IRP – Immediate Roadside Prohibitions
If you have received an immediate roadside prohibition (“IRP”) and you live in Penticton BC or anywhere else in the Okanagan call criminal defense lawyer Julian van der Walle immediately.
Immediate Roadside Prohibitions
In September 2010, the provincial government created the Immediate Roadside Prohibition IRP regime. Now, when a person blows a “fail” into a roadside screening device or if they refuse to blow, they will receive an automatic
Julian believes these laws are unfair because they impose serious penalties on people even if the police officer violated their constitutional rights to get the breath sample.
Defences are more limited for
See below for a sample of these cases Julian has fought:
Superintendent v. S.(D.) 2016
Superintendent v. K.(H.) 2016
Superintendent v. B.(C.) 2015
Client left a bar, hopped in his vehicle and began pulling out of the parking lot. He immediately saw a police cruiser and re-parked his car. Unfortunately the officer was not forgiving and demanded that the client provide a sample of his breath into a roadside screening device. After many attempts of what the officer described as “goofing around” the client was unable to provide a proper sample and was given a 90 day prohibition on the basis that he intentionally failed to provide a sample of his breath. After reviewing Mr. van der Walle’s argument, the adjudicator agreed that it could not be proven that the client intentionally failed to provide the sample, as opposed to merely being unable to do so because of a cold or flu. Client got his licence back on New Year’s Eve with all towing and storage costs paid by the government.
Superintendent v. F.(S.) 2015
Superintendent v. H.(E.) 2015
Client allegedly refused to provide a sample of his breath when demanded by a police officer. After hearing submissions from Mr. van der Walle the adjudicator agreed that the client had changed his mind and agreed to provide a sample at a time that would not have seriously inconvenienced the police officer. As a result, as a matter of law, there was no refusal because of the change of mind. Client got license back and the government paid all storage and towing costs of the vehicle.
Superintendent v. H.(T.) 2015
Client blew a “fail” twice.
Superintendent v. L.(R.) 2015
Client blew a fail twice each on a different machine. After reviewing submissions made by Mr. van der Walle the adjudicator agreed that on the whole of the evidence he could not be satisfied that the breath sample results were reliable. Prohibition revoked and client started driving again the same day the adjudicator made the decision. All storage and towing costs paid by the government.
Superintendent v. L.(M.) 2015
This was client’s second IRP in three months. We were successful in getting the first prohibition revoked. On this
Superintendent v. S.(J.) 2014
Client blew a fail into a roadside device. After reviewing submissions from Mr. van der Walle the adjudicator ruled that he was not satisfied that the fail result was reliable because of the potential presence of mouth alcohol which could have produced an artificially high result. Driving prohibition revoked and towing and storage costs paid by the government.
Superintendent v. V.(D.) 2014
Client blew a “fail” into one handheld
Superintendent v. D.(P.) 2014
The client refused to blow after a police officer followed him into a strip club because a concerned citizen had reported the client for erratic driving. The officer arrested the client and made a demand that he blow into a handheld
Superintendent v. L.(M.) 2014
Client blew a “fail” reading on two different devices. Both blows had occurred only about 30-45 seconds after the client finished taking a “puff” or a “drag” of his cigarette. After hearing submissions from Mr. van der Walle the adjudicator ruled that he could not be satisfied that the blow results were reliable on the basis that smoking soon before blowing can artificially skew the results. Driving prohibition revoked and storage and towing costs paid by the government.
Superintendent v. T.(A.) 2014
Client blew a “fail” reading on two different devices. After reviewing the written submissions provided by Mr. van der Walle, the adjudicator agreed that there were serious doubts about the accuracy and reliability of the test results. The prohibition was revoked and the government paid the client’s storage and towing costs.
Superintendent v. B.(A.) 2014
Client received a 90 day IRP on the basis that he was in “care and control” of his vehicle as he sat in the driver seat waiting for his friend to pick him up from the bar. Mr. van der Walle filed written submissions arguing that the client was not in care and control of the vehicle merely because he sat in the driver’s seat. Adjudicator agrees. IRP revoked and vehicle returned immediately. All towing and storage costs paid by the government.
Superintendent v. G.(H.) 2014
Client received a 90 day IRP on the basis of blowing a fail reading twice, each time on a different roadside device. After reviewing the written argument filed by Mr. van der Walle the adjudicator was not satisfied that a different machine was used for the second test. IRP revoked and vehicle returned immediately. All towing and storage costs paid by the government.
Superintendent v. O.(D.) 2014
Client received a 90 day IRP on the basis of blowing a fail reading twice. After reviewing the written argument filed by Mr. van der Walle the adjudicator was not satisfied that the documents provided by the police officer were properly sworn. IRP revoked and vehicle returned immediately. All towing and storage costs paid by the government.
Superintendent v. H.(B.) 2014
Client received a 90 day IRP on the basis that he refused to provide a breath sample. After reviewing the written argument filed by Mr. van der Walle the adjudicator was not satisfied that the client was the driver of the vehicle. IRP revoked and vehicle returned immediately. All towing and storage costs paid by the government.
Superintendent v. M.(J.) 2014
Client received a 90 day IRP on the basis of blowing a fail reading twice. After reviewing the written argument filed by Mr. van der Walle the adjudicator was not satisfied that the results of the devices were reliable because the officer did not provide evidence that the devices were operating within the proper temperature range. IRP revoked and vehicle returned immediately. All towing and storage costs paid by the government.
Superintendent v. M.(E.) 2013
Client received a 90 day IRP on the basis that he willfully failed to provide a breath sample. After reviewing the written argument filed by Mr. van der Walle the adjudicator concluded that he could not be satisfied that client had willfully failed to provide a sample. IRP revoked and vehicle returned immediately. All towing and storage costs paid by the government.
REQUEST A FREE CONSULTATION
Call 1.866.706.8857
Or fill out the form below to receive a free and confidential initial consultation.