The accused, an NFL player, was charged with failing to provide a breath sample for roadside testing.
He argued that his right to counsel was breached because the testing did not proceed 'forthwith' given his unique ability to quickly access legal advice via cell phone.
The court rejected this argument, holding that constitutional rights do not vary based on a detainee's wealth or connections.
However, on the substantive charge, the accused testified he tried but was unable to provide a sample.
The court held that the Crown must prove the failure was intentional beyond a reasonable doubt.
Finding the accused credible and noting his modest alcohol consumption, the court had a reasonable doubt about his intent and dismissed the charge.
