Search
  • Stephen Biss

Linearity Studies are Done on New Instruments not Aging Instruments


Sample cross-examination of CFS expert on the inadequacy of studies relied upon by government scientists to maintain that approved instruments have good linearity - the studies were all done on new instruments, recently calibrated at the factory, not on aging instruments out in the field:

Purpose:

To obtain admissions that the published studies dealing with the linearity of approved instruments assume a new instrument recently calibrated by the manufacturer.

Q. Well, every study that we see having to do

with a new instrument, for example, Ms. Martin's, Kerry

Martin's study, the published paper relating to the

Intoxilyzer 8000C...

A. Yes.

Q. ...she did linearity checks.

A. She did.

Q. She looked at the math and she did an actual

check to examine the linearity of the instrument?

A. Correct

Q. But my --

A. That's the purpose of an evaluation. An

evaluation is from the operational requirements of the

instrument.

Q. But the evaluation is always with respect to a

new instrument, an instrument that's been recently

calibrated, that's been sent by the manufacturer out for

evaluation.

A. Yes.

Q. The problem is, when we've got instruments out

in the field, if no one is checking linearity, and on a

regular basis, if no one is sending the instrument out with

basic regular either inspection intervals or regular

calibration intervals, it is not at all safe to assume that

the linearity of the response is going to be maintained.

A. Some of that is addressed at the time of the

preventative maintenance inspection done either on an annual

or biannual basis.

Q. And so that's why it's so important that some

of that being addressed is being done properly. And so if

the individual doing the annual maintenance is not properly

responding and documenting a problem when they see, say, the

numbers when they do an inspection at 50 milligrams per 100

mills or 40 milligrams per 100 mills being way out of spec,

and then they do nothing about it, that is problematic, I

would suggest to you, and that's why it is that the CFS

policy that every test stands on its own doesn't work out in

the field.

A. That's your opinion, yes.

MR. BISS: Your Honour, should we mark those

documents as exhibits?

THE COURT: Yes. And is that 49 now?

MR. BISS: There was...

CLERK REGISTRAR: Forty-nine.

THE COURT: Okay. So, that’s an excerpt from the Intoxilyzer 8000c Training Aid and 50 is an excerpt from what I'm sure is a very stimulating text. The Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry authored by F. James Holler, H-O-L-L-E-R and Stanley R. Crouch. That’s number 50.

EXHIBIT NUMBER 49: Excerpt from Training Aid – produced and marked.

EXHIBIT NUMBER 50: Excerpt from The Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry – produced and marked.

See also:

"Beer's Law and Spectrophotometer Linearity" by C.G. Cannon and I.S.C. Butterworth, 1953, Vol. 25, No. 1, Analytical Chemistry

"Does the Intoxilyzer 4011AS-A conform to the Beer-Lambert law?" by J Mack Cowan, Joyurnal of the Forensic Science society 1988: 28: 179-184

#crossex #linearity #sampling

0 views

© 2019 Allbiss Lawdata Ltd. All rights reserved. This is not a government web site.

 

 

For more information respecting this database or to report misuse contact: Allbiss Lawdata Ltd., 303-470 Hensall Circle, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, L5A 3V4, 905-273-3322. The author and the participants make no representation or warranty  whatsoever as to the authenticity and reliability of the information contained herein.  WARNING: All information contained herein is provided  for the purpose of discussion and peer review only and should not be construed as formal legal advice. The authors disclaim any and all liability resulting from reliance upon such information. You are strongly encouraged to seek professional legal advice before relying upon any of the information contained herein. Legal advice should be sought directly from a properly retained lawyer or attorney. 

WARNING: Please do not attempt to use any text, image, or video that you see on this site in Court. These comments, images, and videos are NOT EVIDENCE. The Courts will need to hear evidence from a properly qualified expert. The author is not a scientist. The author is not an expert. These pages exist to promote discussion among defence lawyers.

 

Intoxilyzer®  is a registered trademark of CMI, Inc. The Intoxilyzer® 5000C is an "approved instrument" in Canada.
Breathalyzer® is a registered trademark of Draeger Safety, Inc., Breathalyzer Division. The owner of the trademark is Robert F. Borkenstein and Draeger Safety, Inc. has leased the exclusive rights of use from him. The Breathalyzer® 900 and Breathalyzer® 900A were "approved instruments" in Canada.
DrugTest® 5000 is also a registered trademark of Draeger Safety, Inc.. DrugTest® 5000 is "approved drug screening equipment" in Canada.
Alcotest® is a registered trademark of Draeger Safety, Inc. The Alcotest® 7410 GLC and 6810 are each an "approved screening device" in Canada.
Datamaster®  is a registered trademark of National Patent Analytical Systems, Inc.  The BAC Datamaster® C  is an "approved instrument" in Canada.