Our office was contacted by a former client’s boyfriend regarding an incident that had taken place with his 19-year-old son. The client was on his way home in Okotoks when he was stopped by a Sheriff for a traffic infraction. The Sheriff smelled alcohol and consequently asked J to exit his vehicle so that he could determine the source of the smell. Once outside, the sheriff smelt alcohol on the client’s breath and requested that a uniformed RCMP member attend to conduct a roadside screening test. The client ultimately failed the test and provided samples in excess of .08 at the local detachment. At trial, Mr. Wyman had filed written argument alleging that the Sherriff lacked the ability to detain the client in the fashion that he did, thereby violating his section 9 Charter rights. While the argument had merit, Mr. Wyman in cross-examination had the officer concede that he had failed to provide full disclosure to defence, in that he had procured a video of the incident that he did not disclose to Crown counsel. Because of this, the trial came to a halt and the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges. This case is an example of coming into trial with a good plan and leaving with great result on account of deviating from it based on the testimony given.