Talk:Approved instrument

Merger with Approved screening device
I am generally against the merging of approved screening device and approved instrument. Both are very different types of devices, used in very different ways, with different laws (both in the Criminal Code and in the case law), and used as evidence in different ways. As long as there is a seperate article on one, there should be a seperate article on both.

That being said, it may be possible to merge these articles with Drunk driving (Canada), but only if editors can make sure that that article does not become too large (as it already is a highly technical article). Singularity42 (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It is very important that Canadians separate the concept of "approved screening device" from "approved instrument". An approved screening device is merely a tool used quickly by police in forming or not forming reasonable and probable grounds. An approved instrument on the other hand is an evidentiary breath test instrument that must be used in accordance with protocol to have any value whatsoever. Unfortunately Parliament seems to have missed the significance of protocol towards reliability of approved instruments in enacting Bill C2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbiss (talk • contribs) 18:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The footnote reference to the Alcohol Test Committee Standards should be changed to http://csfs.ca/contentadmin/UserFiles/File/EtoHEn.pdf for 2003 and http://csfs.ca/contentadmin/UserFiles/File/ATC-En.pdf for 2009. S. Biss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbiss (talk • contribs) 18:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't clear to me from these two articles what the significance was. The article I found and cited makes it much clearer.  These two terms are jargon of Canadian law and would likely have many other uses in other contexts.  We'd be better off explaining these particular "aproved screening devices" and "approved instruments" in context at Drunk driving (Canada), using footnotes instead of in-line Criminal Code quotes. I would assume that unlike our US cousins, the same makes and models are approved Canada-wide (except maybe Quebec?).  --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be possible to merge the sections under Drunk driving (Canada), at least if the approved screening device and approved instrument are kept under seperate sub-headings. The two subjects approved screening device and approved instrument are linked because the approved screening device is often used to establish "reasonable grounds". "Reasonable grounds" are necessary to sustain the use of evidence obtained from the approved instrument demand, blood demand, or drug evaluation demand, and thereby support a conviction based on that demand. Unitacx (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Rename the article for now
I haven't made up my mind about the merger, but in the meantime, I am suggesting that this article be renamed to something like Breath testing in Canada. As pointed out in the section above (which I 100% agree with) approved screening devices and approved instruments are completely different devices in Canadian law, with different regimes about what the devices are, who can operate them, where they are operated, the timing of their operation, what pre-requisites are required for their use, and what if anything can be done with their results. Therefore, it makes no sense that "approved screening device" is only found in an article titled "Approved instrument". Singularity42 (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A rename may well be in order, but I think this could be merged into Drunk driving (Canada) There's no description on how these devices work nor which devices are currently approved, and all the quotes from the Criminal Code are in context at the drunk driving article. The phrases "approved instrument" and "approved device" could have a myriad of meanings outside of Canadian criminal law, so putting them in context at that article seems reasonable to me. The two artifacts are part of the same process and it wasn't at all clear what the difference was the way they read a few days ago. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Approved instrument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151125021940/http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-254.html to http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-254.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151125021940/http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-254.html to http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-254.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151125021037/http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SI-85-201/page-1.html to http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SI-85-201/page-1.html
 * Added tag to http://www.canlii.org/en/pe/pescad/doc/1993/1993canlii1978/1993canlii1978.html?autocompleteStr=gavin&autocompletePos=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151125161027/http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-258.html to http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-258.html#docCont

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)