The accused was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a breath demand.
The officer made the demand after observing abrupt lane changes and smelling a faint odour of alcohol from the vehicle, which contained three occupants.
The court found the demand was lawful on two independent bases: the officer had reasonable suspicion, and the statutory preconditions for a mandatory alcohol screening demand were met.
The accused, who was provided instructions in both English and Hindi, knowingly failed to provide a sample without reasonable excuse.
A finding of guilt was entered.
