Edmonton DUI Lawyers & Immediate Roadside Sanction Lawyers from Bhardwaj+Co

Our client was called In due to a family dispute at home. Family Members were concerned for the well being of our client. Upon stopping the vehicle, the police officers observed glossy eyes, interrupted speech and inability to follow instructions. The police officers had requested our client to do a breathalyzer multiple times but end result there was no reading of the blood. Unfortunately, our client was then charged of REFUSAL. The peace officer issued them a Notice of Administrative Penalty “NAP” for operating a motor vehicle while their blood alcohol concentration was equal to or over 80 mg% within 2 hours of operation and impaired operation based of “refusal.”

Upon being retained, we had reviewed officer notes and disclosure, noticing that none of the ASD machines (breathalyzer equipment) were uploaded as evidence. Under Section 4(e)(iii)/ the officers must provide all complete records of investigation. Without the equipment we would not be able to argue if the equipment was up to date in calibration or if annual maintenance was done or not. This could mean that the reading to not show was not because of a deliberate attempt to avoid blowing.

As a result, the Adjudicator ruled in our client’s favor, and their penalty was canceled.

Our client was stopped for driving in a farm field who fell into a ditch. Upon stop, the peace officers observed several beer cans in the truck. The peace officer issued them a Notice of Administrative Penalty “NAP” for operating a motor vehicle while their blood alcohol concentration was equal to or over 80 mg% within 2 hours of operation and impaired operation.

Upon being retained, we thoroughly reviewed the evidence provided by the peace officer along with the physical paperwork given to our client. We argued that no written notice of the roadside appeal was provided to our client. Although the officer made some verbal assertions, these alone were insufficient to meet the legislative requirements.

Our client provided honest and detailed evidence, stating that the Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) was given to him only at the conclusion of the investigation. He was able to furnish many details that were missing from the primary investigating officer’s narrative. Due to these additional details, the Adjudicator found our client's testimony more credible.

As a result, the Adjudicator ruled in our client’s favor, and their penalty was cancelled.

Our client was stopped in a traffic stop due to a citizen complaint of a possible impaired driver. Upon stopping the vehicle, the police officers observed red glossy eyes, she was sweating and had slurred speech. The police officers had requested our client to do a breathalyzer multiple times but the end result there was no reading of the blood. Unfortunately, our client was then charged of REFUSAL. The peace officer issued them a Notice of Administrative Penalty “NAP” for operating a motor vehicle while their blood alcohol concentration was equal to or over 80 mg% within 2 hours of operation and impaired operation based of “refusal.”

Upon being retained, we thoroughly reviewed the evidence provided by the peace officer along with the physical paperwork given to our client. We argued that no written notice of the roadside appeal was provided to our client.

Although the officer made some verbal assertions, these alone were insufficient to meet the legislative requirements. The Officer states in her own words that paperwork was only given after the end of investigation which is incorrect procedure.

Our client provided honest and detailed evidence, stating that the Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) was given to her only at the conclusion of the investigation.

Our client was involved in a hit and hit run collision which lead to multiple phone calls to the Lethbridge police indicating the driver was possibly impaired. The Driver had turned himself into police custody and was then charged with impaired operation.

After being retained, we carefully reviewed the police officer notes had stated that there was video evidence linking the driver to the scene. We argued that the clients right to fairness was breached. This was because there was no physical video evidence provided by the officers in disclosure.

Our client was pulled over by Edmonton police service as they were dispatched to investigate an impaired driver.

Upon being retained, we thoroughly reviewed the evidence provided by the peace officer along with the physical paperwork given to our client. We argued that no written notice of the roadside appeal was provided to our client. Our client was neither advised nor made aware, of her right to a roadside appeal at the RELEVANT time. Police evidence only showed the recipient receiving the roadside appeal information sheet at the end of the investigation which is improper procedure.

Our client provided honest and detailed evidence, stating that the Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) was given to her only at the conclusion of the investigation. She was able to furnish many details that were missing from the primary investigating officer’s narrative. Due to these additional details, the Adjudicator found our client's testimony more credible.

As a result, the Adjudicator ruled in our client’s favour, and their penalty was cancelled.

At around 12:12 a.m, a peace officer responded to a complaint of a possible impaired driver at Ordze Avenue, in Sherwood Park. When the Peace officer arrived at the scene, she located our client in the driver's seat of the vehicle parked in a parking lot while the car was not running.

Upon being retained, we thoroughly reviewed the evidence provided by the peace officer along with the physical paperwork given to our client. We argued that no written notice of the roadside appeal was provided to our client. Our client stated and aligned with the officer's narrative that after providing the initial breath sample, the officer had asked if our client wanted to try to blow a second time. Our client had agreed to blow a second time and had ultimately failed that as well. The officer then had gone to her car and returned with the paperwork to our client. Unfortunately, this was the wrong procedure done by the officer. The officer did not inform our client of any information regarding the roadside appeal, nor did she provide our client with enough awareness of that right and unfortunately asking for a second test does not justify an awareness to the appeal. Clients must be fully informed of what they are appealing after the first breathalyzer test.

Our client was stopped during a routine traffic stop by the Edmonton police service, upon investigation pour client was charged with a Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP).

Upon being retained, we thoroughly reviewed the evidence provided by the police officer along with the physical paperwork given to our client. We argued that no written notice of the roadside appeal was provided to our client. Our client was neither advised nor made aware, of his right to a roadside appeal at the RELEVANT time. We argued based on the merit that it was unclear if the officer conveyed anything at all as officer notes were silent and non-existent, this led to the assumption by law that nothing was conveyed to our client.

Our client was stopped during a routine traffic stop by the Edmonton police service, upon investigation our client was charged with a Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP).

Upon being retained, we noticed that certain mandatory records were not uploaded in police evidence. We argued that the copy of the NAP was not uploaded as only the backside of the NAP was uploaded to the portal. The adjudicator agreed that we did not have access to the NAP which resulted in a drop of charges for our client.

Officers originally had turned their sirens on for a high-speed car traveling at a rate of 180Km/h. Our client did not stop for the police officers as he fled away from them. Our client was arrested at his house once the car came to a full stop. Air 1 had tracked his car from the sky in order to give directions to the officers.

Upon being retained, we thoroughly reviewed the evidence provided by the police officer along with the physical paperwork given to our client. We argued that no written notice of the roadside appeal was provided to our client. Our client stated and aligned with the officer's narrative that after providing the initial breath sample, the officer had asked if our client wanted to try to blow a second time. Our client had agreed to blow a second time and had ultimately failed that as well. The officer then went to their car and returned with the paperwork to our client. Unfortunately, this was the wrong procedure done by the officer. The officer did not inform our client of any information regarding the roadside appeal, nor did they provide our client with enough awareness of that right and unfortunately asking for a second test does not justify an awareness of the appeal. Clients must be fully informed of what they are appealing after the first breathalyzer test.

Our client was part of a routine traffic stop as officers noticed that there was no license plate displayed on the vehicle in question. The investigation then further led to a mandatory breath sample resulting in a fail reading. A Second test was offered and accepted and resulted in another fail. The officers then gave the paperwork and drove the client home.

Upon being retained, we thoroughly reviewed the evidence provided by the peace officer along with the physical paperwork given to our client. We argued that no written notice of the roadside appeal was provided to our client. Our client stated and aligned with the officer's narrative that after providing the initial breath sample, the officer had asked if our client wanted to try to blow a second time. Our client had agreed to blow a second time and had ultimately failed that as well. The officer then went to her car and returned the paperwork to our client. Unfortunately, this was the wrong procedure done by the officer. The officer did not inform our client of any information regarding the roadside appeal, nor did she provide our client with enough awareness of that right and unfortunately asking for a second test does not justify an awareness of the appeal. Clients must be fully informed of what they are appealing to after the first breathalyzer test.

According to police notes, the officer arrived at the scene of the collision. The officer located the driver, and later identified as the recipient from the collision as he was not in the vehicle. Our client had “appeared a little confused and couldn't answer questions properly” and had “Glossy and watery eyes”. The officer states that our client had a strong odor of “alcohol” from his mouth. A first test was done and had come back as a “fail”. A second test was then offered incorrectly as the officer stated “blow a second time”.

Upon being retained, we thoroughly reviewed the evidence provided by the peace officer along with the physical paperwork given to our client. We argued that no written notice of the roadside appeal was provided to our client. Our client stated and aligned with the officer's narrative that after providing the initial breath sample, the officer had asked if our client wanted to try to blow a second time. Our client had agreed to blow a second time and had ultimately failed that as well. The officer then went to her car and returned the paperwork to our client. Unfortunately, this was the wrong procedure done by the officer. The officer did not inform our client of any information regarding the roadside appeal, nor did they provide our client with enough awareness of that right and unfortunately asking for a second test does not justify an awareness of the appeal. Clients must be fully informed of what they are appealing to after the first breathalyzer test. In this instance the paperwork and information of the appeal was conveyed to our client when he was dropped off.