It has been said that Police Officers are professional witnesses. Being able to handle seasoned officers on the witness stand is not a skill that comes easily; it is garnered after years of trial work. In this case, the client was charged with impaired driving, refusing to provide a breath sample and bribery as a result of a traffic stop from which he allegedly attempted to flea. After an aggressive arrest, the police officer claimed that the client refused to blow into a roadside screening device. Following that, he then allegedly attempted to bribe the officer to let him go without charges. In contrast, the client claimed that the officer immediately engaged him using excessive force, never provided him with the opportunity to blow into a roadside device, and fabricated the bribe to cover up his excessive use of force. Clearly, the two versions of events were diametrically opposed. Unlike the case of Stacey Bonds, there was no video tape to simplify the process. Thus, it would be up to a jury to determine who was lying and who was telling the truth; the only tool at our disposal was cross-examination. Mr. Lewandowski set a preliminary inquiry. Both officers involved were cross-examined and countless contradictions elicited. A Charter motion was filed, asserting that the clients right to be free from illegal detention and search were violated. Further, it was asserted that the clients right to security of the person was violated when the officer used excessive force. All of the charges were withdrawn.