A Prince George-based B.C. Supreme Court Justice has upheld decisions to issue administrative driving prohibitions against two Fort Nelson residents.
Kyle Thomas Locke had argued that because he had finished his last drink prior to leaving a pub on the night of Oct. 20, 2012, readings that he was impaired were inaccurate because of "mouth alcohol."
Locke and his spouse said he was pulled over about three to five minutes after leaving the pub and so, it was not clear if his breath samples were given before or after the 15-minute "observation or deprivation" period.
Locke said that when was pulled over, he told police he had his last drink one hour prior to driving, thinking he was being asked when he was served his last drink, not when he finished it.
His spouse, meanwhile, asserted he drank two one-ounce glasses of rye and coke during his time in the pub, finishing the last one three to five minutes before leaving.
However, a second sample was given 12 minutes after the first and Locke was pulled over after he was seen fishtailing. He was unsteady, his speech was slurred and he had glossy eyes, it was also noted.
Locke took his case to B.C. Supreme Court after the adjudicator rejected his explanation as to why he told police he had his last drink an hour before being pulled over. Justice Ron Tindale found the decision fell within the "range of possible acceptable outcomes."
"It was open to the adjudicator to make this finding," Tindale said and later noted that adjudicator took note of Locke's symptoms when pulled over.
Tindale also upheld an adjudicator's decision for Valerie Rebecca Lorraine Moore, who was issued a prohibition on Nov. 25, 2012, after she initially refused to provide a breath sample and, after failing on three attempts to reach a lawyer, failed six times to provide a proper sample.
Moore argued only 59 minutes had elapsed over the time she had tried to reach a lawyer and took a bathroom break while police said it was closer to 75 minutes.
Moore also said she had trouble understanding the police's instructions when trying to give the samples and wanted to continue trying after being told they had finished.
Tindale largely agreed with the adjudicator's conclusion that Moore was being uncooperative and her inability to reach counsel was not a factor in her refusal to provide a sample. Although he thought the adjudicator was incorrect in terms of the timeline, Tindale agreed that even then Moore was not reasonably diligent in pursuing legal counsel.
The durations of the prohibitions were not provided in the decisions, issued Wednesday.