© 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.

Attempt to Distinguish from Jackson and Vallentgoed

January 21, 2018

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 of service - the instrument passed the CFS / ATC criteria and yet was taken out of service for some mysterious reason.

To suggest that full documentation of the mysterious reason should be the subject matter of an O'Connor order.

Please reload

If you are a Canadian criminal defence lawyer and you wish to learn more about cross-examination on these issues, we suggest that you visit the Members page at www.impaired-driving.com and enroll in the three online courses that are described therein. Once you have completed the three online courses, you can apply to become a full Member at that site, and if you are accepted for membership, you will have access to the much more extensive Members Only Blog at that site, as well as  additional international resources, links, and materials.

If you are a Canadian criminal defence lawyer and you wish to learn more about cross-examination of Drug Recognition Experts we recommend that you attend an online or recorded session at  https://www.impaired-driving.com/dre-tutorial.

Featured Posts

OIML R126 is the International Standard for Evidential Breath Analyzers

August 14, 2018

1/5
Please reload

Recent Posts
Please reload

Archive
Please reload

Search By Tags