The internal Saskatoon Police Service investigation of one of its officers convicted of impaired driving will be suspended until Const. Roy Rodgers returns to work following his medical leave.

However, Saskatoon police spokesperson Alyson Edwards says an internal review of what Provincial Court Judge Stan Loewen called a "flawed investigation "of Rodgers' driving incident is ongoing.

Rodgers was convicted September 17th.

At trial, court heard in the early morning hours of May 24, 2009, Const. Kai Noesgaard and Const. Gerald Bzdel, were flagged down by another driver and were told a car had just jumped the curb near the corner of 22nd Street and Idylwyld Dr. When the officers pulled up to the car, they discovered the man behind the wheel was Const. Roy Rodgers.

Const. Noesgaard noticed Rodgers had bloodshot eyes, a flushed face, slurred speech and Rodgers' breath smelled of alcohol. Because Noesgaard was the junior officer with two years experience, he deferred to Const. Bzdel who had nine years on the job.

In a 16-page written decision, Judge Loewen criticized the actions of Const. Bzdel. Lowen found Bzdel "dithered for forty-seven minutes" before making a roadside breath demand. As a result of that, and the fact Rodgers made the statement "I was drinking and should not have been driving," without being told of his right to speak to a lawyer, Judge Lowen says Const. Rodgers' Charter rights were violated. Judge Loewen had to exclude evidence from the roadside screening device and the breathalyzer test.

Judge Loewen points out Const. Bzdel made no notes for over three-quarters of an hour and Bzdel testified he did not notice any signs of impairment. It contradicted the observations of Const. Noesgaard and Const. Eric Flogan, who was the breathalyzer technician the night in question -- both of whom said they saw obvious signs of impairment. Judge Lowen accepted the evidence of Constables Noesgaard and Flogan and found Const. Rodgers guilty of impaired driving.

There's no word on when Chief Clive Weighill could take any possible disciplinary measures against the officers subject to the internal review.