top of page

ABA Sequences v ACA Sequences

Updated: Apr 9, 2022


Purpose:


To explain to the Court, the differences between ABA (Esc Esc B) and ACA (Esc Esc C) sequences


To confirm that ABA sequences are not recorded in COBRA data but ACA sequences are recorded in COBRA data.


To explain to the Court why the calibration checks at 40 or 50, 100, and 300 during annual inspections do not appear in COBRA data disclosed.

Sample cross-examination of Crown expert to clarify ABA (and ACABA) sequences v. ACA sequences for the Court:


Q. Just, before we go any further, there are two different kinds of sequences that can be used for using a wet bath simulator. One is the A-B-A sequence, one is the AC- A sequence. Could you explain for everybody’s benefit what the difference is between the two – those two kinds of sequences? A. So, the first is where you’re providing a sample of breath. So, you are using a simulator and you’re blowing through it, as if a person was providing a sample. And then it’s reading the concentration of alcohol in the sample chamber. And the – an – sorry, that’s an A-C-A. No, sorry, that’s an A-B-A, where you are the pump and you are providing the sample into the instrument. An A-C-A is where you’re using a calibration check. It’s a stand-alone



calibration check. So, you’re using a solution that’s placed in a simulator, and you’re recirculating that, and that’s what’s reading.


[The following is important to understanding what is saved (in Ontario) in COBRA data. You will need to understand these differences if you are bringing an O'Connor application for COBRA data. If an ABA sequence is not recorded in COBRA data there is no point in asking for it. ACABA subject test sequences and ACA sequences are saved in (Ontario) COBRA. ABA sequences are not saved in (Ontario) COBRA.]


Q. And just also, for everybody else’s benefit, A-B-A results are recorded – are not recorded in Cobra Data. A-C-A are recorded in Cobra Data. A. That's correct. But of course then, I don’t know what also happened with respect to how many – did he allow the solution to warm up properly, which could also explain the low results at the 100 and the 50 or the 40. I mean, those are possible other explanations for why those are reading low.

Comments


If you are a member of the public, please don't attempt to use what you see or read at this site in Court. It is not evidence. The author is not a scientist. The author has a great deal of experience in cross-examining scientists about these issues, but the author is not a scientist. Hire a criminal lawyer in private practice in Ontario. Your lawyer can retain an expert. The author is a retired lawyer, not a lawyer in private practice. Read the statement of the purpose of this web site below.

© 2025 Allbiss Lawdata Ltd.

This site has been built by Allbiss Lawdata Ltd. All rights reserved. This is not a government web site.

For more information respecting this database or to report misuse contact: Allbiss Lawdata Ltd., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, 905-273-3322. The author and the participants make no representation or warranty  whatsoever as to the authenticity and reliability of the information contained herein.  WARNING: All information contained herein is provided  for the purpose of discussion and peer review only and should not be construed as formal legal advice. The authors disclaim any and all liability resulting from reliance upon such information. You are strongly encouraged to seek professional legal advice before relying upon any of the information contained herein. Legal advice should be sought directly from a properly retained lawyer or attorney. 

WARNING: Please do not attempt to use any text, image, or video that you see on this site in Court. These comments, images, and videos are NOT EVIDENCE. The Courts will need to hear evidence from a properly qualified expert. The author is not a scientist. The author is not an expert. These pages exist to promote discussion among defence lawyers.

Intoxilyzer®  is a registered trademark of CMI, Inc. The Intoxilyzer® 5000C is an "approved instrument" in Canada.

Breathalyzer® is a registered trademark of Draeger Safety, Inc., Breathalyzer Division. The owner of the trademark is Robert F. Borkenstein and Draeger Safety, Inc. has leased the exclusive rights of use from him. The Breathalyzer® 900 and Breathalyzer® 900A were "approved instruments" in Canada.

Alcotest® is a registered trademark of Draeger Safety, Inc. The Alcotest® 7410 GLC and 6810 are each an "approved screening device" in Canada.

Datamaster®  is a registered trademark of National Patent Analytical Systems, Inc.  The BAC Datamaster® C  is an "approved instrument" in Canada.

bottom of page