Blood sample evidence ruled inadmissible

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 13/08/2025 (227 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A man who was charged with impaired driving and causing bodily harm to his passenger after a rollover last year was acquitted of both charges when the court ruled blood sample evidence was inadmissible.

Lance Louttit, 20, was charged with impaired driving and impaired driving causing bodily harm after his truck rolled over in a single-vehicle accident on July 27, 2024.

Louttit had minor injuries and his passenger, who wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, had more severe back injuries, Judge Shauna Hewitt-Michta said in a written decision from Aug. 1, which was also delivered orally in Virden that day.

The Crown stayed the additional charge of driving with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit after blood sample evidence — which showed his BAC was above 0.08 — was inadmissible because of charter violations.

Hewitt-Michta did not specify in her decision how Louttit’s charter rights were violated, and the lawyers were not immediately available to comment on it.

In the decision, Hewitt-Michta outlined the key points in Louttit’s trial, in which two civilian witnesses and the investigating officer testified. Louttit chose not to testify.

The passenger — a woman Louttit was dating at the time — testified she and the accused went to a friend’s house before heading to a house party.

She testified Louttit had one or two drinks at the first house and continued to drink at the party.

“She believed he was participating in the drinking games but could not say with any certainty how much he drank,” Hewitt-Michta said.

The woman, who admitted she was drunk, said Louttit drove them to both houses that evening.

She said she wasn’t concerned about the accused driving, but acknowledged she probably “wasn’t thinking straight given her own level of impairment,” Hewitt-Michta said.

She testified that they both took alcohol with them to the party and brought what they didn’t drink back with them.

The alcohol was visible in the police photos of the scene of the accident, Hewitt-Michta said.

The passenger told police the accident happened within a couple minutes of leaving the party.

“The best she could say was the accused swerved, and they ended up rolling, coming to a stop in the ditch,” Hewitt-Michta said. The passenger testified she didn’t see any wildlife or other obstruction on the road.

The other witness, a woman who came across the accident not long after it occurred, said she was at the party as well. She rated her own level of impairment a six out of 10.

She said she saw Louttit drinking, but didn’t know how much. However, she took a video of the accused “shotgunning a beer” at 2:15 a.m.

“She did not explain the term ‘shotgunning,’ but I understand it to mean drinking from a puncture hole in the can,” Hewitt-Michta said.

When she came across the scene of the accident, she called 911. Louttit asked her not to, since he said he would get in trouble, but eventually relented.

The investigating officer testified that Louttit admitted to driving. He said his eyes were red and watery and he could smell alcohol coming from Louttit and the vehicle. He said his voice was understandable but mumbled.

Additionally, he testified that Louttit’s movement seemed slow, but he understood and responded appropriately to the questions the officer asked him.

The officer said these could have been signs of impairment or shock from the accident.

“By the time they spoke at the hospital, the accused’s speech and movement was normal, adding to the potential the earlier observations were symptomatic of shock,” Hewitt-Michta said.

She said that while Louttit presented with signs that he consumed alcohol, the amount and whether it had any “behavioural consequence” was unknown.

Hewitt-Michta said his “imperfect” speech and movement may have been signs of impairment or the result of being in a serious accident.

“An unexplained accident combined with evidence of alcohol consumption sometimes amounts to proof beyond a reasonable doubt of impaired operation but not always. I am unable to reach that conclusion in this case.”

She also considered that Louttit asked the witness not to call the police. While she suspected he was referring to his consumption of alcohol when he said he would get in trouble, the comment was too “fleeting and vague” to support the Crown’s case.

Hewitt-Michta said the Crown didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Louttit was impaired, and therefore it wasn’t necessary to consider the driving impaired causing bodily harm charge.

» sanderson@brandonsun.com