ASD - SAMPLES EXCLUDED WHERE INADEQUATE PROOF OF THE TYPE OF ASD USED

The officer tesitifed that he used an Intoxiliyzer 400D which is an approved screeing device. He also filed a photocopy of the device he used. The photocopy only showed the number 400. The letter 'D' was shown beside the serial number on the device. The court concluded that although the Crown proved that the officer had the subjective belief that the device he used was a 400D, it was not objectively reasonable for the officer to assume the device was a 400D. R. v. Nowakowski, 2011 ABPC 241

For a different approach, see R. v. Gundy, 2008 ONCA 284, where the Ontario Court of Appeal quoted with approval another judge when he said, “what is the likelihood that the O.P.P. would supply its constables with an unapproved device with which to enforce the R.I.D.E. programme?”