@article{ref1,
title="Evidential breath testing for alcohol, Parliament, the science and the courts (Part 2)",
journal="Journal (Canadian Society of Forensic Science)",
year="2020",
author="Yost, Greg",
volume="53",
number="2",
pages="83-94",
abstract="A previous article in this journal traced the evolution of the law from the first amendment to the Criminal Code related to breath testing for alcohol in 1951 to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in November 2012 on the constitutionality of the 2008 Criminal Code amendments that eliminated the &quot;two beer&quot; defence. This article discusses the legal, scientific and parliamentary response to that decision leading up to the 2018 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on whether maintenance records could constitute evidence that the approved instrument had malfunctioned.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0008-5030",
doi="10.1080/00085030.2020.1757586",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00085030.2020.1757586"
}