Breath Demand Was Not Made As Soon As Practicable, So Driver Was Acquitted A man charged with impaired driving in Victoria was found not guilty after the trial judge ruled that a breath demand had not been made as soon as practicable. The decision is called R. v. Thompson 2011 BCPC 0202 . The issue of whether a breath demand has been made as soon as practicable is argued often by BC criminal lawyers. The judge explained why it is important: [5]        Before going any further, though, I would like to put this decision into context by making the observation that I do not view the resolution of the issue raised in this case as involving a mere technicality.  There is a logical connection between the requirement for timeliness reflected in s. 254(3) and the operation of the presumption contained in s. 258 (1)(c).  The presumption involves a fiction.  In reality, a person's blood alcohol level at the time of testing in a police station is unlikely to be the same as it was at the time of driving.  As a matter of policy, however, Parliament has decided that, within reason, the divergence is to be overlooked in the quest to obtain a greater measure of control over the menace of drunk driving.  The legislation represents an assessment that the divergence is tolerable so long as investigating police officers move with reasonable dispatch to obtain breath samples.  Hence, the time limitations found in s. 254(3) and in various other provisions