The accused was charged with failing to comply with a roadside demand to provide a breath sample.
The defence raised allegations of racial profiling, arguing the stop was motivated by the accused's race and that the demand was unlawful.
The court found the officers had articulated objective grounds for the stop based on the time of day, location near licensed establishments with a history of drinking and driving incidents, the vehicle's prolonged stop at an intersection, and slow driving.
The court rejected the racial profiling allegation, finding no evidence the officers knew the accused's race before deciding to investigate.
The court also found the demand was lawful based on reasonable suspicion grounded in the smell of alcohol on the accused's breath, corroborated by multiple officers.
The accused failed to establish a reasonable excuse for refusing the demand, as his distrust of police was subjectively sincere but objectively unreasonable.
The accused was convicted.
