The defendant was charged with exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.
The defendant challenged the validity of the roadside screening test (ASD) demand, arguing it was not supported by reasonably grounded suspicion and that the ASD result was unreliable because the defendant was permitted to smoke while providing samples.
The court found that the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect impairment based on one instance of swerving and the smell of alcohol emanating from the vehicle.
The court rejected the defendant's argument that the officer must eliminate the possibility that the smell came from a passenger, holding that the presence of alternative explanations does not negate reasonable suspicion.
The court also found that the smoking during the ASD procedure did not undermine the reliability of the test.
The defendant was found guilty.
