[jar_e]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

From the Calgary Herald article linked in the OP:



Emphasis added.

Are you disputing this point? If so, please provide a link to support your claim. I would also suggest you write to the editor of the Herald and ask them to print a correction if their reporting is inaccurate.

A link to support my claim:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/reg...si-85-200.html

Approved Screening Devices Order

SI/85-200

CRIMINAL CODE
Registration 1985-11-27
Order Approving Certain Screening Devices for the Purposes of Section 254 of the Criminal Code

The Attorney General of Canada, pursuant to the definition “approved screening device”* in subsection 238(1) of the Criminal Code, hereby revokes the Approved Road-Side Screening Device Order, made on April 7, 1983**, and makes the annexed Order approving certain screening devices for the purposes of section 238 of the Criminal Code, in substitution therefor, effective December 4, 1985.
*S.C. 1985, c. 19, s. 36
**SI/83-81, 1983 Canada Gazette Part II, p. 1642
Ottawa, November 7, 1985
JOHN C. CROSBIE
Attorney General of Canada
SHORT TITLE


1. This Order may be cited as the Approved Screening Devices Order.
APPROVED SCREENING DEVICES


2. The following devices, each being a device of a kind that is designed to ascertain the presence of alcohol in the blood of a person, are hereby approved for the purposes of section 254 of the Criminal Code:
(a) Alcolmeter S-L2;
(b) Alco-Sûr;
(c) Alcotest® 7410 PA3;
(d) Alcotest® 7410 GLC;
(e) Alco-Sensor IV DWF;
(f) Alco-Sensor IV PWF;
(g) Intoxilyzer 400D; and
(h) Alco Sensor FST.

Speficially (H) which is this:



Which is now what is the standard in alberta.

Even with the old ones, which are being grandfathered out.

And in regards to "experience", I know first hand of a trial last week that included a roadside screening device part of evidence and it was admitted. I think the Herald needs to fact check more.