Can a breath test from Musurichan be suppressed?

The target in these cases is the provision of a fair trial process. Mo question of unfair conscription of evidence from the accused arose because when the evidence was taken from Musurichan it was under his consent, a consent which was given after two separate consultations with his lawyer. Probably it would not matter otherwise. Rilling v. R. (1975) 1975 CanLII 159 (SCC), 24 C.C.C. (2d) 81 (S.C.C.); Once acceded to the evidence spawned by the breath test remains admissible. For these reasons we are of the view that, even if obtained in contravention of the two hour limitation on the demand, the sample readings should not have been suppressed.