In 2015, British Columbia replaced the older Alco-Sensor IV DWF, an Approved Screening Device (ASD), with the newer Alco-Sensor FST breathalyzer. Now, with over a decade of data, we can see that this change led to a significant rise in “refuse to blow” cases. But why would a new ASD cause more drivers to be accused of refusing to comply during impaired driving investigations? There’s no evidence to suggest a change in driver behavior. Instead, the data strongly suggests that the new device itself is driving the increase in refusal cases.
From 2014 to 2015, refusal cases surged by 26.73%, coinciding exactly with the introduction of the Alco-Sensor FST. Before this change, between 2011 and 2014, refusals averaged 6.59% of all DUI cases in British Columbia. But after 2015, refusals jumped to an average of 10.44%, marking a substantial and sustained increase.
A key difference between the two breathalyzers is the volume and pressure of breath needed to trigger automatic sampling. The Alco-Sensor FST requires users to blow harder and longer than the DWF, which had less demanding requirements. Additionally, in British Columbia, the FST’s software locks out the “manual” override button that could bypass the automatic sampling process. Without sufficient air pressure and volume, the FST rejects the sample, meaning drivers who can’t meet these requirements may be wrongfully accused of refusing, even if they’re genuinely trying.
This design change is the only discernable reason for the sustained rise in refusal cases since 2015. The FST’s higher airflow requirements have made it harder for many drivers, especially those with respiratory conditions or under stress, to provide a sufficient breath sample. The consequences are serious— these drivers are handed a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP), fines, and vehicle impoundment, or criminal charge not because they refused, but because they couldn’t meet the breathalyzer’s physical demands.
How many innocent people received a refusal IRP or criminal charge?
By comparing refusal rates before and after 2015, we can estimate with significant certainty that approximately 5,600 additional refusal cases occurred between 2015 and 2023 due to the use of the Alco-Sensor FST. These drivers were not refusing to blow; they were unable to comply with the device’s technical requirements. Vulnerable groups—those with respiratory conditions or some other disability, the elderly, and people experiencing panic during a roadside stop—have been disproportionately affected.
The consequences are far-reaching. When drivers can’t blow hard enough, they face the same penalties as those who deliberately refuse, leading to 90-day IRPs, or a criminal charge. It is reasonable to conclude that approximately 5,600 drivers have found themselves in this position since 2015, penalized because the current breathalyzer is too demanding for them to use.
This situation raises serious concerns about fairness. Drivers should not be punished simply because they can’t meet the physical requirements of a device. How would you feel if you were one of these 5,600 people?
The government has little incentive to recognize this obvious conclusion made out in the statistics that they collect and publish. In fines alone, the government collected approximately $2.8 million from these wrongly accused drivers, many of whom are vulnerable to start with.
Check out the TikTok that Kyla Lee made on this topic!