Police Services Use Control Test Data Outside MPE to Calculate Precision

Purpose: To obtain an acknowledgement from a CFS scientist that even though he would exclude data outside (Maximum Permissible Error) 90 to 110 in calculating precision, at least one police service in Ontario is using data outside 90 to 110 in calculations of precision during periodic inspection. #MPE #precision #stabilitytesting #outlier

Ignoring Inconvenient Data in Calculation of Precision

Purpose: To challenge the opinion that data outside maximum permissible error (outside +/- 10 mg%) should be excluded from any calculation of precision. The cross-examiner should have called evidence in reply from a statistician or other expert in outliers. #MPE #outlier #precision

Defence Methodology Calculating Precision in the Field

Purpose: To establish a better methodology for calculating precision of an approved instrument in service. To apply CFS methodology using control checks re calculation of uncertainty of measurement in blood/urine analysis to evidentiary breath testing. #precision #stabilitytesting #UM

Precision Testing Using Only 2 Data Points is Inadequate to Calculate Precision

Purpose: To educate the Court as to the inadequacy of calculation of the instrument's precision by the local police service, close in time to the subject tests. To obtain admissions from the CFS expert as to proper methods for calculating precision. To confirm evidence that the local police had stopped doing linearity checks by the time of this periodic inspection. #annualmaintenance #precision #inspection #stabilitytesting

Government Scientists Calculate Uncertainty of Measurement - Why Can't We?

Purpose: To obtain admissions about the use of historical control test data by the Centre of Forensic Sciences in Toronto to calculate standard deviation and uncertainty of measurement. To obtain an admission that the same approach could be used with historical data of Intoxilyzer control tests to prepare statistical data of accuracy and precision at different points in time so as to assess drift in accuracy and precision over time, in other words, reliability. #historicaldata #UM #precision #accuracy

Downloaded Data is a Key Source of Information to Find Out Reason for Re-calibration

Purpose: Confirming why disclosure of COBRA or other downloaded data is relevant to understanding the reasons why an instrument needed to be sent to the factory for re-calibration. To establish the need for an O'Connor order to produce documentation of what was meant by "Consistently low cal checks. To establish the need for an O'Connor order to produce the technicians' contemporaneous documentation that went with the periodic inspections #COBRA #disclosure #inspection

Police don't follow their Standard Operating Procedures

Purpose: To establish non-compliance with the Standard Operating Procedure respecting entering accurate data into the tombstone data prior to a configuration of the alcohol standard or a subject test To establish improper use of the Esc Esc E function checking date and time To establish bad practice in recording or amending location data in the instrument To establish the unreliability of some of the information on the Intoxilyzer Test Record notwithstanding Criminal Code section 258(1)(f.1) #SOPs #tombstonedata #controltest #location

Checking Analytical Variability and Accuracy of the Instrument? Where?

Purpose: To explore the lack of a lab setting when accuracy and precision of the instrument are checked on periodic or annual inspection. To explore the lack of Standard Operating Procedures when accuracy and precision of the instrument are checked on periodic or annual inspection. #analyticalvariability #inspection #annualmaintenance #precision #accuracy #SOPs

Being Intolerant Depends on Humans not the Machine

Purpose: To challenge the Crown's assertion that the AI will automatically shut down if anything is out of tolerance or ATC or manufacturer's specifications. Let's suppose the Crown's expert says this about the Intoxilyzer 8000C: "If the calibration check is outside the acceptable range, you’re not going to be able to proceed with testing." The expert is saying in other words, the instrument is smart enough to make sure that cal. checks are foolproof, and you can't proceed with testing unless the cal. checks are within the acceptable range of 90 to 110. He or she is saying there is a failsafe mechanism and Judges will interpret the evidence that way. #tolerance #manufacturersspecifications #

Distorted Concept of "Accuracy", "Precision", and "Reliability"

Purpose: To remind the Court of the concept of "reliability" used by the SCC in St-Onge. To educate the Court as to the definitions of "accuracy", "precision", and "reliability" used by Brian Hodgson in his paper relied on by the SCC in St-Onge. To focus on drift in accuracy and precision over time from: the manufacturer's specifications, and/or the accuracy and precision of the 8000 that was evaluated, and/or this specific instrument when first placed into service, as compared with accuracy and precision close to time of use. #reliability #accuracy #precision #Hodgson #manufacturersspecifications

Attempt to Distinguish from Jackson and Vallentgoed

Purpose: To support argument that the Maintenance History shows that the instrument was taken "out of service", for "consistently low cal. checks" and as a result "requires calibration". Can the matter not be distinguished from Vallentgoed where the maintenance log revealed that the instrument was taken out of service for routine maintenance and periodic re-calibration? To support argument that the Maintenance History reveals that the instrument was taken out of service for a specific problem. Can the matter not be distinguished from Jackson para 135? To suggest that there is a problem with the CFS / ATC approach to assessing accuracy and precision if this instrument needed to be taken out o

Attempt to Distinguish R. v. Jackson

Purpose: To distinguish R. v. Jackson on the basis of a difference in facts. The instrument in Jackson was new. See Jackson paragraph 135 highlight in red. The instrument in the matter before the Court was about 6 years old. #aging #Jackson #calibrationinterval

No Sampling of Aging Instruments in the Field

Purpose: To suggest that ATC/CFS scientists cannot provide any scientific opinion of the reliability of aging instruments out in the field without conducting an empirical study of instruments sampled from the field. To suggest that ATC/CFS scientists have no idea whether or not instruments in the field are performing in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. To identify the lack of any system of "verification" in Canada that instruments in the field are performing in a manner similar to the instruments originally evaluated and given type approval. To contrast the evaluated accuracy and precision of instruments evaluated by the ATC with actual accuracy and precision of instruments in

Durability Over Time

Purpose: To obtain admissions respecting the inadequacy of ATC / CFS recommendations in requiring "stability of metrological characteristics" over time. To obtain admissions that the Diagnostics test function only checks stability over a few seconds at best, not over weeks, months, or years following calibration by the manufacturer. To underline the concept of "over time" in Hodgson's definition of "reliability". #Hodgson #reliability #durability #metrologicalcharacteristics #overtime #calibration

Each Test Stands on Its Own

Purposes of this cross-examination: To challenge the ATC hypothesis or policy that "each test stands on its own". To identify the hypothesis as faith or policy, not scientific opinion. To demand the wording of the hypothesis and the empirical testing methodology if it is a scientific opinion. To identify exactly what other anchoring information ATC/CFS considers essential to reliability notwithstanding this sweeping statement. To identify exactly what other information they label irrelevant. To obtain an admission that this is not scientific opinion. To educate the Court as to the difference between scientific opinion and technical opinion. To separate the difference between a priori logical

All of the Software is Legally Relevant

Purpose: To establish that the international literature indicates that all of the approved instrument's software is legally relevant to reliability of the measuring system. To distinguish "audit trail" (e.g. COBRA data) from instrument software (e.g. source code) #COBRA #R126 #OIML #software #audittrail

International Std OIML R126 Mandates Maximum Permissible Error

Purpose: To identify that the international standard for MPE for instruments in service, 6 mg% at target 100 is much tighter than 10 mg%. To identify that the international standard for MPE for instruments after repair is tighter than instruments in service. To raise the concept of MPE after repair and in service at various target values across the measuring interval. See also "OIML R 126 is the International Standard for Breath Alcohol Analyzers" #MPE #OIML #R126

No Supervision by ATC, CFS, or Anyone of Annual/Periodic Inspection SOPs

Purpose: To show that the ATC recommendations for operational procedures at time of use do not account for the need during inspections to regularly conduct control tests at target values other than 100 mg/100mls. To demonstrate that we have no metrological supervision to ensure that linearity is checked, that manufacturer's specifications are honoured across the measuring interval. To demonstrate that searches of breath using"approved instruments" are unreasonable in Canada if there is no system in place to supervise and audit police maintenance of their instruments. To explore lack of metrological supervision of police and authorized service centres respecting inspection of approved instrum

Is an Approved Instrument Really a Screening Device?

Purpose: To suggest that an AI is a quantitative analysis instrument and an ASD is a qualitative analysis instrument and suggest that the government scientists are confusing this distinction as happened at the Motherisk Lab in Toronto. To suggest that such confusion, if it persists, will lead to unconstitutionality of various Criminal Code sections or section 7 and 8 Charter violations. #Motherisk #quantitativeanalysis #screeningdevice #qualitativeanalysis

Manipulating Control Test Data to Enhance Precision

Purpose: To neutralize the government scientist's assertion that anomalous data should be excluded from calculation of precision. To obtain an acknowledgment of drift in precision over time (see Hodgson definition of reliability) To challenge the propriety of throwing out control test data outside 90 - 100 mg/100mls in any calculation of precision #precision #Hodgson #reliability

© 2019 Allbiss Lawdata Ltd.

This site has been built by 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.

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.