The officer was investigating a driver who had collided with two pedestrians in High Prairie at about 3:30 p.m. on December 24th, 2009.  The officer saw that the ASD that was brought to the scene had a calibration sticker that read "do not use beyond calibration date, due 09/12/23", thus "expiring" about 15 hours prior to it being used. He testified that it was a "practice" to recalibrate the instrument every 14 days (not a "policy", "rule" or a "manufacturer's recommendation"). He testified that he knew that all the ASD's  at the local detachment usually expired on the same day and that there was no other device available to him.  He concluded that in the circumstances it was in the public interest to continue the investigation using the ASD.  He testified that he put it through its regular start-up process and it did not show any errors and that he was satisfied it was functioning properly.  The accused argued that because the device had "expired" it was not reasonable for the officer to rely on the "fail" reading in making the demand for the blood alcohol sample.  The trial judge admitted the samples and the Court of Appeal dismissed the accused's appeal of that ruling.  The majority concluded that the officer had no information that the ASD was inherently unreliable after its recalibration date, nor did he have any positive evidence that it remained reliable.  The recalibration issue is just one factor in the analysis but it did not amount to "credible evidence" that the fail reading was unreliable. Most importantly, the Court concluded that the total factual context (serious motor vehicle accident on good roads during a clear day, admission of drinking alcohol, physical signs, plus the ASD "fail") made the breath sample demand reasonable. R. v. Biccum, 2012 ABCA 80