DUI Metrology Dictionary
Internal data stored in an Intoxilyzer 5000, 5000C, 8000, or 8000C memory respecting almost every event. The software used to extract this internal data is "ADAMS", "COBRA IV" or "COBRA V".
The Crown will call this "historical data" and argue that disclosure would affect the privacy of other test subjects. The defence will call this the best evidentiary, most complete, and objective record of almost everything that happens on the machine. OIML calls it the "audit trail".
COBRA software is the Windows version of ADAMS MS-DOS software. Prior to R. v. Jackson this data was being safeguarded by the OPP, Toronto, York, and Peel Police, as well as others.
It was routinely available in Peel in a well-organized redacted electronic spreadsheet. It proved invaluable in making full answer and defence.
It was routinely available from the OPP in a well-organized redacted electronic spreadsheet. It proved invaluable in making full answer and defence.
Three types relevant to defence:
1. When making a request for COBRA data, always contrast the data kept on the machine (and extracted using COBRA software) of each air blank, cal. check, error, subject result FOR YOUR CLIENT (a lot of data) v. the data for other individuals.
2. When making a request for COBRA data, always contrast the COBRA data RESPECTING CONTROL TESTS from the prior solution change and subsequent solution change from data for other subjects.
3. Contrast the COBRA data at start of shift, prior to your client's tests, during all Esc Esc sequences from data respecting other subjects.
See these contrasts in R. v. Ocampo.
Read the R. v. Kuster: Patrick transcript to learn about the MS-DOS origin of this data and its usefulness in finding lost/discarded Intoxilyzer test records.
In the image shown (a document prepared by a defence expert), please note the low cal. checks in the context of an RFI exception message. This data does not establish that the instrument was malfunctioning. Rather it shows low cal. checks. Low cal. checks may be indicative of lack of accuracy or precision if you know their context. The RFI exception does not tell you that the instrument was malfunctioning at time of your client's subject tests. You need to know the context. Maybe the RFI was a constant problem at the detachment (e.g. police transmitter/antenna too close to the breath room). Maybe that information should prompt an FOI application. Maybe the RFI was interfering with the floating zero on the Intoxilyzer. The data shown, may be, however, a GOOD REASON FOR AN O'CONNOR order to provide contemporaneous documentation by the operator to establish the context. The data also will probably tell you who the operator was so that you can issue a subpoena or start the FOI application or ask good questions on cross-examination.