We’ve had a number of reporters call us in the last few days, and everyone rushed to get the story out for the evening news on Thursday.
Mi-Jung Lee at CTV had a woman who served her 90-day for an alleged refusal. It was interesting because over the past 14 months many clients did not want to appeal the review decision because they were concerned about the notoriety. This worked in the Government’s favour because few people were willing to speak up to explain how unfair the scheme was for fear of public humiliation. We found that many people would read their review decision and assume that this is the way justice works in BC. Because you also end up with an interlock if you’ve been convicted of the criminal over .08 charge, most who received an IRP felt that they’d been branded a criminal without trial.
The events of the last week, i.e. the ruling and the public debate, appear to have encouraged people to tell their story.
The woman in the CTV report was a good example of a person who could very well have been innocent, yet because of the limited review provisions she did not conduct a review. We’ve observed that smaller people, and in particular smaller women, have more difficulty providing a sample that meets the parameters of the ASD. The difficulties are often exacerbated when there is a police officer speaking sternly (or yelling) and threatening you with a criminal charge.
Worse yet, a significant number of the FOI documents we’ve obtained show that many malfunctions cause the display to indicate the person isn’t blowing properly. From Kamloops we have a memo about one that kept indicating “NoGo.” They believed it was a “stuck valve.” How many IRPs were issued on that unit before it was noticed? Did it work intermittently for a while?
Many of the repair invoices indicate that the devices were regularly displaying “Void” which is also an indication of an improper sample. The officer at the roadside may never know that the device was malfunctioning. One document indicates that they kept using the device, even after they noticed the problem, because it was not due for its annual service.
It seems reasonable to assume that a malfunctioning unit may lead to more IRPs than one that works. For example, on one Vancouver calibration check sheet, 6 of 8 units were found to be over-reporting (i.e. beyond acceptable parameters) during one calibration check. If we could match those units to the IRPs issued, we could probably show that they were responsible for a disproportionate number of IRPs. Interestingly, the control numbers suggested that they were new units. Because VPD have never provided us with a list of corresponding serial numbers, we cannot match them to our files.
We’re glad to see that the stigma has reduced enough for people to want to come out and tell their story. Still, it takes courage.
Kitimat ASDs
One thing we gave to the media that was not reported on was the ASDs in Kitimat. If you watch the CBC video you can see the calibration logs. You can see that the box indicating that they are properly calibrated is checked, right alongside the box that indicates it is out of calibration. The officer appears to have just checked ALL of the boxes. You can never be sure if it is correct in these circumstances.
Also from Kitimat, one unit was not reset to display “warn” at .06 until August 2011. Apparently it was in service for 9 months after it should have been pulled out and reprogrammed. How many people received IRPs in Kitimat in the last 14 months?