The feedback that we receive from our blog is inspiring. Mostly we get emails, but also phone calls and the odd thank-you on the street. We have over 130 postings. Most are about the Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme, which merely reflects the fact that we have a lot to say about it (almost all of which is critical).
If you received an IRP, then you understand. You are part of a community wherein you do not know the other members and have little by way of support from your community. But remember: there are at least 15,000 people who went through this. You are not alone.
We are trying to provide some comfort in the sense that you know we understand the issues and are busily trying to advocate for you, even if you are not our client. And we are trying to help you understand why this scheme is so flawed. Our hope is that, if you are an IRP sufferer, you are prepared to advocate, i.e. to explain just what a crappy system it is, when it next comes up for public debate. And of course, the public debate is right around the corner.
We have a number of issues we still want to address in blog postings. It was cathartic for us to address the problems with the second sample (here and here). Today we will begin a discussion about the breathalyzer.
What is the Right Tool? Roadside Breathalyzers and DUI Enforcement
The device used by the police in BC is the Alco-Sensor IV DWF Screener. It was approved by Parliament as a screening device (ASD) to identify drivers who should be taken to provide samples into an approved instrument. The results of the Alco-Sensor IV sample were never intended to be used as evidence. When it was introduced, the only purpose was as a Screener (as the name implies) and it was understood that the results could not be used as the basis of punishment.
There are many reasons for that, but the main reason is because your right to contact a lawyer is suspended until after you provide a sample. This is a constitutional violation. As a compromise, the police may use it but the use of the results is greatly limited.
Also, the device is a greatly simplified model. It does not perform a “blank” test to ensure there is no alcohol on the fuel cell from the previous subject. It does not give a numerical reading above 60mg%. It displays the results for only 2 seconds. When it is cold the results may be inaccurate. It has no memory, so it cannot show you when it was last calibrated or what the results of the sample were once the mouthpiece is removed.
And then we found so very many that had been incorrectly tested for calibration, not tested, not correctly calibrated or not functioning properly.
We made some of our findings public. And the reporters always asked us if it was simply a problem with the machine, or if there is a better machine for the job. Is it the right tool for the job? Again, this is the type of question that cannot be answered in a 2 second soundbite.
The Alco-Sensor IV is a decent, sturdy tool. It has failings, but as a Screener it is useful. It is a sensitive device but it can take some abuse. As a screener, if it is wrong, better tests at the detachment will normally exonerate the driver. Under the IRP scheme, there was no safeguard to address the failings of the device.
Other devices have similar problems with respect to maintenance. The device they use in Alberta, the Intoxilizer 400 (we have one of these too) has an internal heater. So it reduces the possibility of a sample being inaccurate due to a cold fuel cell. However, unlike the Alco-Sensor IV it does not tell you the temperature of the fuel cell, so you cannot be certain the heater and thermometer are functioning.
We do not have a Draeger Alcotest. I was stopped by the police in Germany and had to repair their Draeger for them before I provided a breath sample because theirs was kaput. So it also has its problems.
All of the hand-held devices are subject to problems that we have found with the Alco-Sensor IV. There are more advanced models of Alco-Sensor IV not approved for use in Canada, but some of the problems remain or cannot be corrected.
Operator error, maintenance problems and the narrative of a roadside test preclude reliable testing. At the roadside, without a mobile testing facility, you cannot collect truly reliable tests that could properly be relied on for punishment.
In a future blog post we will discuss a proper test for use as evidence.