Calgarian who failed to provide a breathalyzer sample says she’s never had alcohol

A woman who says she has never consumed alcohol and was unable to provide a breathalyzer sample due to injury is facing a failure-to-comply charge.

A Calgary woman charged after she was unable to provide a breathalyzer sample says she was injured at the time and has never drank alcohol.

Now, she’s fighting the charge.

Pam Lacusta was pulled over for speeding by a police officer in an unmarked vehicle on 114th Avenue near Stoney Trail S.E., just after 11:30 a.m. on April 24.

• The information you need to know, sent directly to you: Download the CTV News App

“I rolled down my window and [the officer] said, ‘I am going to conduct a breathalyzer on you,” said Lacusta. “Immediately, I thought to myself, ‘What? Why?’”

Lacusta is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

“Part of my religion is abstinence from alcohol and drugs, and I have never partaken in either of these in my life,” she said.

After 30 attempts to provide a breathalyzer sample, Lacusta was charged with an Immediate Roadside Sanction Fail (IRS Fail).

“Every time I was able to just get a good blow in or a good breath in, he would yank it out and he would say, ‘Your teeth are in the way,’ ‘Your tongue is in the way,’ ‘You’re trying to manipulate the test,’” Lacusta said. “I have never seen a breathalyzer; I do not know how to do it.”

Lacusta’s charge, under the Traffic Safety Act, alleges she “failed or refused, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a demand made on [her].”

Her licence was suspended for 90 days, and her vehicle was impounded for 30.

She had to pay $1,600 to get it out of the impound lot.

Following her 90-day licence suspension, Lacusta needs to take a Planning Ahead course from the Alberta Motor Association, which costs $400 and takes a day to complete.

She will also need to get a breathalyzer installed in her vehicle—costing $115 per month—and her insurance will no longer cover her.

“I am being treated like I was a drunk driver,” she said. “This has been a small nightmare; I do not wish this on anyone.”

Lacusta says she was able to produce a clean urine sample immediately after the incident and called a lawyer the following day.

With her lawyer’s help, she appealed her charge with the Safe Roads Appeal Committee. However, it was denied by an adjudicator, as they sided with the officer and disputed her independent lab results showing her sobriety through a urine test.

Doug King, a criminal justice professor at Mount Royal University, says Lacusta would have had a minimum of 14 days to collect documentation and provide it to an adjudicator.

Lacusta says she met with a doctor in early June, more than a month after the incident, to determine if there was something medically wrong with her that would have prevented her from being able to provide a breath sample.

She discovered she had two broken ribs, which she says dated back to a fall that happened on April 1.

“The onus falls on the person, who has to provide the documentation to get it done or to get legal representation to help you through it,” King said. “It’s a tragic situation.

“The process is that you can have a hearing, in which you can provide evidence of a reasonable excuse. She failed to do that.”

The Ministry of Justice provided a statement to CTV News:

“Approved screening devices are designed to accommodate a wide range of individuals, including those with some respiratory challenges. While it’s rare, there are instances where individuals may have genuine difficulty providing a sufficient breath sample. Individuals who believe they are medically unable to provide a sample are encouraged to seek medical evaluation, particularly pulmonary function testing, that may help clarify their circumstances in any legal or administrative process that follows,” it said.

Lacusta has a court date scheduled for September 2026.

“There is no option in the Safe Roads program for people like myself, who are unable to blow,” she said.

The Ministry of Justice did say there are instances when a person can provide blood or urine samples when certain legal requirements are met.

“My advice to anyone is if you know you have a medical issue, have that documentation ready so that if something like this happens to you, you can produce it in that seven days,” Lacusta said.