Great post and info Alzamon. I am long for the same reasons and did the same DD you did and came to the same conclusions.
What Alzamon said is a great explanation of how it works. There is only one way how anything gets "court certified", as some of you are saying. What you really mean is "legal precedent", I believe. That means something has been challenged by the courts and withstood scrutiny by defense experts and prosecution experts and has been determined by the courts to be accepted by them as evidence without allowing a long drawn-out examination of the device's inherent function for each and every case. An example of this would be an alcohol breathalyzer or a radar gun. Events relating to the arrest can be brought before the courts as challenges, but generally speaking, after the breathalyzer, radar gun, etc. has already been challenged ad nauseum, it does not get challenged every time it is used as evidence, because there is legal precedent by other courts accepting the device as proof of something..
To clarify it for some of the people who may be expecting a speedy resolution on that front, it is a lengthy process. This does not mean the device cannot be relied upon to be utilized by police departments and the workplace, which is the larger market in my opinion. In other words, it can be purchased and used without being tested by the courts. But it will be tested starting with arrest #1 and job firing #1.
Something is only going to get tested by the courts after a defendant is arrested and charged with an offense based on the evidence provided by the police department, which relies on the breathalyzer device that indicates impairment. Then the case gets appealed, local to county, county to state, state to district, and possibly district to Supreme Court. Obviously, it doesn't happen overnight.
All of these cases get challenged by the defense of the arrested individual as to the veracity of the reading on the instrument. For example: test conditions, burping, time of last drink, police radios on nearby that may affect the results, time of last calibration on the instrument, current training requirements fulfilled for the officer, etc, etc. But those are commonplace legal tactics to this day with alcohol breathalyzer readings and devices used for speeding, etc.
With a new device like a marijuana breathalyzer, you can expect the device to be challenged at all these levels. Reps from the company have to testify. Here is where it gets tricky. Lets take laser guns for clocking speeds. For years, they were not allowed in a handful of states. Why? Because when company reps were on the stand, they refused to reveal the exact algorithm that made their laser give an accurate reading of the drivers speed. They would explain all the science as to how it worked, except that specific math. The company claimed they did not want their competitors to know the algorithm. The defense said then you can't prove it works. Some states knew it was BS and let the device be certified, but a handful would not. Eventually, perhaps after all their competitors figured it out, they revealed it all anyway, and now they are legit across the US in a lot of areas.
The same thing may happen here. Our people are plenty smart. I am sure they are 10 steps ahead of whatever we are thinking of and will be more than prepared to face any legal challenges. Again, this isn't their first rodeo. Dr. Goldberger is a forensic toxicologist and pathologist. I am sure he is acknowledged as an "expert witness" in courts at all levels in multiple districts, and has testified more times than he can remember. Dr. Yost can explain the function of the machine and how it identifies certain molecules. Dr. Huestis can explain why the device targets certain molecules that indicate impairment. Then the court challenges are met, court acknowledgement is on the record, legal precedent set, and the Cannabix Breathalyzer is no longer challenged for it's desired function: to indicate impairment.
