The issuing officer of the license suspension observed the Recipient driving with a burnt-out taillight and using his cell phone while driving. Police attempted to conduct a traffic stop for an extended period. The officers noted several indicia of impairment while speaking to the Recipient and therefore arrested the Recipient for impaired operation. The Recipient was being uncooperative and looked to be trying to drive away risking officer safety. The Recipient was resisting arrest and was forcibly removed from the vehicle. A conductive energy weapon was utilized twice to effect his arrest. After a further physical struggle eventually the Recipient was handcuffed, and Emergency Medical Service (“EMS”) were called to the scene to check on the Recipient. The Recipient “was issued an Immediate Roadside Sanction after which his vehicle and license were seized, and he was released into the care of EMS” and the investigation was concluded.
Nature of Argument
The Recipient disputed the facts, and argued that being provided with information about a roadside appeal in an ambulance was insufficient.
Ruling
The Recipient was unaware of important aspects of the right to a roadside appeal, and I have accepted his evidence, on a balance. While no single factor above persuades me to find that the advice provided by the officer was obscured, when I look at all the evidence in totality listed in this particular factual scenario, it has persuaded me on a balance, to find that the Recipient was not sufficiently aware of the right to a roadside appeal. (The Recipient’s license was returned).