Krishna Naidu was involved in a collision. Naidu drove through a stop sign. Perhaps because his BAC was 130 mg%. Constable Hodgins arrived at 2:42. He read a screening demand at 2:52. Naidu failed at 2:53 or 2:55. Hodgins arrested Naidu and made a breath demand at 3:07. That 12 or 14 minutes became the subject of the trial and ultimately a ruling from the Court of Appeal: 2012 BCCA 150 (SCCA: 2010 BCSC 851).

During those 12 or 14 minutes the officer arrested Naidu, handcuffed him, sat him in the cruiser, spoke to him about pain in his wrist, ran his licence with ICBC and check him on CPIC and finally read him his Charterrights.

Naidu argued, inter alia, that the CPIC and ICBC checks were not necessary and took the demand outside the ASAP window. On summary conviction appeal Kelleher J noted that the 2008 amendments to section 254(3) saw the removal of "forthwith" from that section. This was relevant, held Kelleher J, and points toward a more flexible approach to the issue. Ultimately Kelleher J agreed with the trial judge that the conduct of the officer was reasonable and the steps taken during that 12 to 14 minutes were connected to the stop and arrest and did not result in the demand being made ASAP.

The Court of Appeal dismissed a further appeal by Naidu.

While making a demand as soon as one forms the requisite grounds for the demand is always best practice, Naidu confirms that so long as you are performing tasks associated with the arrest and processing of the accused - and are able to articulate those steps - which are reasonable, the demand made thereafter will be ASAP.