impaired driving – roadside breath testing - accused arrested for impaired driving to prevent driver from fleeing, then made screening demand – screening test “fail” reading gave officer grounds to make evidential demand – held: conviction upheld – “the unique circumstances of this case persuade us that the demand made of the Appellant falls within … the ambit of Section 254(2). That is because, in our view, the ‘arrest’ here was the functional equivalent of a detention intended only to facilitate the roadside screening contemplated by the enactment”.

On appeal, Mr. Prithipaul, with his usual candour, conceded that the Constable would have been justified in detaining the accused for roadside screening in furtherance of his investigation. It follows that the "arrest" of the Appellant did not deprive the Constable of the investigative tool afforded by Section 254(2). On the facts of this case, the enactment, in our view, was properly invoked when, absent reasonable and probable grounds, the peace officer mistakenly but unlawfully arrested a suspect on a charge of impaired driving in circumstances that justified detention for roadside screening.[5] In the result, because we conclude that the demand here was one within the ambit of Section 254(2), Thomsen, supra, applies and no Section 10(b) infringement is made out. The learned trial judge erred in excluding the certificates of analysis on this ground.