Search
  • Stephen Biss

Police Fail to Correct a Linearity Problem on In-House Annual Inspection


Purpose:

To obtain an admission from the CFS scientist that the disclosed annual maintenance records indicate that the police failed to take any steps to correct control tests on inspection that indicated the instrument's response had shifted well beyond not only a 3 mg% tolerance, but well beyond a 10mg% tolerance.

To suggest to the CFS scientist that the calibration curve has shifted.

To suggest to the CFS scientist that the instrument's response is no longer as accurate and precise as it should be per manufacturer's specifications.

To suggest that police are not following their very generous 10 mg% tolerance SOPs.

To obtain an admission that measurement results on the instrument are no longer reliable.

To obtain an admission that the police did not stop use of the instrument and report the non-conformance to a superior..

Q. All right. So, at this point in time we still have linearity for this particular instrument. Let’s take a look at June the 20th, 2012, page 28. Now, with respect – we’re looking at page number... A. Twenty-eight?

Q. ...28. So, page 28, it appears that there was testing that was done at three different values of 50, 100 and 300. A. Yes. Q. And with respect to those – that testing at 50, 100 and 300 again, the tolerance that the police are looking for is plus or minus 10 percent. A. Correct. Q. And the values, the two values that are obtained at 50, are 43 and 43. A. Yes. Q. And those results are outside of 10 percent. A. They are, yes. Q. There’s no note on that periodic inspection of the author of the periodic inspection stopping use of the instrument. He documented it, but there’s no indication of the author of that document stopping use of the instrument and

reporting it to a superior. A. My belief is that Mr. March – P.C. Marsh – was the program coordinator for York Regional Police for the breath program. Q. Yes.

[ If "you would have to ask him what happened here" should there not be an O'Connor order for contemporaneous documentation by Constable Marsh?]

A. During that time. You would have to ask him what happened here, but yes, an inspection here, it appears that the low standard of 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood is reading low. Q. Right. But there’s no notation in the documents to indicate that Constable Marsh has noticed or noted in any way, that he is getting a low calibration check result at 50 milligrams per 100 mils that’s outside of the – both outside of the 3 percent, in the manufacturer’s specifications, and outside of the 10 percent of the – of the standards that seem to be applied by York Regional Police. A. That's correct. Q. And those numbers of course, are also outside of the plus or minus 5 – is it plus or minus 5 percent that the Alcohol Test Committee uses for purposes of an evaluation of a new type of approved instrument? A. I would have to look at the recommendation. Q. All right, we’ll have – perhaps we can check that later. So – but what the interesting thing is, that the numbers of 93 and 92 at 100 milligrams per 100 mils seem a bit low, but they’re within the 10 percent. A. Correct. Q. Are they also within the 3 percent? A. No, they’re not. Q. And there’s no notation about that, obviously, on the document. A. On this document, no.

Q. And with respect to the results at 300 the results obtained were 303 and 300. A. Those are acceptable. Q. Yes. So, I just want to put to you the hypothesis that the calibration curve on this instrument, or at least if not the curve, then the way that the instrument interacts with the real world has shifted. We have an indication here of a change in the calibration curve that doesn’t seem to be lining up as a parallel curve up or down, the way that you postulated earlier in your evidence. A. Okay. So, the instrument has a reduced response... Q. Yes. A. ...to the alcohol standard at that concentration. I can’t explain why the result is what it is. There are number of possible reasons why the calibration checks could be low, for both the 50 and the 90 even though the 90 is – the 93 and the 92 are within the plus or minus 10 percent, you’d have to ask Steve Marsh why he chose to proceed with testing and then indicate below that the instrument is in proper working order. Q. All right, well, in layperson’s terms. A. Yes. Q. The results at 50 are a lot lower than they should be. The results at 100 are a bit lower than they should be. And the results at 300 are where they should be or slightly above. A. That's correct. So, the instrument has a reduced response to a concentration of alcohol at 100 and would actually report the result as somewhere around 92 or 93 and even further down in the concentration range, would be reporting a 50 as a 43.

Q. So, one inference that we could draw from this document is that the calibration curve has shifted. A. No. The – so the calibration curve is fixed. Q. Yes. A. That doesn’t change from the time that it’s actually determined and put into the instrument using those standards. Q. Yes. A. It’s the response to the instrument that shifts Q. Yes. A. So, a calibration curve, from calibration curve to calibration – so if you calibrated the instrument one year, it’s possible that the next year you could recalibrate the instrument and it’s possible that the curve could shift. All right? As it can with any instrument, including ours. But for that particular time, it is fixed. It doesn’t shift. It doesn’t move. All right? And it’s the response of the instrument to the alcohol that has shifted and therefore the instrument is reading low or in this case, maybe the proper procedure wasn’t followed with respect to how the standard was used. Q. But we have an indication that at the very least, the calibration, if I can put it, of the instrument, has changed. A. No. There’s nothing anywhere in the published literature or in presentations in the international community or otherwise, that shows that the calibration shifts. It’s actually the response of the instrument to a concentration of alcohol has shifted. Q. The linearity had shifted?

A. No, ‘cause linearity is the range from 0 to 600. Q. Yes. A. So, it’s just simply the response has shifted. Q. I see, but.... A. Not the calibration curve ‘cause it’s fixed and the calibration curve is fixed in the instrument and is monitored by the software from the time that it is established. Q. But the – and so what’s happened is the response of the instrument has changed and yet the calibration curve in the electronics, saved in the electronics of the instrument is still the same. A. Correct. Q. And so, in terms of results, the measurement results, that we are likely to receive from that instrument are less reliable. A. They’re going to be lower, yes.

#linearity #nonconforming #calibration #annualmaintenance #inspection

8 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.