The Solicitor General is wrong. Everyone makes mistakes, and so we do not hold it against her, but her knowledge of the history of ASDs in British Columbia is lacking.
In the Canadian Press article from December 26, 2011, she was quoted as having written the following in an email:
“These devices are highly accurate and have been in use by police in B.C. since 1977.”
Wrong and wrong again. By two decades.
The Alcosensor IV first appears in the Criminal Code as an Approved Screening Device in 1997. They started to be widely distributed in BC in 1998. They replaced the SL-2 (we have one of those as well) which was introduced province wide in 1989.
You could say the Solicitor General got a Fail reading on the ASD history test.
We only point this out because anyone can be wrong despite the best of intentions. However, when you are wrong about basic facts and people suffer as a result, few would find that acceptable.
Her second mistake is to assume that ASDs are highly accurate. In lab tests, when they are properly calibrated, at room temperature, functioning properly and employed following proper procedures, they are fairly good, but not highly accurate. They are a useful tool for the police, but not a device intended to form the basis of punishment.
The records are clear evidence of the problems with using it for punishment. Abbotsford is not an anomaly – we picked on them because they keep better records. Which is to say, they have a greater chance of recognizing when a device is malfunctioning as opposed to many other detachments. But they still cannot say with certainty when a device began to malfunction. And when they did see the obvious problem, they did not think to look through their files to identify other people who blew into this device.
For this they also get a Fail.
This is a good example of why we have courts and use the reasonable-doubt standard to adjudicate matters where harsh punishment is involved. The police do not get it. They are not objective in their assessment of evidence they collect. And like the Solicitor General or anyone else, they can be mistaken.
Repair Mistakes:
A number of invoices show that an ASD has been in for repair and despite the service having been done and a report that it is working in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, the original problem or new problems persist.
Take a look at the excerpt below. This device, ASD 93830, is a newer unit that made a few trips to the distributor for repair, then made it back to use in the detachment, only to again be identified as malfunctioning. How many people received Immediate Roadside Prohibitions because of this device? Who knows — the Government and the police do not keep track.
Service request: “Unit has been in multiple times for repair and is still not working”
Would you bet your driver’s license, livelihood and $4700 on this device? Neither would we.
