Thorough transfer of information between officers at roadside is important. Mr. Jacob was acquitted at trial when the trial judge concluded that the Crown had not proven that the ASD was "approved" (the officer who had administered the test did not testify at the trial). The Manitoba Court of Appeal disagreed and ordered a new trial:
Where the reliability of the screening test result was being questioned, the trial judge should have looked at all of the facts and circumstances known to [the officer] at the time that he made the breathalyzer demand to determine whether it was reasonable for him to rely on those results. Barring a finding either that [the officer] did not honestly believe that the results were reliable, or that his belief was unreasonable based on the facts of the case, the trial judge should not have excluded them. The trial judge’s error was in insisting that there be evidence that the screening device was an approved device rather than asking whether it was reasonable, in the circumstances of the case, for the police officer to consider the screening test result as part of his determination of whether he had the required reasonable grounds. R. v. Jacob, 2013 MBCA 29