Officer opens the door. The accused is silent. He is putting his laptop down.
The officer arrives at the driver's door. The accused does not speak. He is working — laptop mounted to the steering wheel — and moves it aside as the officer approaches. No keys. Engine off. Gear: Park. Speed: 0 km/h.
The accused says nothing. The officer is talking. This is the opening seconds of the encounter that ended in arrest.
"I'm unable to operate or drive this car. There is no keys and I don't have access to the key. I'm also not the owner."
Clear exculpatory statement on camera at 14:41:06 EDT. Addresses every element of the care or control charge. Made one minute before the arrest was announced.
"I'm not doing or saying anything without a lawyer present."
Invoked at 14:27:44 EDT. Officer continued demanding ID 11 seconds later. All questioning and demands must cease on invocation: R v Manninen [1987] 1 SCR 1233.
Kruse Law named by name in Interview Room 9. Three separate named requests. Zero responses. First police contact with Kruse Law: 07:48 AM March 16 — 17 hours and 20 minutes after invocation.
CEW pressed to shoulder. "YES" — deployment confirmed on camera.
At 14:42:02 EDT a conductive energy weapon was pressed to the accused's shoulder. At 14:42:05:
"You're going to tase me for sleeping in my car in front of my house?"
"YES."
Cst. Steffler WA1730 booking report, same package: "Conductive Weapon used: No." "Force used: No."
Accused never enters the breath room. Chair inside is empty the entire session.
Left: ceiling camera D181. Right: wall camera D180. The accused was seated on the bench in the hallway outside the door for the entire 2m36s session. Cst. Steffler stood in the doorframe. The chair inside was empty throughout.
s.10(b) breach at this moment: 2 hours, 1 minute, 1 second.
5 demands. 1 explicit on-camera refusal: "I don't need my badge number."
Four officers and Crown counsel. One false criminal record. Endorsed four times.
Zero prior convictions. The CPIC printout contradicting the false record is in the same Crown disclosure package. The contradiction is self-contained within Crown's own materials.
mg/100mL. Subject Test 15:44:42 EDT. Zero blood alcohol. Crown's own instrument. Count 1 (over 80 mg) has no evidentiary foundation.
Stay warranted
Crown counsel Dueck endorsed Steffler's false record in the ACSF and checked increased penalty. Crown participated. Abuse of process.
Five independent grounds. Any one warrants a stay or withdrawal.
No Valid Demand and Zero BAC
Intoxilyzer: 000 mg/100mL. Eyes closed during demand, instrument not presented, accused not in room. R v Bernshaw — no valid demand, no valid refusal. Counts 1 and 2 collapse.
s.10(b) Total Denial — 17h 20m
Invoked 14:27:44 EDT. Never discharged. Three named requests for Kruse Law. Zero responses. Duty counsel redirect. Bail imposed under breach. Manninen, Willier, Bartle.
False Sworn Statements — Crown Endorsed
Four officers plus Crown counsel placed false prior convictions in the record. CPIC in same package: NO HIT. R v Nixon 2011 SCC 34 — abuse of process — stay warranted.
No Operation — R v Boudreault
Laptop on steering wheel. Engine off. No keys. Not owner. Three witnesses plus Crown's own complainant. Tesla: 0 km/h. R v Boudreault 2012 SCC 56.
Tesla Telemetry and 9-Camera Documentation — Vehicle Never Moved
GPS stationary. 0 km/h. Odometer unchanged. Gear: Park. Ignition: Off. No trip logged. Six independent telemetry data points. The entire 19m17s arrest is documented from nine angles. This evidence is not challengeable.
Handstand in custody. 27 minutes after arrest. Fully composed, coordinated, physically capable.
At 15:55:18 EDT, 27 minutes and 34 seconds after the arrest was announced, the accused performed a wall handstand in Interview Room 9 while waiting for counsel contact.
This is relevant to the impairment narrative. A person with a BAC causing impairment cannot perform an inverted wall handstand with the coordination, balance, and body control visible here.
Seated meditation in custody. 1 hour 44 minutes into detention. s.10(b) breach: 2 hours 48 minutes.
At 17:16:18 EDT, the accused is seated cross-legged in a meditation posture. He had been in custody for 1 hour 44 minutes. Kruse Law had not been contacted. Duty counsel had not yet reached him.
He had spent over an hour attempting to communicate his rights requests, had received no counsel, and was in a cell waiting. His response was stillness and composure.
At 15:57, the wrists are held directly to the wall camera. Both wrists. The marks from 1 hour 24 minutes in handcuffs are visible at close range.
Six minutes after handcuff removal, both wrists were extended and held against the wall-mounted camera lens. This was a deliberate act to document the restraint injuries on the custody recording. The marks are clearly visible in the wide-angle lens footage.
Four objectives. One appearance.
Request Judicial Pre-Trial
Required before Charter hearing dates can be scheduled. Confirmed by Trial Coordinator Esther Turner.
Learn the H-P Crown's Name
File managed by a Crown whose name starts H-P. Jane Young takes no direct contact. Get the name on record today.
WRPS Disclosure Update
Crown was waiting on police disclosure at May CPT. Ask if received. Outstanding since March 16. Jordan clock running.
Bail Variation — Condition 4
No front seat condition was agreed under s.10(b) breach without counsel. Manninen, Bartle. Disproportionate on this record.