Mr. P was a successful businessman in rural Alberta. Following a heated argument with his wife he went for a drive to cool down. He was pulled over by a local sheriff for a traffic violation. The sheriff detected an odor of alcohol and requested that RCMP attend. Once on scene, Mr. P conducted a roadside breath test which he failed. He was then taken back to the RCMP detachment where he was to provide an evidentiary breath sample which he refused. At trial Mr. Wyman filed a constitutional argument alleging that the officer should not have relied upon the “fail” result issued by the screening device as she had failed to allow for the dissipation of mouth alcohol attributable to client chewing gum immediately prior to the test being conducted. It was also argued that the officer violated the client’s section 10(b) right to Counsel in that the client made numerous ambiguous statements regarding speaking to a lawyer at another time. The arguments were successful and the presiding judge dismissed the case against our client.