Tip 21: A CFS scientist has acknowledged police sometimes are tempted to record 34.0.
Evidence of a CFS scientist, Dr. L, April 10, 2013, R v KG at Kitchener, transcript page 10:
"As I indicated from my own personal experience, this Simulator and the earlier Simulators keep their temperatures very, very stably which is why we always train and insist that the breath technicians look at the temperature because after six to eight months of seeing the same numbers, it’s tempting just to rely on that fact. And occasionally when a device malfunctions, then they will put down, especially in the old days with the 5000C, they would put down that the temperature was 34.0 and then get a very low or a very high calibration check and then realize, oh, the temperature isn’t what it was and then they would have to explain that."
Should police officers rely on the fact that something is usually true rather than relying on what they actually observe? Should police officers bother to observe, if they already expect something is usually true, i.e. a temperature of 34.0C?
Below is Exhibit 52E R v BCPS Orangeville during cross-examination of a CFS expert. This Exhibit was an example from another jurisdiction and shows a cal check of 043 (target 100) and temperature 34.1C. Either this 5000C instrument is horribly out of calibration, or the alcohol standard really has a target value of about 40, the simulator thermometer is malfunctioning, or the QT has not properly recorded the simulator temperature:
