Mr. P was in his driveway, unwinding after a long day of work, loudly listening to music in the passenger seat of his vehicle. His neighbour didn’t appreciate the noise pollution and confronted him. Upon smelling alcohol on his breath, the neighbour called the police who arrested Mr. P for having care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol. When he was taken down to the station and given a Breathlyzer Test, he blew over twice the legal limit. Through dutifully studying the case and the applicable law, Zalman Haouzi realized that the police had not engaged in the required procedure for sample-taking and successfully got the Breathalyzer evidence excluded. The Crown proceeded to trial despite the lack of Breathalyzer evidence and put the arresting officer on the stand, hoping that their testimony would be enough to put Mr. P away. Unfortunately for them, Zalman Haouzi came to court ready to dutifully defend his client, employing a thorough cross-examination that led to him discovering that the officer hadn’t taken any notes of the event in question and that they were essentially making it all up as they went along (going so far as to claim that they had pulled Mr. P’s keys from the ignition….when Mr. P’s vehicle used a push button ignition). Zalman Haouzi’s cross-examination was so debilitating that the Crown actually asked him to put a stop to his line of questioning midway through because they intended to withdraw that charge! Mr. P was acquitted on every count, and to this day can be seen on his driveway, listening to music in his vehicle after a long day of work.