One day a report will be released on the Port Moody ASD calibration debacle. We assume it will come on a busy news day, or a Friday so it gets little attention from the media.
What astounds us is that we figured out the problem in a matter of minutes and then confirmed our findings in less than an hour. It’s been over six months that you have been paying for the New Westminster Police to investigate the issue. What’s up with that?
We suspect that they’ve been going through each and every file to try and find some way to isolate the damage to the Port Moody force and the reputation of the Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) scheme. Rather than coming clean, notifying everyone potentially effected and letting all of the potentially effected people take steps themselves to deal with their case, it seems that whoever is responsible for this has been busily working to try to minimize the public relations damage.
So, instead of protecting the innocent, they are working at protecting themselves. So much for serving the community.
About ASD calibration:
We noticed in some disclosure documents from Port Moody that, when they tested their Approved Screening Devices after we brought this whole thing to the fore, two of their ASDs could not be calibrated and were then sent off for service. Only a few weeks earlier they seemed to be working fine. What’s up with that?
Well, as you may know from reading this blog, the ASDs used in BC are to be tested for calibration every month. When the AlcoSensor IV was introduced, the manufacturer said to test them every two weeks. Back then we used the same time frame here.
Then the time frame was stretched to a month. The reason was simple. Some are out of calibration right away, some are out after two weeks, but the difference in the number out of calibration after two weeks as opposed to after a month wasn’t particularly great. So it seemed okay to start testing them for calibration on a monthly basis.
Yes, some are out of calibration right away. Some rarely give accurate results, and strangely some units seem to work nearly perfectly all of the time. Important to note, however, is that the decision to adopt a one-month period was based on the fact that the AlcoSensor IV was not to be used to justify punishment. It is a screener.
As a screener, 30 days makes sense. If it’s wrong, then later tests on a BAC Datamaster or Intox EC/IR II will clear up the mistake.
The problem is as of June 15, ASDs will again be used as the only evidence relied on to hand out immediate harsh punishment without any trial. On the basis of a potentially faulty device, you are immediately found guilty. You must then prove your innocence.
And the other problem is, instead of using a single ASD 10 or 15 times over the course of the month, the police may use one unit 1000 or 1500 times in a month under the IRP scheme.
Slogging to get disclosure:
You can’t imagine how hard it has been in some cases to get disclosure from certain police forces of their ASD records. In May we received documents from the Vancouver Police that we requested in May 2011. It took a long time to get them to give us what we asked for, but we are tenacious. The credit in this case goes to Kyla. She has put in countless hours to get this material and then many more going over what we’ve received.
Here is the sad story: in the very first file we reviewed with the benefit of the full ASD records it is clear without a doubt that BOTH of the devices used by the VPD were malfunctioning.
This person is innocent. He has paid all of the fines, paid for and taken the RDP and driven with an interlock for many months. He is innocent.
Historic records and subsequent records:
There are, of course, the records of how a unit functioned in the past and how it is found to function on a later date. Both are important, but with IRPs, even with the new scheme that comes into effect on June 15, 2012, there is not and never will be an opportunity to review subsequent records. The punishment starts before the hearing, and the information concerning subsequent malfunctioning of the unit will not be obtained until after you are found guilty by the OSMV. Obviously this doesn’t even remotely approach fairness. What’s up with that?
As we have pointed out, our Government is not interested in fairness. And the opposition is not interested in saying anything that might alter their near-certain success in the upcoming election.
Here is an excerpt from a subsequent ASD maintenance record showing that some devices could not be calibrated upon their monthly test, and others that showed “Void” i.e. wrongly indicating to the officer that the subject was refusing to blow.
If your matter is already under appeal, i.e. we have filed a Petition in Supreme Court to challenge your 90-day Fail IRP, then we will use this disclosure where necessary and pursuant to your instructions to get you the best result in your case.
If you are not our client at the moment, but you received a 90-day IRP for Fail in Vancouver and you want us to check if you were innocent, give us a call.