Internal Standards Also Need Calibration and Calibration Interval
To explain the function of internal standards, the ITP, internal test procedure to the Court.
To obtain an admission that the ITP system needs annual or periodic maintenance, just like the optical bench, so that the instrument can continue to function in accordance with manufacturer's specifications.
To obtain an admission that any adjustment or re-calibration of the optical bench also requires re-calibration of the internal standards.
Q. You just talked about the internal test procedure. A. Yes. Q. And its relationship um.... A. So, essentially, what the internal test procedure does, is it mimics as if there’s 100 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood in the sample chamber. So – I’ll wait. Q. No, no, go ahead and explain what it is. A. All right, so Your Honour, what happens is, is that the – the light source at the one end and the detectors at the other end, and what happens is, is that the intensity of the light source at the one end is reduced equivalent to the concentration or – is reduced in intensity so that it mimics the concentration of 100 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. Right? So it’s pretending that there is alcohol in the sample chamber, when there isn’t, by reducing the intensity of the light source, which is what happens if you have alcohol. So, the more alcohol you have in the sample chamber, the less light that reaches the detector, ‘cause it absorbs. And so, that’s what this is doing. And it checks the values that are received by both the detectors to make sure that they’re within the acceptable parameters, and if they are, then the – the next set of diagnostics – the next step in the diagnostics would be performed. But if it fails, then it would cancel the remaining tests. Q. I’m showing you a document we obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from somebody known as Inger.... A. Bugyra? Q. Bugyra, yes.
Q. To someone named Terry Martin and Darryl Meyers. Do you know those people? A. Yes. They’re my colleagues. Q. Right. Do you want to just take a look at it? I don’t know whether you’ve seen this document before. A. All right, this is actually the first time I’ve seen this. Q. All right, the email appears to be from someone by the name of Brian Falkner at Alcohol Test dot com. That’s the web address for C.M.I. Inc.? A. That's correct. Q. And in the middle section, paragraph two, “The results of the I-T-P are based on the calibration curves so if the calibration curve changes the I-T-P needs to be recalibrated.” Right? A. Yes. Q. So, it isn’t just a question of maybe one maybe needing to be recalibrated and another one compensate for it, the calibration curve shifts then both need to be recalibrated. A. That would be correct, yes. MR. BISS: If that item be marked as an exhibit please Your Honour? THE COURT: Okay, well, just so I understand, I don’t know who these people are, so is this being presented as authoritative or an acknowledged fact or are we going to hear a witness or how is this admissible, I guess is what I’m asking you. It’s.... MR. BISS: Why don’t I ask Mr. Palmentier who each of these people are?
THE COURT: Well, Terry Martin and Darryl Meyers, I know are colleagues. A. Yes, they’re also forensic toxicologists. THE COURT: Right. A. And both on the Alcohol Test Committee. THE COURT: Yes, I’ve encountered both, so – and what about Inger Bugyra? A. Inger Bugyra? THE COURT: Or Inger – Inger Bugyra. A. She is also a toxicologist. THE COURT: She’s a toxicologist. A. At the Centre of Forensic Sciences. THE COURT: Right. A. She’s the one who certifies all the alcohol standards that are used by police services around the province. THE COURT: And she’s testified, I think. A. Oh, a number of times. THE COURT: Yes. A. But I don’t know if in front of yourself, Your Honour. THE COURT: Yes. A. Okay. THE COURT: Okay. So, we have three toxicologists are having a discussion. Who is Brian Falkner? A. He works for C.M.I. Inc. THE COURT: Okay. A. So, when we have questions about the Intoxilyzer 8000C or 5000C, when – back long ago when it was still being used, we would contact him for anything that we don’t know about or that we haven’t had any training about or
questions about things that are unusual. THE COURT: And I just want to clarify, just because I gather we’re not hearing from these people directly, in particular, Brian Falkner, that the reference that he makes in the middle paragraph of the front page of this appears to be a copy of an email, you would agree with that assertion? Is that.... A. Yes. THE COURT: Okay. A. If the calibration curve changed then of course the I-T-P would also have to change. THE COURT: All right. So where are we at Madam Clerk, in terms of.... MADAM CLERK: Twenty-eight. THE COURT: Twenty-eight. So, this is an email – it looks like it was – I’m not sure why it’s – it must’ve been copied, I gather, to Terry Martin, maybe. MR. BISS: It looks like Terry Martin passed it on to other people. THE COURT: To others, yes. So, it’s a email from Terry Martin. A. What was the date of that? THE COURT: Sent the – the email – the original email from Brian Falkner looks like July 19th, 2012 sent to Inger Bugyra. Is that her correct pronunciation? A. Correct, yes. THE COURT: And.... A. She’s Swedish. THE COURT: Yes. I had trouble with her name,
I know, when she was last here. And then looks like it was distributed further to Terry Martin on the following day, July 20th, 2012. I think the original inquiry at the bottom of the email chain looks like it’s from Inger Bugyra originally to Brian Falkner. He’s responding to her inquiry. A. Correct. THE COURT: Okay, so that’s Exhibit 28. EXHIBIT NUMBER 28: Email from Terry Martin re: Brian Falkner’s email – produced and marked. MR. BISS: Okay. Thank you.
This is the page on ITP in the Intoxilyzer 8000C Training Aid: