Our client visited an acquaintance’s house. After an argument, our client left the house and drove away in her vehicle. The acquaintance then called police and reported that our client had used crack cocaine and drank hard alcohol before driving. When the police stopped our client’s vehicle about half an hour later, a crack pipe fell out of the vehicle door, the police found a bottle of alcohol in the vehicle, and the police believed that our client was under the influence of drugs and alcohol. At the police station, our client passed the alcohol breathalyzer test, but allegedly failed the “drug recognition” test. A bodily sample also showed that there were multiple drugs in her body. As a result, our client was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle.
Our client insisted that she had not used drugs on the date in question. We carefully reviewed the weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence, including the “drug recognition” test procedures. This case proceeded to trial. After we cross-examined the acquaintance, the police officers, and the “drug recognition” expert, the judge accepted our argument that there was a reasonable doubt about whether our client was impaired.
RESULT: Our client was found not guilty of impaired operation.