, the officer observed an ambulance, a tow truck, and a BMW with extensive damage. Gathered near the car were ambulance attendants, the tow truck driver, and Ms. N. The police officer asked the assembled group what had happened and was informed by Ms. N that the BMW was her vehicle and that she had hit a pole. The officer then asked Ms. N to step away from the vehicle and to move from distance from the others at the scene where he then asked her a series of questions (Horkins, 2001).
Listed below along with their answers are these questions: 1) Why didnÆt you stay at the scene? I donÆt know why.
3) Were you the only person in the car? Yes (Horkins, 2001).
The police officer then learned through a series of questions and answers that Ms. N. had been drinking beer about an hour previously at a bar a few blocks away from the accident site. He had observed classic indications of alcohol impairment. Ms. N. was unsteady on he feet, had glassy eyes, and an odor of alcohol on her breath.
On the basis of his investigation the officer formed the opinion that Ms. N.Æs ability to operate her motor vehicle had been impaired by alcohol at the time of driving. Justice Horkins (2001) states that the police placed Ms. N. under arrest for impaired driving and cautioned her about making further statements, advised her of her rights to counsel, and made a breath testing demand. Ms. N. was then transported to the nearest testing facility where tests were conducted, resulting in the evidence of a blood alcohol level in the range of 120mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood.
According to Justice Horkins (2001, p. 2),
Ms. N. gave evidence on the voir dere into the
admissibility of her roadside statement. She took
no serious issue with Officer RoachÆs account of
the events. In addition, however, she gave
evidence that she felt compelled to answer the
investigating officerÆs questions because he was
a un...