drunk four hours later.
'Clearly and 'proven' are two quite different things, and he has to be proven drunk within the meaning of the law, all the law, and that includes the Charter. Thanks be, we stopped convicting and punishing people based on common sense (now there's an oxymoron for something exceedingly rare) many centuries ago.

If the Crown still has anything to say, that'll have to be built on testimony of those who observed the defendant, like 'he smelled of booze four hours later'. With enough of that stuff and perhaps with expert witnesses on alcohol metabolism he might just make a case that he was drunk when he drove.

As for the arresting officers having to ensure the safe flow of traffic, I cannot believe that there weren't ample police personnel on that bridge for that routine task within a few minutes of the call-in. Nor that the first responders long remained the highest ranks on the scene. But if either was the case, that's what phone-lists and overtime are for, and why supervisors get the big bucks. So that ordinary workers' ordinary little errors get caught before they turn into monstrous ones.

Who didn't ask, "Have you processed the drunk who did this?" How could professional law enforcers 'forget' they had a drunk locked in a cruiser's backseat for three hours. Sobering up, if not pissing and vomiting.
 

IM469

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2012
11,139
2,471
113
The trial is still underway, the Crown can try to make the case he was driving dangerously ..... As for competent Crowns, we shall see, Hard to imagine driving even a few feet on the Skyway with a dumptruck box in the air wouldn't count as prima facie dangerous driving.
So they don't get him on drunk driving - there still is other charges. If I drive recklessly and skid into a crowd of school children - I'm not going to walk away unscathed because I wasn't drunk.
 

Cassini

Active member
Jan 17, 2004
1,162
0
36
I was wondering if this legal tactic could backfire. If he wasn't drunk, then maybe he did it deliberately. Makes some of the other charges much easier to prove.
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
This is bull shit,...just another example of judges supporting their brothers, by creating more work lawyers.

The idiot judge,...Campling,... made his ruling without hearing arguments from the defence,... no other proof needed, to confirm what the idiot judges motivation was.

Plus the idiot judge stated that the cops made a mistake,...the judge is the "mistake" here.

FAST
 

Barca

Active member
Sep 8, 2008
2,061
4
38
Ugh... in a major car accident like this how is collecting this type of evidence not foremost on their minds??? Idiot cops. Were they the only ones on scene? Do they now have a senior officer who delegates responsibilities in a large scale operation like this?

Makes you wonder how competent they really are.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
22,496
1,366
113
What is the excuse of the police to delay the breath sample so long? Even if he required urgent medical care, this test could have been included in his blood panel. The cops know the laws, so it is really their incompetence that should be questioned. 5 hours is much too long for many good reasons. There is no incompetence by the judge. He is doing a great job being impartial and upholding the law. I am not sure if the law allows for alcohol test in an accident or if probable cause is still required.
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
Ugh... in a major car accident like this how is collecting this type of evidence not foremost on their minds??? Idiot cops. Were they the only ones on scene? Do they now have a senior officer who delegates responsibilities in a large scale operation like this?

Makes you wonder how competent they really are.
Yep,...got to get the priorities right,...:rolleyes:

FAST
 

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
12,709
2,601
113
So they don't get him on drunk driving - there still is other charges. If I drive recklessly and skid into a crowd of school children - I'm not going to walk away unscathed because I wasn't drunk.
Sure, drunk or sober taking out a bridge because you left your dump truck bed up warrants a careless or dangerous charge. Dangerous is much harder to prove and careless is a slap on the wrist.

This is bull shit,...just another example of judges supporting their brothers, by creating more work lawyers.

The idiot judge,...Campling,... made his ruling without hearing arguments from the defence,... no other proof needed, to confirm what the idiot judges motivation was.

Plus the idiot judge stated that the cops made a mistake,...the judge is the "mistake" here.

FAST
The judge did not make a mistake. The law is very clear. A breath sample must be taken within a specific time frame. The cops have to follow the rules. They didn't so the judge has no other option than to dismiss the charges.

Do you really want to live in a society where you can be convicted of a crime whether the cops follow the rules or not?

For example, cops decide to enter your home without a warrant. They find an unregistered gun and you're charged. You go to court, you're lawyer says the cops entered your premises without a warrant. The judge agrees that the cops didn't follow the rules, but finds you guilty anyway.

See the problem?
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
Idiot judge

Sure, drunk or sober taking out a bridge because you left your dump truck bed up warrants a careless or dangerous charge. Dangerous is much harder to prove and careless is a slap on the wrist.



The judge did not make a mistake. The law is very clear. A breath sample must be taken within a specific time frame. The cops have to follow the rules. They didn't so the judge has no other option than to dismiss the charges.

Do you really want to live in a society where you can be convicted of a crime whether the cops follow the rules or not?

For example, cops decide to enter your home without a warrant. They find an unregistered gun and you're charged. You go to court, you're lawyer says the cops entered your premises without a warrant. The judge agrees that the cops didn't follow the rules, but finds you guilty anyway.

See the problem?
"Campling quoted Section 8 of the charter — which states everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure",...

Yep,...that was definitely "unreasonable", to wait until the drunk was hospitalized,...:rolleyes:

FAST
 

Ridgeman08

50 Shades of AJ
Nov 28, 2008
4,495
2
38
See the problem?
Yes, I see the problem... it starts with an idiot driver, then moves to idiot cops, followed by idiot lawyers, and finally an idiot judge!

What ever happened to doing what's right in this case??!!

Slap the driver with dangerous driving conviction, along with drunk driving. Slap the cops with incompetence violation, slap the lawyers with well, just slap them for being idiots, and the judge should get reprimanded as well, for letting it get this far!

We have no justice system in this province.
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
Yes, I see the problem... it starts with an idiot driver, then moves to idiot cops, followed by idiot lawyers, and finally an idiot judge!

What ever happened to doing what's right in this case??!!

Slap the driver with dangerous driving conviction, along with drunk driving. Slap the cops with incompetence violation, slap the lawyers with well, just slap them for being idiots, and the judge should get reprimanded as well, for letting it get this far!

We have no justice system in this province.
Absolutely right,...we don't have a justice system,...we have a LEGAL system,...big difference.

FAST
 

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
12,709
2,601
113
Yes, I see the problem... it starts with an idiot driver, then moves to idiot cops, followed by idiot lawyers, and finally an idiot judge!

What ever happened to doing what's right in this case??!!

Slap the driver with dangerous driving conviction, along with drunk driving. Slap the cops with incompetence violation, slap the lawyers with well, just slap them for being idiots, and the judge should get reprimanded as well, for letting it get this far!

We have no justice system in this province.
The judge is not an idiot. If he convicts the driver after the cops screwed up, they'd win on appeal. I don't like it either, but the law is the law.

As for "doing what's right"... Why have the cops follow any rules, as long as they get their man!
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
75,884
85,329
113
This is bull shit,...just another example of judges supporting their brothers, by creating more work lawyers.

The idiot judge,...Campling,... made his ruling without hearing arguments from the defence,... no other proof needed, to confirm what the idiot judges motivation was.

Plus the idiot judge stated that the cops made a mistake,...the judge is the "mistake" here.

FAST
Ok, genius, we're going to do this slowly so you can follow.... Why would the judge need arguments from the Defence if the judge had already not been convinced by the Crown that the Crown's evidence should be admitted?

Think about it. Strain a little. Reach a conclusion. Report back with a post in this thread. And if I'm still interested, I'll have some fun picking apart the rest of your post.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
75,884
85,329
113
The judge is not an idiot. If he convicts the driver after the cops screwed up, they'd win on appeal. I don't like it either, but the law is the law.

As for "doing what's right"... Why have the cops follow any rules, as long as they get their man!
^^^^^ What the man said. The judge made a fairly commonsense ruling after the cops screwed up so badly that they invalidated their evidence with poor procedures. That's all.
 

Ridgeman08

50 Shades of AJ
Nov 28, 2008
4,495
2
38
The judge is not an idiot. If he convicts the driver after the cops screwed up, they'd win on appeal. I don't like it either, but the law is the law.

As for "doing what's right"... Why have the cops follow any rules, as long as they get their man!
The fact that your reasoning of an appeal, is not justification, it is the symptom of a broken system.

This joker drove drunk, caused mayhem on the roads, and causes $100's of thousands (I heard a million $ of damage on the radio, so not sure if that's accurate of not, because god knows, the media has a bit of a history of blowing things outta proportion), and this guy gets off on a technicality??? And your justification for that is the law is the law??? This is not a case of a bad case in court... it is the symptom of a BROKEN system!

Give your heads a shake!
 

Ridgeman08

50 Shades of AJ
Nov 28, 2008
4,495
2
38
^^^^^ What the man said. The judge made a fairly commonsense ruling after the cops screwed up so badly that they invalidated their evidence with poor procedures. That's all.
Sorry Oagre, but this is HARDLY common sense.

Common sense would be to slap the cops with a reprimand, and charge the guy anyway.

I know you're a lawyer so I won't try and talk sense to you, because you only see things through your "legal glasses", and "legally speaking" you are probably right, but isn't this more a case where the laws are wrong? Or at the very least do not allow for a proper and decent ruling?
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
75,884
85,329
113
Sorry Oagre, but this is HARDLY common sense.

Common sense would be to slap the cops with a reprimand, and charge the guy anyway.

I know you're a lawyer so I won't try and talk sense to you, because you only see things through your "legal glasses", and "legally speaking" you are probably right, but isn't this more a case where the laws are wrong? Or at the very least do not allow for a proper and decent ruling?
It's about the system as a whole being more important than the result of any one specific case. If the police can evade the rules - rules which they know about - then soon there are no rules and we live in a society wherein the police have no accountability. Therefore, society accepts that the guilty may go free from time to time in order to ensure that the rights of society as a whole do not become compromised. You may not like that, but every judge sitting in every Western democracy understands, accepts and applies this reasoning.
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,045
3,913
113
I don't think that there's any doubt that the driver drove his truck when the box was up right into the bracing of the Skyway bridge. Just look at that photo.

He may get off the drinking and driving charge, but it's going to be pretty hard for him to argue that he didn't fuck up the bridge, ergo, he's going to have to pay for the repairs at the very least.

I'm sure that there are pile of other charges that they can throw against him that are not time sensitive.

Personally, I don't know why the time limit couldn't be greater in order to be able to do a blood alcohol test.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts