If police have reasonable suspicion that a driver has drugs in his or her body, the police can demand the driver complete a standardized field sobriety test (SFST) or provide an oral fluid sample (oral fluid testing devices are newly authorized for use by police as part of the Bill C-46 legislation). If the driver fails the administered test, the police can then demand a drug recognition evaluation (DRE) by specially trained officer or demand a blood sample for testing. As with testing for alcohol impairment, the first screening test is done at roadside (SFST or oral fluid screening tests) is not evidentiary and cannot be used as grounds to lay a charge or used as evidence in a criminal trial. Failure of the initial test gives police the grounds to demand a second, more sophisticated test. Failure of the secondary testing process provides grounds to lay a Criminal Code impaired driving charge.
https://madd.ca/pages/impaired-driving/overview/cannabis-and-driving/
Now let's go slow here. Do you see above where it states NOT EVIDENTIARY? That means a roadside drug screening device is not "COURT CERTIFIED".
Do you see above where it states USED AS EVIDENCE? That means a non raodside drug screening is required for "COURT CERTIFICATION."
It CLEARLY states the following: "Failure of the initial test gives police the grounds to demand a second, more sophisticated test."
The more sophisticated test is a Blood Draw.
Now take the above language and insert a marijuana breathalyzer. What I'm telling you is in the USA a marijuana breathalyzer will not be an EVIDENTIARY device requiring a so-called Court Certification. In the USA it's not an issue. If it were Hound Labs wouldn't be securing multi-year multi-million dollar contracts while Cannabix is sound asleep at the wheel.