We’ve conducted a lot of tests over the years, often with very interesting results. We have a full size police breathalyzer in our law office in downtown Vancouver, and we usually bring one of our portable AlcoSensor IVs to parties. If we’re defending a client on an impaired driving charge we will usually bring one to court whether we’re in Surrey, Vancouver or Campbell River. And so we know how to use them. And because we’re always conducting forensic evaluations of what happened in our client’s cases, we’ve seen some strange breath test results.
One of the problems with the DWF model that we use in BC is that it does not record the results nor does it have an internal memory to tell you when it was last calibrated, serviced and the results of each test. The test results flash for 2 seconds and then disappear forever. We know that you’re thinking that this is ridiculous, but it’s true. After pressing Set and before ejecting the mouthpiece, you can recall the last test result, but most officers don’t know this. Nor do they care. There are no consequences to them if they make a mistake.
And of course, the DWF does not give you the actual reading, but simply a Fail or Warn to indicate over .06%.
When meeting with the reporters for all of the news stories over the last 16 months, we demonstrated the AlcoSensor IV several times. Sometimes with the camera rolling we had strange ASD results.
In December Mi-Jung Lee was in our office preparing a report on calibration issues. We demonstrated the wet-bath simulator to her using an ASD AlcoSensor IV DWF, the same one the police use. After demonstrating it, we spoke for a minute, and then prepared it again for another test. When it was ready to take the test, the manual button was mistakenly pressed and the unit registered a reading of .021mg% without anyone putting it to their lips. How did this happen?
The DWF does not perform the internal test checks that other models do, including a blank test. So alcohol from a previous sample may still be on the fuel cell. The upshot is that your sample may be elevated due to the sample of the previous user. If the previous user had some alcohol in their mouth, theoretically it may be on the fuel cell for some time. Bearing in mind the way we used these devices during the IRP days, this must have happened often.
Just after Christmas with cameras rolling we did a test of a unit that was at operational temperature but it was cool (13c) and we used a consistent external standard at the correct temperature. On the first test the reading was 12% below the standard and on the second test is was 11% above. This was a properly serviced and properly calibrated device. What we have found is that in our office at 23c the results are quite consistent, but that they are all over the map if the device is below 18c.
It’s too bad that none of this was included in the news reports, but it’s difficult to understand and it was not the primary subject matter of the reports in any event.
In real-life situations the device may be malfunctioning, it is rarely 23c, there may be mouth alcohol, it may have been used recently with some other person who had a Blood-Alcohol Content (BAC) of .190%, and on and on.
Of course, the police don’t conduct experiments to simulate real-life situations. When it comes to this they don’t really care.
Regarding the Blog:
Thanks again for following our blog. We try to give the straight goods to our clients and to the people who visit our site.
Part of the purpose of the blog at this time is to give you the information you need to effectively make your point when you are debating the IRP issue with others. Because we are also employment lawyers, we have had to explain the scheme to a number of employers over the year who considered firing a worker who received an IRP. If you find yourself in the situation of having to explain yourself to your boss, we want you to have the tools to advocate for yourself.
We are still accepting new clients with old or new Immediate Roadside Prohibition cases and as always, we defend all criminal charges in BC with the same vigor that we have used when taking on the Government regarding IRPs.