780-686-7948

Available 24 hrs

Always here for you!

780-686-7948

Call Us Today!

Contact Us
logo
mobile logo
 

Intoxylizer Operation

Edmonton Criminal Lawyer Ziv > Intoxylizer Operation
04 February
0 Comments
Sticky

Approved Screening Devices

Posted by Rory
in approved screening devices, as soon as practicable, Defences, Impaired Driving, Intoxylizer Operation

Approved Screening Device

 

Calibration Logs

For many years I have been thinking about ways to challenge approved screening devices “ASD”.  In R. v. Black 2011 ABCA 349 I was a able to take a case all the way up to the Alberta Court of Appeal on a very interesting issue. I suggested that I was entitled to copies of calibration logs for the devices. At that time every two weeks the approved screening devices were calibrated before being used in service.

When one examined the logs it appeared that the devices they were using then the Intoxylizer 400D  were very unstable. In other words calibration records showed that the devices were sometimes off by as much as 30%. Practically what this meant is that someone with a Blood Alcohol Level of only 70 mg was being arrested because the ASD thought they were 100 mg. This I argued was akin to an arbitrary detention.

The Albert Court of Appeal said that the defence were not always entitled to the logs in a 2:1 decision. The logs were not relevant unless the officer knew the device was faulty. The officer could rather ely on a calibration sticker on the device itself. The exception to this rule was if the calibrator was also the investigating officer. Then the logs were producible.

In any event, shortly after this decision I then argued that if I wasn’t allowed the logs then I was entitled to see the calibration sticker on the ASD. I won a case when this wasn’t provided to me using the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Black.

Waiting Time

Another very useful decision I came across recently was R. v. Bergen 2014 M.J. No 122. I suggest every impaired driving lawyer have this case handy.

In that case the officer chose to wait 15 minutes before administering the ASD because he saw the Accused pull out a bar and was concerned he may have consumed alcohol within the past 15 minutes. He did not ask the accused and had no specific reason to believe the accused had consumed alcohol within the past fifteen minutes. On appeal the conviction was overturned.  If an officer in those circumstances is not required to wait 15 minutes to administer an ASD, when he see’s a person leave a bar, why would he be required to wait 15 minutes without anything more?

This is an excellent decision on law and

08 January
0 Comments
Sticky

The Intoxilyzer

Posted by Rory
in Intoxylizer Operation

Operating the Breath Instrument (Intoxilyzer) Correctly

 

An excellent decision was provided by Judge Higgerty in Edson, Alberta. The defence counsel in the case was Alan Pearse.

Burping into the Intoxilyzer

The evidence was that the Accused was taken out of the phone room after speaking with a lawyer and asked to provide a breath sample. Given that 15 minutes had not elapsed between being taken out of the phone room and positive evidence that the accused had not burped the judge had reasonable doubt that the machine was not being operated properly. Here is an excerpt:

Depending on whether one is a defence lawyer or a prosecutor, one tends to refer to an Intoxilyzer as a machine or an instrument; being an ex-prosecutor, I will refer to it as an instrument. Certainly a very precise instrument authorized by Parliament to be the centrepiece, if you will, a tool of great use in weeding out impaired drivers on the road, but the fact remains that in many cases an accused is being convicted by an instrument. And I only say that, and it is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration, a bit of a stretch, but I say that in all seriousness because that underscores that the instrument must be operated correctly in order to bring it within the parameters of the Criminal Code of Canad which essentially allows hearsay evidence, a certificate, to be essentially the entire case against an accused.

The requirement is 15 minutes, as set out by the manufacturer, although it seems to be acknowledged by the case law that in most cases 5 minutes would be sufficient, but the manufacturer says 15 minutes. And there is a very good reason for this, the presence of mouth alcohol can result in an unreliable reading.

I did have a question earlier on, and I can perhaps answer my own question, does the accused have to adduce positive evidence that he burped or belched or chewed on a cough drop, that type of thing, during that 15-minute run-up to the first sample and, indeed, I suppose, prior to the second sample as well? And in the real world, given that Officer Jackson had difficulty on the subject of slurred speech, how could we expect an ordinary accused to remember if he or she burped within the 15 minutes prior to providing a sample? So I find that this 15-minute requirement is just as important for the operator to ensure as flipping the right switch at the right time. The 15-minute requirement is an integral part of the operation of the Intoxilyzer and the manufacturer’s requirement was not complied with. I will not speculate as to, and I am lapsing into the vernacular, aw, shucks, golly, it does not mean that much anyway. I will not go there. The facts, to me, are the instrument was operated incorrectly, the manufacturer required that 15 minutes, that 15 minutes was not observed and, therefore, in my view, the instrument was not operated correctly and the presumption cannot be relied upon. Therefore, on the over 08 charge, I also find the accused not guilty.

For a copy of the decision please contact my office at 780-429-4004.Intoxilyzer