Slashdot Mirror
Closed Source -> Charges Dismissed?
Snorpus writes "According to the Tampa Tribune, judges in the central Florida county of Seminole are dismissing DUI charges when the defendant asks for information on how the breath test works. Apparently the manufacture of the device is unwilling to release the code to the state, and all four judges in the county have been dismissing DUI cases when the state cannot provide the requested information. Could this apply to other situations where technical means (radar guns, video surveillance, wire-tapping, etc.) are used to gather evidence? " I'd not plan on this as a legal defense, but the question it raises - of public access to information - is an important one.
this is the first thing that popped into my head as I was reading through the post, and then it was mentioned near the end, hehe. Wonder if this might be successful with them speeding tickets, hehe.
It seems to me that one place this could really matter would be if a precedent were set that affected all the electronic voting machines cropping up in recent elections (with not such a great reputation so far, IME).
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Does the Pulic have the right to how these devices work, or just the procedures on how they are used?
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein
Don't drink and drive. Its stupid, immature and kills people. people that DUI are selfish dumbass bastards that should have their license irrevokably taken away at once.
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
This should be obvious, if you want your evidence used in court you have got to supply ALL OF THE METHODS. If I were a cop or DA I'd be screaming at the salesmen who sold me these machines that will not hold up in court. Some competitor, who has machines that can stand up to scrutiny, ought to be making a killing on this.
Linus should go to a MADD meeting:-)
Do they need to know how TV works, if that is part of evidence? How antenna works? How magentism works?
And, is it applicable only to Electronic toys?
If people just carried the responsibility of their actions? Instead of whining about methods they use to test for DUI, maybe the person in question should just admit that "yes your honor! I'm a stupid asshole who thought that rules do not apple to me. Through my selfish activities I not only endangered my life, but life of other road-users". Maybe some day things will be like that. But not today.
Those people are quilty as hell. They just figured out a way to weasel out of their responsibilities. I for one hope that the next time they cross the street, they will get run over by a drunk-driver.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
I think where this is more interesting are things like "managed" red light cameras. In Minneapolis, we're getting them soon, and the system is actually run by a third party. They review photos and send the incriminating ones to the police, who then review the photos and decide whether to issue a moving violation.
What I want to know is, who owns the pictures? Sure, the cops own the ones that they get from the company, but what about the others? Are they private property or is everything produced by the cameras public property?
Let's say I'm accused of some crime and my defense is I wasn't there, I was driving around. And I drove through a bunch of red light cameras (without necessarily running a red light). Can I get access to the photos?
This is not a wedge issue that should be used to push open source. This should be filed under 'ignorance of the law, and by extension ignorance of the tools used in law enforcement, is no excuse'.
And unless the company that makes the analyzer has some sort of vested interest in the conviction of X number of criminals, and therefore an incentive to produce skewed equipment, I don't see how the detailed functioning of the equipment is relevant to the cases.
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
Reading the article, apparently only Seminole County is applying the statute in such a manner, other counties in Florida say the state cannot supply something which they do not have, but it's not fatal to the Breathalyzer result being admittable as evidence.
People Talking in Movie shows.. people smoking in bed.. people voting republican.. GIVE THEM A BOOT TO THE HEAD!
If a machine says you are DUI but you are in fact not, wouldn't you like to find out how the machine works so any flaws could be found?
Harald
I don't know if I'm a grammar nazi or spelling nazi (raises), but I do know you're wrong!
There should be a possibility to check evidence in court (conspiracy theories go here - red light camera manufacturers doing image processing and shooting your car every time it passes based on the plates), even where containing theories of possible in the technology used for evidence gathering, yet still there is a problem with any speeddriving idiot claiming "we don't know how the radar gun work - your evidence doesn't count". Certainly, most of the radar guns are working totally correctly...
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
This is the 2'nd post in this story. So it can not be redundant. But it is also on-topic.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Create Open Source breathalyzers, radar guns, etc. 2. Advertise to all defendants everywhere the closed-source loophole in the prosecutions' cases. 3. Sell your versions of that equipment. 4. PROFIT!
cos they are closed source!!11
I would use this as a defense. Not exclusively, of course. But I would try to argue that if it's not verifiable, it's not reliable.
So what stops the company from including a test for some other, not-so-common health-neutral or mostly neutral substance, and make the tests return "no alcohol" if the substance is detected, no matter how much alcohol is there?
Say, you're a friend of the manager of the company. You're driving drunk, but you know "the secret". A cop pulls you over. You pull out your lighter and take a few deep breaths of the gas from the lighter. Not a thing commonly done, but and mostly harmless. The device detects you're a friend of the boss and displays alcohol level in the allowed range, despite the real readout.
Any company is allowed to keep their trade secrets. It's just that government, just like any other customer may have specific requirements about the product. Like, access to the source code. You don't provide it? Sorry, we'll look for someone else to do business with. Same as intelligence won't like devices that provide "service backdoors", like military will pick EMP-resistant options over ones that can be easily fried by the enemy, wherever legal cases are involved, transparency of the design is essential.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
This tribune story only reports on the Orlando Sentinel story found here which has some more details. The text of it is as follows (emph. mine):
This was a problem here; the government tried to set up voting machines, with the contract being that once final delivery was complete they'd be given the source. They were used in some constiuencies in one election, then abandoned due to public unhappiness with them and a failure by the company to present the source. They're still lying round in a warehouse somewhere, and it looks like they're staying there for the time being.
Me (Blog)
I used to work in a medical lab (first degree was in Microbio/Genetic Engineering). Many times, equipment is not calibrated correctly, or even the test underwent "sink testing". In addition, I have seen mistakes made on the code for doing calculations that resulted in wrong answers going on the door (and that was at a major lab). I am not wild about drunks being on the road, but I hate more seeing inocents being railroaded.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It is my opinion that the legal system doesn't want to set a precedent by admitting that Breathalyzers don't actaully measure ethyl alcohol. They measure chemicals that contain methyl groups and ethanol is one of them. There are many others. See: 1 2 3 4 5
Restore America: Dr. Ron Paul for President!
This sounds more like a worst case scenario of judges legislating from the bench. Worse we have a group of them obviously conspiring to do so.
How much of the public are the judges willing to put at risk to stroke their own egos? I would love to see these judges SUED and jailed if one of the people whose case they dismiss subsequently kill someone on their next DUI.
If they have a problem with the manufacturer then take it up with the state. If the state does not have a requirement of disclosure then by what basis do the judges operate?
How can they not apply this to speeding tickets, parking meters, or are items of revenue enhancement strictly excluded from this test?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Convicted by a closed-source machine? this is the high-tech equivalent of a secret court.
As states [as states pass lower and lower blood-alcohol limits, more and more people who are marginally sober are getting snared. So it becomes more important for their right of defense to make sure the software is properly analyzing borderline values. But if you can't see the source, you cannot properly develop tests for edge conditions.
PROSECUTION: Your honor, the People have evidence that proves this driver was drunk. We just can't show it to you.
There needs to be a central repository of scientific methods (the patent office or something similar) and a body which guarantees that such devices follow the specified method sufficiently for use in law enforcement.
That way you have you answer to 'How does it work' AND you have your closed source option.
This problem can't be so hard. "The state" has to either:
- produce or commission its own breathalysers and / or blood alcohol testers, or
- get hold of and keep on standby expert witnesses who can answer the questions in sufficient detail to convince a judge and / or jury.
The fact that neither can be fulfilled at the moment, and that it was (well, predictably) a defendent who had to point the weakness in the current state of affairs is neither here nor there: If "we the people" want to put someone in the slammer, we have to be able to tell them why we are doing so, and if we set up things so badly that we can't, they should indeed go free.
Who's to blame? Probably some mid-level bureaucop who rubbed his/her hands in glee when the saleperson showed them the single button and all the blinkenlights, and signed the purchase order for three dozen units without booting his/her brain.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Not that it can't be fixed, tho.
yes, we have no bananas
.. is letting people off the hook, then its failing to perform the job it was hired to do: provide evidence in prosecuting law-breakers.
There should be a deep investigation into this issue. After all, the public trust has been violated. Criminals are going free because of business.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I would say the public is entitled to at least have access to the user's, maintenance and other available technical manual(s).
As most of us know, electronic devices have +/- tolerances that could very much affect the outcome of a police measurement.
For example, I remember reading in a tech manual that radar speedmeter readings can vary by as much as +/- 5%.
It's not much, but it could make the difference between no fine, or a smaller and a bigger fine.
Why they do not use electronic voting machines in Florida. The judge would have said in that case too: Cannot verify the results, I will not accept this as evidence that GWB has won these elections.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
Would the government, especially this one which is even loathe to open their fly to take a piss, be likely to just create an open test? Then, regardless of what performs and how it's designed, as long as it demonstrates it means the Government Authorization Test, it's good in Uncle Sam's eyes. Even more diabolical would be the idea that by opening the code to such devices, there are DRM issues associated. Could they be sneaky enough to link the DMCA into this decision, issuing a counter-claim against the judges for issuing their ruling? Devious minds think alike...
...tizzyd
Just a cautionary tale..
Years ago in my old home town, the 30 limit on a particular piece of road was moved 200m down the road, away from town. This was previously a 60 limit, a nice big wide road, with no houses or turn-offs on it. This was done at about lunchtime. That evening, the police stopped everyone speeding (doing the old 60 limit) down this section of road. All were asked if they had seen the new speedlimit signs. Most said no. All were let off the speeding charge with a warning. 2 weeks later, everybody who had said that they did not see the new signs was summoned to court for driving without due care and attention (if they did not see the new signs, they could not have been paying attention, right?). Bigger fine, more points!
Moral of this story? Keep a lookout at road signs, even if you have driven the same route for years!
I'm just here to regulate Funkyness
Lest you think this never happens. I know someone who does not drink (ever) that got stopped in the early AM on a Sunday and ended up with a DUI ticket. The cop was bored and just decided to make a stop and right the ticket. The whole thing was a mess. It went to trial and dozens of people showed up to declare under oath that the guy never drinks. It was a zoo. The judge 'reduced' the DUI to careless driving (wtf??) so he still ended up with four points and an insurance surcharge after paying legal fees. I don't know where you live, but bored rural cops in small town America can be a problem.
To answer your final line, I hope you get railroaded in court some day. I hope you lose your license for 18 months even though your were innocent. I hope it costs you thousands in legal fees and insurance surcharges. Hey, at least you will still be alive and have your health.
That goes directly to the video; you will want to prepare to adjust speaker volume and your blood pressure as you watch.
Linked from Hullabaloo.
We don't like disrespecting authority in this country. Nor do we like open documentation of how police methods work:
When we raised the question of the calibration of the camera, we were fobbed off with a letter from the police about all cameras being synched to an "atomic clock" and there being no possibility of an inaccuracy.
I then asked for technical information regarding the synching method used but was refused.
I then wrote a final letter stating that we would fight this in a courtroom and would expect proof that the camera was accurate to be demonstrated in front of the judge. I also demanded that prior to the court case, I would require technical information on camera timings so as to prepare a defence case.
The upshot of this was that the case was ultimately dropped.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
If this avoids that one person unjustly accused of DUI goes to jail, it's a good thing, notwithstanding how many real DUI people get off with that.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
NEVER accept any measurement that doesn't include error bars.
if a measurement without error bars isn't good enough for a 1st year student's meaningless experiment, why should it be good enough for you and your money and/or criminal record?
> This should be obvious, if you want your evidence used in court you have got to
> supply ALL OF THE METHODS
No, you should only have to show that it works, not how it works.
> Linus should go to a MADD meeting:-)
Only if it doesn't clash with his AA meetings!
one of the most ridiculous candidates for proprietary, closed-source code.
I'm not completely familiar with the testing in US. but here drivers have right to decline the breathalizer test result if it's near the legal limit.
If driver denies it, the police will take him to hospital and take a blood test to find out the actual blood alcohol level.
Of course it takes time to drive from the stopping place to hospital, but doctors can estimate the level since the time of breathalizer test is booked already and they can check the weight and height themselves to estimate alcohol burn rate more accurately.
Now if the blood alcohol level turns out to be lower than the legal limit after the blood test, driver walks with warning, otherwise he gets fined.
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
public boolean duiChecker(double perpAlcoholContent)
{
return (perpAlcoholContent > STATELIMIT);
}
Satisfied? You damn OSS people beat it out of us.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
"Could this apply to other situations where technical means (radar guns, video surveillance, wire-tapping, etc.) are used to gather evidence?"
Yes, No and No. I think you are missing the point here... breath tests and radar guns use technology as evidence while video survelance and wire tapping use technology to acquire evidence. No one will ever give a damn how a video recorder works as long as the defendant is clearly seen commiting a crime in the video (no comments about image manipulation through gimp/photoshop please).
If a court is going to invalidate evidence for lack of transparency, how about the most ridiculous candidate for secret, proprietary source codes: voting machines?
> This seems like a really weak defense and I'd be interested to know what the justifications the
> judges are using to make such a ruling. It seems analagous to DNA testing. Should a rape suspect be
> able to get off because he questioned how the DNA scanner works, and the court can't provide an answer?
Actually, yes. It has long been the standard in US courts that anyone presenting scientific or technological evidence -must- stand up to cross examination on details of the process.
DNA testing has often been challenged on this basis, and so has fingerprinting, drug testing, and other forensic evidence.
Throwing out the cases because the source is not available -may- be excessive, however the article indicated that the manufacturer has not been able or willing to provide answers to other questions as well.
It makes a -big- difference how some tests are conducted. Questionable data that can't be verified -should- be inadmissable.
I've been breath tested several times in the UK. If the tests had shown I was over the legal limit then I'd have been arrested, taken down the station and a further blood test would be taken. It would be the blood test that the court would take as evidence, not the breath test.
It seems strange to me that the breath test is enough to convict someone. The police over here wont even take the test if you've had a drink within the last 20 minutes because it gives false readings.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
of this article is not that drunken drivers' charges were dropped, but if people should be prosecuted because a black box (whose function you don't know) said you're guilty. I could build something with a green and a red LED, and have only the red LED light up, meaning that you were guilty of whatever crime someone wanted, would that mean that you broke a law?
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
Are you sure this didn't trigger an FBI inquiry?
Such a jurisdiction in my old home town managed to be so eggregious about their speed trapping tactics that the FBI got involved.
They don't stop so many people anymore.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I've always wondered just how closed sourse can be legal. How can anyone know that a closed source project isn't just copied from someone else?
You must know only extraordinarily humble people, that don't have an inflated sense of their driving prowess.
I went to a technical school where we were all required to do an electronics graduation project.
One group wanted to make an alcohol tester, they asked around with the police but couldn't get any information so they wound up having to invent the thing themselves (sounds a lot harder than it actually was, basic components are available).
In the end they had built in a few weeks time a machine which was much cheaper and notably more accurate than the device the police uses.
Now "cheaper" can be easily explained by the quality of the casing, being hygenic and such but "accurate"... this had me seriously doubt the quality of the devices the police use.
p.s. They apparently had a great time testing the machine!
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
In some states the driver can reject the portable test for some test in the station, but that's usually just a more expensive breathalizer test, although some larger stations have nurses on hand or at least people qualified to take blood for testing. In these states it is indeed a tactic some people use to buy time for their BAC to drop, however it doesn't happen often as drunk and clever are many times mutually exclusive states.
How something works, isn't interesting at all for some cases.
I believe the defender wanted to know how it works, just in order to know if they did it the correct way.
A certification (provided by a independent authorithy) should be as good as showing how it works.
Once you have a independent authority confirming it is working, this should be enough.
The authority has to explain the methods used in order to grant the certification in a public report.
If the device has been certified to work, all the rest doesn't matter.
IMHO, the right to "know how these devices work" is just as important as the right to "face your accuser".
Imagine this scenario:
Background for non-US residents: In most places I have been in the US, the legal maximum blood alcohol content is around 0.08%. Most people (those with normal metabolism, etc) can easily drink one glass of wine and remain far below this limit.
When you take this test, don't you really want to know how the machine works? A false positive could have a huge impact on the rest of your life.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with what happened in the above story. If you don't notice speed limit signs, then you simply are not driving with due care, and are eligible to be charged for that.
Incidentally, I don't know how it works in other countries, but here in Australia, whenever a speed limit is changed, they attach a big shiny reflective gold sign to the speed limit sign saying, of all things, "SPEED LIMIT CHANGED". That way even people who have been driving down a given road every day of the week for years can't fail to notice the change - unless they're genuinely paying no attention.
Someone willful enough to disobey a police officer to make a cell phone call is also likely to overdramatize her reactions. I think this was a poor choice of video if you wanted to make a point about tasers being dangerous. File under "stupid things people do when pulled over by cops"
Something else that should be looked at closely is the blatant trampling of the 5th Amendment in DUI cases.
In many states your license is revoked for 1 year if you refuse to blow into the breathalyzer. Assuming you were under the influence, you'd be incriminating yourself if you do use the breathalyzer.
Many people will reply that having a license is a privlege and can be revoked at the state's whim. I then ask those same people if other privleges such as voting (which is not an inherent right in the USA, but ought to be) should be taken away on the spot if you fail to give the authorities your DNA when they ask for it.
One of my college professors designed radar guns. Ironcily, he got a speeding ticket, went to court, and asked the police officer when the radar gun was last calibrated and what specs was the gun using.
Needless to say the charges were dropped as well as the officer's jaw when these questions were asked.
I'm drawing on some distant memories here. When I was in high school, the NY State Police paid us a visit to give a presentation on DWI/DUI to scare us into compliance, so I'm drawing on my memory of that presentation fifteen years ago.
I don't know about Florida, but here in New York State, IIRC, you have the right to demand a blood test if you blow above the legal limit on a breathalyser. Of course, you have to demand it immediately (otherwise it won't be valid), but if the blood test shows differently than the breathalyser, you can use that in evidence.
Now, this doesn't really address the issue of how the breathalyser and the blood analyser actually work, but it does allow the possibility that two different machines, using two different methods, and possibly made by two different manufacturers would both indicate that you are tipsy, and if they are in disagreement, you can throw doubt on the case.
I want to say that I recall the blood test trumping the breathalyser if the blood test says you're sober, as long as the tests are performed within 30 minutes of each other, but don't hold me to that.
www.wavefront-av.com
This was in the UK. The main problem that people had was not that they were charged for driving without due care and attention, but that the police on the scene made no mention of this possible charge, and told everyone thet they were being let off with a caution.
Getting a court summons on a different charge 2 weeks after an incident that you were told you had been cautioned for tends to offend.
And there were no signs indicating the change in speed limit.
I'm just here to regulate Funkyness
I know everyone is happy about this, but taken too far it could be a mess. Suppose he looks at the source code and says that the code works, and now wants to look at the microprocessor opcodes, or the compiler, or the alcohol sensing circuit's schematics. The judge will eventually turn that down and try the person on the available evidence. This isn't some catch-all to get out of jail free.
I'm an aussie, never seen one of these signs
How do you show that it works without showing how it works?
No, showing that it goes red if a person has been drinking is not enough. You need to show that there is no way it will go red if the person has not been drinking. Otherwise there is reasonable doubt.
Now what ..demand source code of all complex military installations and softwares ...Just checking to see whether my country is safe !!
Chris ,
Php Programmers.
I know really nothing about any details of the open source vs. closed source debacle, nor do I want to, but I wanted to share this dream I had this weekend. I had a dream that the US was secretly attacking Japan because the Japanese were committed to an open source programming law that they passed and we were trying to tear them down. But it was a secret war, only in a few tech sectors of Japan, where they were burning buildings and such. It was a really weird dream, and I blame it on Slashdot.
Peace out, homies.
The parent was merely pointing out that some meta-mod had marked the GP redundant for no reason at all. Now the parent himself has been modded off-topic.
What is going on with some of the mods in this place? Is there any way to track and IP ban mods who are using moderation for nefarious purposes? Cause this isn't the first time this has happened.
The company should provide the object code in hex form with no explanation. It is an accurate answer to the "how does it work" question, and leaves it up to the defendants to get someone who can reverse-engineer it and challenge the algorithm and chemistry.
Does the Pulic have the right to how these devices work, or just the procedures on how they are used?
This is not the public it is the court.
In order for the prosecutor to demonstrate something to the court beyond a reasonable doubt, one of the key areas of scrutiny is that the chain of evidence is established from the act to the court.
I'm surprised the police in Florida haven't started doing this too..
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
Bzzzzzzzzzz. Sorry, but by obtaining a drivers license in Florida, you subject yourself to breathalyzer testing. Remember that driving (at least in Florida) is a privlege and not a right.
In the UK this covered by the data protection act, which entitles anybody to scrutinise any information held about them by a third party. Similar laws exist throughout the European since this is a EU treaty obligation.
Testing by independent third parties is a great thing for people who trust technology.
Not exactly on topic, but now there are a number of cases with DNA evidence that juries (stupid, stupid, stupid juries) have found not guilty because lawyers use the "that sounds like a lot of scientific mumbo jumbo that nobody could understand and I'm sure that our upright jury will disregard because of its highly scientific and hard to understand mathematical explanation when it's obvious that science is wrong more than it's right. DNA - what a bunch of baloney."
Trying to explain HOW a breath-analysis works to a jury ("You mean that this mere machine - full of rubber tubes and plastic chambers and microprocessors - can analyze one ten-thousandth of a breath and find what it contains? Do you really believe that?") would be difficult.
And that's the slippery slope of explaining such processes and not trusting independent analysis.
The illegal downloads were hosted on a Windows server, which as we all know is closed source. Until we know the inner workings of the software, there's no way to prove if I'm responsible for providing the downloads or if someone else hacked into the system.
This sounds really interesting. Can you post any more information on the subject? It might be fun to have one of these around the house that's home-built (instead of buying one like College Students would.)
Why should I trust the "independant" authority any more than the originating company.
Think about it, companies pay an "independant" to certify their goods. It is in their best interest to certify almost everything, when the occasional slip up happens, launch an investigation, blame something/someone, and continue.
I should be permitted my own expert and opportunity to argue against any evidence/opinion.
In the radar guy/DUI, perhaps the CPU entered sleep mode or something between sampling points, throwing off the time, resulting in bad data.
The point isn't to get off on charges, only to ensure that the innocent aren't punished.
I tried a similar tactic last year when I went after the results of a local drug lab arguing I couldn't cross examine their chemist without knowing everything about how the lab works and his training. My judge didn't go for it, but a colleague tried it and her judge went along. If I had to guess, I'd say the judge who made that ruling will soon, under pressure from his fellow judges, change his mind in an upcoming case.
In my experience, most of the cost of designing and building something is due to overhead and personnel. Skilled engineers and technicians can be expensive.
IMO, the details shouldn't be in the public. The general theory or usage should be, but a defendant has no right no know the details of a listening device (for a mobster or terrorist suspect), a radar gun, or a breathalizer. That would just give them the ability to thwart it.
if there's one thing i despise more than drunk drivers, it's cops and judges just saying you're guilty because they can, with no technical accountability.
:)
I recently defended myself in a moving violation case. I sat through the 6 prior cases where people admitted they were guilty but were basically just sad about getting a ticket (the usual crying-on-the-stand trick). One case even had its fine reduced! The girl skidded off the road and ran over a street sign!
Then my case came. When i cross examined the officer i caught him in several logical fallacies and he could not say exactly how i was guilty of violating the statute, as written.
But, none of that really matters. The judge decides what he wants to, and thats that.
I was pulled over, by the way, because last winter, when i pulled away from a stop light, my tires started spinning on my all-wheel-drive-with-snow-tires 130hp winter car. Instead of doing something dramatic like slamming on the brakes or abruptly lifting off, i just rode out the wheelspin, keeping the car in my lane and straight ahead, etc.
Cops dont "like" wheelspin, so i got a ticket. Specifically, my ticket was for "driving too fast for conditions". The other people that were convicted of this offense ran off the road, skidded through intersections, etc. One almost t-boned an officer.
I was particuarly amused with myself when i asked if i was violating the law the second the light turned green, given that my instantanous speed was zero but my tires were spinning. When i was stopped, was i driving too fast for conditions ?
Nevermind that last weekend i was teaching _other_ people how to drive safely at a racetrack. Nope, i'm a public driving menace, apparently. So says one agitated officer, and one judge.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
In those sticks of the world where I come from breathelyzers are only used in case of suspicion. If the test proves positive then the cops will require a piss/blood sample, taken by a doctor or a nurse. This is the only permissable evidence in court
Of course you can refuse to pee into a yoghurt cup. That won't help you much, though since evading an ordered blood test is considered an admission of guilt and might get you slapped with additional fines for evading the procedure.
I'm not sure how this is applied throughout the rest of Europe, but my guess is that sentenses are based on _actual_ evidence and not on a machine of which its manufacturers assures us "that it works".
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Here in Ohio your licence is automatically revoked for at least a year if you refuse a breath test, whether you're found guilty of DUI or not. Yay for guilty until proven innocent...
The only reason I know this is because I had to attend a traffic safety class a few months back. The law went into affect last year yet we never heard a peep about it from the newsmedia. I'm really disgusted about it myself, but also frightened. This is a major erosion of our rights yet it was somehow slipped under the radar and passed into law. Democracy my ass, and I actually do pay attention unlike a lot of people. Looks like to really know what crap your state (and probably federal too) congress is up to you need to read every single bill presented on your own, a task that's far too overwhelming for any individual who has a job/family/etc.
IMO, the details shouldn't be in the public. The general theory or usage should be, but a defendant has no right no know the details of a listening device (for a mobster or terrorist suspect), a radar gun, or a breathalizer. That would just give them the ability to thwart it.
If giving someone knowledge of how your breathalizer detects alcohol in your breath allows you to thwart it, your breathalizer should have no place in law enforcement. Same thing with radar guns. They both do very simple things, that once past the general theory phase just let you know whether or not it was built well enough to actually judge what it is claiming to judge. And sometimes the answer is "no." Of course it is possible to thwart the above... by slowing down or not drinking, but then you need to know when they are coming up.
Even listening devices / wiretaps etc are trivial. If the CIA installs a keylogger between your keyboard and PC, what does it help you to know how the keylogger functions? Or if there is a bug in their room, what harm does it do if during the trial the frequency used comes up? You should be rotating frequencies anyway, and the mobsters should be jamming all frequencies around them like embassies do.
Most law enforcement tools work not because they are rock solid, but because people don't know when they will be used. Once someone finds out that there is a bug in their room, the bug becomes useless, even if the person doesn't know where or what it is. Once someone knows there is a portion of the highway designated a speed trap, the speed trap won't catch them. You don't need details to know that. You do need details to know that you were actually going the speed the machine says you were going, or that your blood alcohol levels were what it says they were.
The ______ Agenda
1) how do you know they work?
2) how do you know the errors are not intermittent?
It's a well proven fact that misporgrammed voting machines have made serious errors. The sad thing is we only know about the ones that are so spectacular they get noticed.
We require all public meetings to be open and notes kept. We dont allow any secret laws on the books. Why should we settle for closed source software?
The sodtware in these things is not that sophisticated. Not a lot more to it than a vending machine and a data base. Thus there are no trade secret justifications for keeping it closed.
However unlike a vending machine, the transactions on a voting machine are secret. economic transactions always traceable. Buy something on line and you know if the package arrived. Deposit your check and you can check the bank statement. But with voting its intended that no one can reverse engnieer your vote after you step away from the machine.
Thus one has to have more than an "accurate" machine. It has to be provably accurate. Pure electronic transactions cannot meet that criteria and they cannot be trusted on faith without open source.
For all we know most voting machines work fine. But we do know that some do not. And we do know that there are many close elections. and we do know there are even more upset elections with unexpected outcomes.
This is not a good situation to be in. The essence of democracy is not in the voting or the vote counitng as some have said. The true essence is in the willingness of the loser to believe they were proven wrong byt the outcome. For that you need to instill confidence in the process--even when you personally think it is not neccessary. Voting has to be both secret and transparent
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I don't think so. The city of Zurich uses red light (and speed) cameras for more then two decades and they always took two shots.
They have to, because if you stopped immediately, alas slightly in front of the sensors this is not a finable offense. The second foto is required to prove that the car/bike actually hit the red light.
Same reason for speed. Any damn technical device can claim that you where running Main Street with 220 mph. If you have two time stamped pictures however from a (calibrated) camera then you're just up shit creek with a "this thing is faulty" defense.
BTW: You don't get the fotos (privacy protection reasons, mainly) unless you challenge the fine.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
consise, respectful and insightful
Not sure of the law there, but are there any criminal penalties for refusing to subject yourself to a test? I wasn't aware constitutional rights could be waived if that were the case...
Calibration
or in Ballmerese
Calibration! Calibration! Calibration!
I'm affraid not, this was several years ago and I don't really know how to contact the students who did the projects.
FWIW, you can get novelty alcohol-testers everywhere (atleast here in the Netherlands), if you get a more expensive one it'll probably be pretty reliable (though it won't be certified, since, AFAIK, certification also means it can no longer be sold as a novelty item).
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
We have those cameras for decades and the "I didn't drive, but I won't tell you who" was a time tested defense, which actually worked, since you are legallally not obliged to name the person, if its a direct relative.
The problem was easily solved: Most cameras now take your picture from both sides. If not the picture is always taken from the front.
Which is a double whammy if you're in the process of conducting a phone call without a hands free set. But then again it's good news for bikers :)
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
This is crazy. Maybe I'm ignorant, but in order to be guilty of something there has to be an accusation at which point you should have access to a lawyer. How are they able to legally bypass your right to a lawyer prior to declaring guilt?
Too bad they didn't have an internet connection.m m
http://science.howstuffworks.com/breathalyzer1.ht
through
http://science.howstuffworks.com/breathalyzer6.ht
Google is your friend.
Have you read the Moderator Guidelines yet?
Why should any government use proprietary methods or software for any public project? Isn't there an expectation that the public corporation ought to invest public monies wisely? Given a choice between a proprietary option and an open one, it should be a no-brainer. And if open ones don't exist, the government's money is a pretty good incentive for an enterprising person to create one.
As an employee of the U.S. federal government, I cringe every time my employer makes me save a document in Word or Excel--in part because I've seen our network drive littered with now-inaccessible Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets from the oh-so-distant 1990s.
...when it comes to elections (esp in the US)
"If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
I find that very Orwellian.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Considering the allegations about diebold systems I can't imagine that this isn't a possible, if not probable, issue.
I used to read Caltizzle. I was a lot cooler than you.
Moral of the story: vote out the corrupt public officials who were using this as an obvious moneymaker. If there were a legitimate need to reduce the speed in the area, larger warning signs and an advanced notice would have been far more effective in getting people to actually slow down, as opposed to just being able to catch a lot of people speeding. What was the true purpose, slowing cars down or collecting $$$?
So I was told slightly wrong, they've made it a seperate law. It still doesn't seem like it'll hold up in the courts, but at least it's not as bad as I was originally told (FWIW, the instructor of the traffic safety class told us that the Implied Consent law meant that if you didn't submit to a breathalyzer test you would be found guilty of a DUI).
Pretty scary that you can go to jail just for refusing to take a breathalyzer/other test, even if you WIN the DUI case (in other words you weren't drunk in the first place). Looks like the _minimum_ penalty is to lose your license for one year (again even if you win the DUI case).
OK, it's not just my state, it's many of them and it's being encouraged by the Federal Government using grants and such, here's a bit of the info from this page. Some pretty scary stuff there, the courts routinely ignore 4th, 5th and 6th amendment arguments in DUI cases, so I was wrong about the law not holding up, seems the courts are ignoring constitutional issues in this area of the law.
Under an implied consent law, any person who operates a motor vehicle in the state is deemed to have consented to a DUI chemical test. The implied consent law serves as a means for gathering evidence against a DUI defendant. Although the implied consent law is legal, it fails to mask the law's foundational fallacy that a driver's presence on a state's highway indicates an agreement to submit to a chemical test for drugs or alcohol upon the lawful request of a police officer.National DUI laws operate under the mistaken belief that revocation keeps DUI offenders from driving and thus is the most effective method of discouraging DUI offenders. This belief ignores the reality that revocation does not keep DUI offenders from driving. It only succeeds in taking the DUI offenders ability to drive legally.
Currently, the federal government funds grants to states that implement certain DUI prevention programs. As a direct result, many states have implemented summary driver's license suspension systems into their implied consent statutes for both failure of a chemical test and refusal to take a test. Under the guise of justice and public safety, states have managed to circumvent a suspected DUI offender's constitutional rights and legally discourage refusal of chemical testing.
Granted that page has a bias, but it's got some good points too. Please do read it yourself and make up your own mind. These kinds of things are hard to fight as if you do you get labeled as "supporting drunk driving and the killing of innocents". It's hard to have a sensible debate on the merits of a law when that happens.
Also I really do
I don't know how it works in the US, but Canada has a similar law, regarding failing to produce a sample.
For the Canadian version, if memory serves, refusal to provide a sample, doesn't get you a drunk driving conviction, but the penaly for refusing to provide the sample is the exact same as the DUI. So, you still get the record, you still get the suspension, you still get the "points", and you can still get the jail time.
So, you were not guilty of DUI, but you were guilty of failing to provide a sample, and in court, the penalties are the same. Nice trick, eh?
[OFFTOPIC] What is with the slashcode today. I am getting a "we require at least 2 minutes between posts, and your last post was 20 minutes ago"?
I hate to see a DWI defendant get off the hook based on what is really a technicality but I think that there is a point here. Why should a criminal defendat "trust" the manufacturer of a device used against him?
The manufacturer sells to police departments and the like, they have an incentive to skew their product's test results in the direction of law enforcement. The defendant obviously has a right to know how the machine works. He has the right for his own expert witnesses to evaluate the product and determine if there are any flaws or bugs in the hardware or the software.
Unfortunately, I'd imagine that all of this would apply to almost any forensic test. Using this exact same process, a murder defendant could ask for the source code and engineering documents for a machine used to perform DNA analysis. If the company is unwilling to release, a murder defendant could walk away a free man.
All of this could make prosicution problematic for even the most serious of crimes.
There was a story run in Car and Driver about a lawyer who tried to negotiate a fine for a speeding ticket on behave of a friend of his. Upon learning that New Jersey doesn't negotiate, he got pissed and decided to teach NJ a lesson. He brought out all the big guns....
http://www.imprezars.com/techtalk.htm
Basically, when it comes to scientific evidence there are three things that must happen for it to get into court.
1) it must be proven technology. Horoscopes aren't going to cut it. Peer reviewed is typical standard.
2) the device in question must be built to this technology and be in good working order. Most Judges allow the state to show 'calibration' records and proof.
3) it must have been operated by a competent person. That would be the cop with x years of traing etc.
What is interesting about LIDAR is that it only "measures" time. Based on the time measurement, coorelation of multiple measurements, etc it "_calculates_" distance and ultimately speed.
So this lawyer wanted to see the calculations, equations etc. LIDAR company refused, ticket thrown out _and_ for some period LIDAR was not allowed as evidence in NJ speeding ticket cases (or I guess anyother case).
I assume NJ has since fixed this "problem"
TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
Pretty scary that you can go to jail just for refusing to take a breathalyzer/other test, even if you WIN the DUI case
No it's not. It would be scary if you went to jail for failing a breathalyzer test but then winning the DUI case - however there is NO reason why you should refuse to take the breathalyzer test in the first place. If you do then you should go to jail for wasting everyones time.
Machines like breathalizers should be vetted in a public study. We could test them on state, local, and federal govt employees, teachers, etc.
This could be cross checked with blood tests and urine tests. When we all felt good that the machines were working ok on these folk, then we could use them on the populace.
Also, is anyone aware of the "burp" procedure? Supposedly they cannot administer a breathalizer test with 15 minutes of your burping since it brings fresh stomach contents back up into your mouth. Since I can burp at will, this could take awhile.....
That's a rediculous analogy.
A microphone does not falsify or validify anything directly. It simply picks up multiple states of data - hard data - to later be analyzed by detectives.
Besides, the functionality and technical information on how microphones (and "spy microphones") work is general public knowledge. You can find out how construct your own long-distance spy microphone online from an inexpesive (several hundred dollars) industrial boom mike (such as those used in radio, television, and movies).
Unlike the alcohol detection devices, it is very difficult to falsify or misrepresent what is being said without it being either obvious or observeably tampered with. This isn't the case with alcohol detection devices, as they simply give a BAC readout and not an individual chemical composition breakdown (as they should).
Were the technical specifications of these alcohol detection devices available to the public (as is the case with things like recorders and microphones), it would be another matter. But they're not. IIRC, the police specify what recording equipment was employed during the trial of cases, though I might be mistaken. They use trajectory and ballistic information on firearms when they are involved in a case; why not do the equivilant for a device which has similar impedement possibilities for the freedoms of a citizen?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I should ridicule you for your ridiculous spelling.
"No-brainer"
Well that pretty much describe government to a 'T' now doesn't it?
Jim
A more in-depth article on this subject is here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-asecdrunk010601 05jun01,0,3404397,print.story
- 4035.op.pdf
And the court case that that article references can be found here: http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2004/022304/5D02
I've noticed that they never put those big round "***NEW***" signs on changed speed limits or parking restrictions.
Which is a bugger if you travel a section of road regularly, but infrequently--like every few months. If I know the signage, I'll just watch for traffic or potholes or children or deer or skunks or minivans or raccoons or porcupines or haywagons or moose or bears or all the other road hazards in rural central Ontario.
One place did do it right: they moved the limit farther from the center of "town", which mainly featured a vacation lodge across the highway from the waterfront, so a lower limit made sense. (And blind S-curves getting to it, so you can't go too fast and be able to react to someone crossing the road.) The new loewr-speed-limit-begins signs were Bigger Than Normal and equipped with flashing yellow lights.
And, BTW, at the "MAXIMUM XX BEGINS" signs, you need to already have slowed down. That's not where you start slowing, it's where you stop slowing. (In Ontario, we have "MAXIMUM XX AHEAD" signs where the drop is more than 10 km/h; I notice New York likes "SPEED ZONE AHEAD", but doesn't say what speed is in the zone ahead. And I have no idea what single or double orange diamonds mean on top of a limit sign.)
yes you can ask for information on when the radar gun used was last certified to be accurate.
if it has not been certified recently, the court will throw it out.
actually for speeding tickets, just going in to fight it -- if the officer doesn't show up to court , you more-or-less win by default as well.
if more people fought their speeding tickets, it would flood the court system and more would be thrown out.
but a defendant has no right no know the details of a listening device (for a mobster or terrorist suspect), a radar gun, or a breathalizer. That would just give them the ability to thwart it.
Aw heck, why not extend your logic a little further. Why don't we hide the ACTUAL laws from people? That way criminals will not be able to use the loopholes either. Hell, this way people won't even know if they are breaking a law. Plus, this way we can make anyone a criminal that we want, no more trials.
You may think I am being a ass with this comment. But it has happened in history before. If you get a chance, try reading "The gulag archipelago". It is a tough read (translated from Russian), but the first few chapters deal with the Soviet legal system. They enacted laws that were imposible to NOT break (a gathering of more than three citizens is some form of a subversive gathering, so taking the bus to work, means you are guilty of subversion). This ensures that at any given time, they can scoop you up, and ship you off.
I know people don't like the transparency that we demand from our legal system, right up until the cops are at your door stating that "The crimetastic5000 has determined that you are a terrorist". Wouldn't you like to know exactly HOW the crimetastic5000 came to it's conclusion? I know I would. History is full of bunk science ("ohh, too bad about the shape of your head, the chart here says you are a paedophile"), if it is never explained or refuted, how can it be trusted?
[offtopic]
Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 31 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
[offtopic]
Simply brilliant.
Although I will agree that being forced to do something is a erosion of rights. No one has a right to drive. It is a privilege. No one forces you to just take a breathalizer test. Even in a case of a false positive you can ask to have your blood taken. They can note the time it is and your blood alcohol level at the time of the bood test and determine what your % was that way to.
I am a huge fan of the open up the source of breathalizer stuff. Every citizen has a right to know how and why it works. In fact no hardware software that can be admisible as evidence should be closed source otherwise how can independent review take place.
If the operation of the breathalyzer has been deemed relevant, can't they just get the court to order company officials to show up and testify?
Forget all this screwing around with the state government and getting information from them...if your device says I am guilty, I have a right to question you in court as to how the device works.
Of course, it doesn't matter, as they are being let off...but that raises the question of why the prosecution isn't subpoening the company officials.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I had a justice of the peace threaten me with that fighting one of my tickets. At the time I wasn't as aware of my rights, so I took the plea. However, I then appealed and the conviction was overturned due the the JPs comments, plainly visible in the transcript.
And of course, wasting people's time is a criminal offense. Lock him up and throw away the key! That'll teach him!
which is unfortuneate, since cops are just people, and are prone to having biases, making mistakes, etc.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
First, get a million dollars.
Now...
- Steve Martin, A Wild and Crazy Guy, 1978
From the headline: "...if a DUI defendant asks for a key piece of information about how the machine works - its software source code, for instance - and the state cannot provide it, the breath test is rejected..."
It is only saying the test is inadmissable as evidence. So the only people "Skipping Charges" are those who have weak or no other evidence supporting their DUI. Sounds fair to me.
So if the cops are careful to collect enough other evidence, the charges can stick. And this should be standard practice regardless of the legal status of the breathalyzer.
Anm
No one has a right to drive. It is a privilege.
Uh, how do you figure? Driving is a necessity of livlihood in most areas of the US.
Technically we don't have enumerated rights to walking either, but nobody would accept that walking is a "privilege."
If I were a cop or DA I'd be screaming at the salesmen who sold me these machines that will not hold up in court.
Sadly this issue is mostly a failure of understanding. Most people don't understand computers or code or how code runs on a computer or how easy it is for code to be wrong either intentionally or on accident. Few people understand that code can produce inconsistent results or edge case errors. Because of this, most people don't see the importance of open code for voting machines, breathalyzers, government services, etc. The example cited in this article is a very minor one, but important and correct in principal.
If you disagree with me, listen to the following real world example. A friend of mine is working for a company that does creates DNA analysis equipment for hospitals, tracing lineage, research, and law enforcement. He writes software that takes the raw data, and among other things compares two samples to see if they are the same. He was horrified to see the algorithms prescribed for use that include completely statistically insignificant data and which throw out data that is too different from the norm as compared to a wholly arbitrary metric. Think, "well only 2% of the population has that genetic variation it is probably a bad reading we'll just pretend it is whatever the most common sequence is."
The next time you hear about a murder case being solved by a DNA match, think about this. Now think if the police decided you were a DNA match. Do you think your lawyer and an expert you hire should have access to the source code of the computer that matched your DNA to the crime scene evidence?
Works the exact opposite manner.
You're a Navy Seal, accused of embezzlement and theft? You need access to the accounting records you submitted, as well as the preliminary investigation? Sorry. Those records are Top Secret. You can have this receipt from Olive Garden, though.
I think we need to start hanging DUI's, but the system is flawed on this one. Just like the Court Marshall system is flawed. Fix the fucking system. Open the records or get rid of privatized breathilizers. If you're a Seal, then you signed up to take an ass-fucking; deal with it or don't sign up next time.
How breathalyzers work is already public, if you just want the basic information on the process:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/breathalyzer.htm
And listening devices? That's common knowledge, and there are also publicly available regulations on how they can be used, like how only certain portions of the conversation can be recorded (pre-PATRIOT Act).
If they want to protect their device, than they should get a patent on it. Patents are the best protection for a device you can get, they allow you to tell everyone how your device works, and yet still be the only one who makes money selling it.
If they don't want patent protection, then they obviously do not care that anyone can make the device. So they should have no problem giving away the specifications to the court.
Here in wisconsin, it seems they already thought of this. You get pulled for OWI (operating while intoxicated), admit you're drunk, miserably fail your field sobriety AND blow a .45, you are still going to the hospital to get a tube of your blood pulled. Refuse to comply with any of this? Automatic license revocation for no less than 1 year. I guess lawmakers in florida went to school in florida. Too bad.
dustin
We don't do that around here, as it would tend to decrease profits from ticket-writing.
The test in most jurisdictions is some form of "scientific reliability." If the test is generally accepted as reliable, by a preponderance of the scientific community, the results are admissible. This type of defense has been tried before, but has been rejected in most American jurisdictions. NORMALLY the Court would reject the Defendant's motion to dismiss, but allow Defendant to depose the corporate officials (at Defendant's expense.) The Defendant could then offer expert testimony as to why the Defendant felt the test was not reliable. If the Court continued to believe the test was scientifically reliable, and the issue of intoxication, including the technical evidence would be submitted as a question of fact for the jury. I can understand the corporation's reluctance. I suspect if a good technie knew all the details of the radar gun, it might be possible to craft a device to indicate 43 mph on the radar gun when the true speed was something approaching Warp Factor. The corporation might be compelled to testify, however the corporation could apply for a "protective order" prohibiting the use of the information beyond the criminal trial at issue. Tj
Hey, we're not in Seminole Co. but we're closer to it than Tampa is, for God's sake! Anyway, here it is.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
In Massachusetts, however, challenging tickets is widely viewed as a good way to aviod paying, as generally the officer does not show up to court and the ticket is dropped. This is accepted enough that it was taught in my (not too reputable but state approved) driving school class.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
OK then, what would you propose instead?
What if I was drunk as a log, a cop stops me and, having reasonable doubt of my intoxication, asks me to do the test? Let's say I refuse to take the breathalyzer test, or any other blood/urine/whatever test? Should he now let me go scott-free???
You shouldn't whine about "implied consent" and "refusal means admission of guilt" unless you can think of a better way of handling the above situation.
Yes, the certificate indicates it works, but what about error and calibration limits, and more importantly false positives. The current tester does not measure actual alcohol, but the by products of the alcohol. You can actually eat many foods/have a medication that will make the same by products. An early model in Canada would indicate a failure (indicating drunkeness) if you'd smoked a few minutes before taking the test. Would you be happy being convicted for taking a few puffs of a cig before your test and being told it's ok they have that nice certificate?
In the peoples republic of california, we can buy both booze, and beer in the supermarket. There are still specialty liquer stoores, but they sell the more expensive uncommon hard alcohols. License is required to serve alcohol, and a beer and wine licence is different than a hard liquer license.
Some local resteraunts who can't get the license will alow you to bring your own bottle.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
In high school (california), I got a 45 in a 25 and it was a $250 fine.
In Texas 70 in a 50 got me $100
In kentucky 35 in a 25 got me $50
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
breathelyzer is not admittable, but it is cause to arrest you and take you for a blood test.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Wow!
That's a great argument!
In the same vein: How can privacy be legal? How would anyone know you weren't breaking the law? Maybe drapes should be illegal, you can't tell if someone is doing something illegal in their house if the public isn't allowed to see into everyones homes 24/7. Welcome to Open Living!
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
In Soviet Canada road hazards watch out for you
http://science.howstuffworks.com/breathalyzer.htm That's it. Are judges that dumb?
Mike Moore ph33nd@gmail.com
For something to be a "criminal" case, the plantiff (government) must prove intent. So ignorance of the law will protect to a certain extent -- see the resent Supreme Court ruling in the Andersen Consulting case.
In CA, that is part of the California Motor Vehicle Code ("Driving is a privilige, not a right").
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
IMO, the details shouldn't be in the public. The general theory or usage should be, but a defendant has no right no know the details
That is horribly wrong. To avoid redundancy, see my answer here.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
When you take this test, don't you really want to know how the machine works?
No, so long as the results are accurate. If multiple independent studies show that it provides accurate results under the conditions it is meant to be used under, and it was used under those conditions when you were tested, what is knowing how it arrived at those results worth to you?
Even if the independent studies show that it gave a false positive, say, 3% of the time, the judge/jury/whatever should take that margin for error into consideration. It's not like knowing how it works would alter that fact.
Lack of transparency is a policy problem, not a justice problem. If the studies haven't been done, then that is a justice problem, and that problem can't be solved by knowing how something works.
Driving is *NOT* a right. You have to prove your ability to handle the 1+ ton mass of metal at speed before you're allowed to do so unsupervised in public.
Your bogus argument is the reason that our nation's testing practices are a joke and a direct cause of our higher accident rates than the rest of the world...
And I have no idea what single or double orange diamonds mean on top of a limit sign.
It means "***NEW***".
Thankfully, the law does not determine your rights. Rights exist above the law, and are sometimes supported by the law.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
No one forces you to just take a breathalizer test.
You've never been to Oregon, have you?
I'm sure there are *many* other places around the US that are the same way, but every major town/city in this state has cops that will stop you for no real reason* and force you to take a sobriety test, or do their best to illegaly search your car.
At least it's equal-opportunity harassment, since they do it to everybody regardless of ethnicity.
* I have been given the reason of "We had a hit-and-run accident involving a silver sports car with a spoiler" more than once, when there was no hit-and-run incident at all. They have used this agaisnt my girlfriend as well, same reason, different 'suspect vehicle'. Considering *both* of our cars are in perfect condition, this is obviously bogus, but if you challenge the cops around here you *will* be slapped with a whole slew of idiotic little infractions, just so they can hold you for a day or two. Police around here have major superiority complexes, to the point where the few *honest* police I've known were run out of service.
The entire system has broken down here, as I'm sure it has elsewhere.
So to extend your argument to its natural conclusion, people who don't commit crimes don't have to worry about being accused of crimes. Would but this were true. Even in America, wrongful and incorrect convictions occur daily. One of the core philosophies behind the criminal law in the US Constitution is that it is better to let 1000 guilty men go free than to jail one innocent man.
And if you don't believe in that, well... move to Russia or something.
>Aw heck, why not extend your logic a little further. Why don't we hide the ACTUAL laws from people?
Ever tried to get the laws?
I was charged for parking after 2:30 am in January in a nearby town (my town has no such law). It isn't signed, and, worse yet, you cannot get a copy of the law. Seriously. I tried everywhere, from the courthouse (nada), to the meter maid office (nope!), to the city clerks office (I managed to procure a wholly outdated copy there, which I had to transcribe BY HAND. Not even any photocopiers.)
In the end, I took the case to court (I don't let myself get trampled by laws, even if it's over $20). After delaying the trial because the idiots at the court didn't copy the evidence correctly (missed the officer's signature on the ticket -- I know elsewhere that's usually cause to throw out the offence, but as you can imagine, it's a Kangaroo court for parking tickets) I forced the prosecution to send me copies of the laws. Yes, of course I did end up losing (even though I proved the officer didn't use a correct time source -- the judge decided to judge the case based on likelyhood of guilt, not on reasonable doubt, knowing this).
Good god are there some incredibly dumb traffic laws for Kitchener-Waterloo. If you want to know them, I'm working on transcribing them. Everyone deserves to know their rights.
[ For those wondering, they did tack on court fees. $3.75 maximum. I must say, though, it was the best $23.75 I've ever spent, considering I made the judge make a special trip out just for my own personal trial, since I had it adjourned for the previous lack of evidence. I suspect it cost the court over $500 to collect that from me, and that's why they went to the unusual trouble to collect the $3.75 maximum in court costs. ]
No one forces you to live 40 minutes from your job. Get a house in the city. Walk.
how does one know that a bad cop really has a valid warrant, when they are signed electronically?
and that the warrant is not signed after the fact?
Audits of county government document management systems are unattainable.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for 97% of its citizens.
In NY, it's interesting. If you have a standard 55 MPH highway zone, and are going into a town:
If the first sign is a 30 MPH limit sign, you have until the NEXT 30 MPH sign to slow down to that speed before you can be ticketed.
However, if they first have a generic SPEED ZONE AHEAD sign, you have to be to speed by the first 30 MPH limit sign. I think the SPEED ZONE AHEAD signs are so they can write more tickets.
I usually plan for the speed zone to be 30 MPH if I'm going into a town/city which is often indicated well in advance, and 45 MPH if not.
This seems to work for NY.
OTOH, I've gone past a cop on a back streen in a small town at 43 in a 30 and not been pulled over.
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Rights CAN NOT exist above the law.
Rights are something that we may or may not decide to give to each other. Some of us believe that God particularly wants us to give each other life, liberty (from oppression), and the pursuit of happiness.
Law is a formal mechanism for the IMPLEMENTATION of rights. Without law, the idealized rights we each carry in our mind, become neutered and pointless.
Case in point: the new U.S. Do Not Call law.
You MAY have the right to protect your phone line and time resources from the greedy, selfish interests of those who don't give a damn that you and your family are about to sit down to dinner.
I have witnessed Bank of America, Dish Network and the local Toyota dealer break that law.
Do I have the right?
Many others have observed the law and our call volume has dropped dramatically.
But what about these 3? If I don't follow up through the mechanism of law, and sue for their punishment, then THERE IS NO RIGHT, it would be reduced to lip service.
Repeat after me...
Laws = Rights!
Laws = Rights!
Laws = Rights!
I was in the Navy in the '80s. We occasionally got tested for drugs via urinalysis. We had a guy (can't remember his name) who tested positive. He swore up and down that he had never done drugs. Had numerous people testify in his defense. His parents called congresspeople. All to no avail. He was convicted, reduced in ranks, de-nuked (we were nuclear power plant operators) and sent to some janitorial-like job somewhere else.
A year or two later, the technician who had done all the urinalysis at the lab testified (in some other case) that most of the time he didn't bother to do any tests. He just picked some samples at random, marked them positive, marked the rest negative. (This was the late '80s, so he wasn't surfing porn. I don't know if it came out what he was actually doing when he was supposed to be working.)
Anyway, they re-instated my buddy's rank, had to give him all his back pay. There were a bunch of people they had to do that to, I bet. He spent the rest of his enlistment just quietly doing his job. Of course, he didn't re-enlist. He was vindicated, but he still had his life screwed with, big time.
Having the process not be transparent is a bad thing. There's all kinds of chains-of-evidence documentation that the civilian justice system has to go through because of shit-bags like that technician. Having some magical 'black box' that can tell whether you're drunk or not... it seems like there should be some way to make sure the machine works. If they can't prove it in court, doesn't it seem obvious that they have no case against you?
A considers the evidence given. How does it pertain to the question of guilt if someone is being 'a smartass' in court? Nobody likes a smartass, but should they be denied their civil rights?
The proper response for someone too obnoxious for an American courtroom shouldn't be a guilty verdict. It should be to be held in contempt of the court.
Dumbass.
BS
Rights are a human invention, and what "fundamental rights" you *think* you have or should have or should not have are a direct result of the culture in which you were raised.
As another intelligent poster put it - The only right you are born with is the right to die.
Ok, so you believe that when slavery is the law, the right to freedom ends? I suspect not, and that you are trolling AC, but perhaps you do. However, your own argument undermines itself: the law has defined a right which is not enforced. Do you have the right? If so, laws != rights. If not, laws != rights.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
If I were a district attorney in such a case, I would ask the judge to order the source code released under seal to the defense lawyers and the defense expert witnesses.
More technically, I'd order the District Attorney to either get the source code or cease and desist prosecuting any cases using that particular breathalizer. Once judges around the country start doing that, police departments will stop doing businesses with breathalizer vendors that are less than cooperative.
What would such an environment mean for those of us that would love to get our hands on the source code? Barring someone violating a court seal, nothing.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Humorously enough, it seems more than half the country would disagree with you, you don't have the right to die, and they're working to enact legislation to stop you!
More seriously, perhaps you're right: perhaps we cannot think beyond the boundaries of the cultures in which we were raised. That would explain why nothing new has ever been thought of.
On the other hand, if it were possible to think beyond the confines of our cultures, then perhaps rights can exist, and we are merely attempting to discover them. That would explain the bill of rights in the U.S. constitution, and why it varies from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
My favorite argument in favor of fundamental rights is that they are the rights necessary to have an argument about fundamental rights. That at least gets you to a right to freedom, and a right to free speech of some sort, and you can derive a number of other necessary rights, it's an interesting process.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
you need to read every single bill presented on your own, a task that's far too overwhelming for any individual who has a job/family/etc
Shit, are you kidding? That's far too overwhelming a task for the people in the fucking legislatures, much less anyone who has another job.
Just trying to open someone's head! I mean "mind!" Open someone's mind, um, to the possibilities! With explosives!
There is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE between having your license revoked, and being guilty of a crime. If they want to revoke your license for not submitting to the test... well that's grey area perhaps, but if they pass a law saying if you refuse the test you are automatically guilty of a DUI that is bullshit. That is a crime. It goes on your criminal record. You know.. the one that employers and lendors sometimes like to look at? No trial, no jury, nothing... just guilty.
Here in NJ, it's slightly different, IIRC. You do agree to take a breathalyzer test when you sign your license. However, if you refuse, you are not charged with DUI. You are charged with refusing to take the test, which carries penalties equal to or stiffer than DUI.
However this doesn't change the fact that you're basically signing away your 5th amendment rights.
So who can be the first to the door of one of these judges asking that we see the source code for any of Microsoft's software because of something or another?
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec254.html
You're correct. It's called Failure or refusal to provide a sample. On the next page, it is lumped together with all the other charges as far as sentancing goes.
What part of "take into consideration" did you understand to mean "ignore and assume guilt", dumbass?
Have you seen how many advertisements, posters, and other signs are at the side of the road in rural areas lately? Even glancing at all of them takes my eyes of the road for a period of time that I'd rather not. Watching the road is FAR more important that nitpicky little details like a mere 10Km/hr. People who say otherwise are ignorant on the topic.
This type of roadside menace is causing me to ignore things like speed limit signs in the area I drive. It's been 80Km/hr for the past 30 years or more... If they change it now, they'll snag a LOT of people, and I wouldn't fault those people for a second.
Point the finger all you like from atop your pedastal.. Hopefully what goes around comes around and you're explaining yourself to a judge for something that "wasn't your fault".
i dont understand the delineations between jury and non jury trials. You have to be accused of something pretty awful to get a jury trial for something you did in a car.
I dont know of anyone that's had a jury trial when protesting a moving violation. They're not even misdemeanor offenses.. i think they're referred to as "infractions" or something like that..
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
haha i guess someone didn't agree with you. its amazing how moderation works as a way to strengthen or weaken a specific view. hopefully some sane mods will catch it, dknj
Randomly release 3% of defendants?
A logic puzzle for you.
- You are a judge.
- You have 100 cases for DUI to try today.
- In all cases the defendant was found to be over the legal limit by use of a breathalizer.
- You know that 3% of breathalizer results are incorrect.
How do you fulfil your obligations of fairness and justice in these cases?Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.
In Texas, at least, it doesn't matter what you score on the breathalyzer. All the policeman has to do is testify that you were without your full mental faculties and you're busted. So if you get out of the car and stumble or sway a little bit, which gets caught in the camera that's *always* on, you're busted, even if you score a 0.07 BAC.
No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
The whole issue is totally irrevelant. Proof of drunken driving comes from blood alcohol test done at the police station's doctor room. The roadside breath-into device test simply serves to help select those who are suspected of drunken driving. Those guys are then taken to the police station for blood test.
At least that how it is done in civilized (I mean european) countries. The ages old blood test is done with chemicals in a little bottle so there is no trade secret about it and it is 1/10**6 precise.
In fact many drivers will voluntarily admit on-site to drunken driving at the alcohol level shown by the blow-into test, because it is usually calibrated to be a little less sensitive than the blood test. So you are better off with a hefty fine and a few penalty points recorded for e.g. 33 parts alcohol shown at the roadside test rather than have the blood test done with exact result of e.g. 41 which means you lose your licence for min. six months and must retake the driver exam afterwards!
This method is good for low police costs and means less harsh penalty for the driver, yet the deterrence is still there. Good method. America must learn!
however there is NO reason why you should refuse to take the breathalyzer test in the first place.
Are you absolutely sure? What if I don't believe the brethalyser is accurate? What if I don't believe the yokle knows how to operate it properly? Perhaps it shows visible signs of severe abuse and/or tampering.
Given that many people who aren't knowledgable enough to see "the man behind the curtain" and so place way too much faith in things like brethalysers, if I have any reason to doubt the machine's accuracy, I might very well prefer not to have it's faulty reading presented in court even if I know I am sober.
In those cases, I might prefer to refuse the brethalyser and submit to a blood test (performed by a properly trained medical technician) instead. That brings less interested third parties into the picture, and opens the door to me getting a second analysis on the same blood sample in the event that the tech screws up (or for the more paranoid, is conspiring with the yokle). A law that declares that refusal of the breathalyser==DUI is simply unacceptable.
A big problem with the breathalyser is that it produces 'evidence' that cannot be properly verified. Breathalysers also violate the chain of evidence. By the time a trial comes up, who knows for sure what abuses (or repairs) the breathalyser has been through?
You still have a choice before you decide to drive. If you don't want to be forced to submit to a test then don't drive. Your logic is flawed. From your same argument I would assume you think it is wrong to force airline pilots to take random tests for drug and alcohol use. The basic idea is when you are in a position to cause harm to others that can result in death you lose some of your autonomy of decision. When you get behind the wheel of a car you are making a social promise that you can stay in control of your vehicle and not harm others. If you don't wish to accept that you don't have to drive. Move to a city and take mass transit.
I'd be interested in how they sync these with the "atomic clock". Is it the same radio signals that my bedside alarm clock claims to use? Because somehow that manages to run 8 minutes fast, even though it claims to have a lock on the radio signal. I suspect those radio sync chips only correct the seconds, so if your clock/the camera's clock is more than 30 seconds out to start with, it isn't corrected to the right time.
someone said:
Unfortunately, I'd imagine that all of this would apply to almost any forensic test. Using this exact same process, a murder defendant could ask for the source code and engineering documents for a machine used to perform DNA analysis. If the company is unwilling to release, a murder defendant could walk away a free man.
All of this could make prosecution problematic for even the most serious of crimes.
Many people here do not seem realize that thanks to the MADDness the DUI laws are unlike any other criminal law. In fact the US Supreme court has in effect proclaimed there to be an exception to the Constitution when it comes to DUI. The fact is even murders, rapists, child molesters, and someone who is driving down the road smoking a joint, or who has just used crack, have more rights under the law. Yes even people who have used and or are under the influence of illegal drugs have more rights when arrested that the average Joe who is arrested for DUI of alcohol after downing one or two beers. DUI of alcohol is the only crime where a person is presumed to be GUILTY under the law before stepping even one foot into a court of law. In Every state there are now what are called Illegal per se laws when it comes to driving a motor vehicle after consuming the legal substance called alcohol.
Per Se = Of, in, or by itself or oneself; intrinsically
Illegal Per Se Law
"A State law that makes it a criminal offense to operate a motor vehicle either (1) at or above a specified alcohol concentration in either the blood, breath or urine."
Many states have no such laws when it comes to DUI of Drugs illegal or legal.. Only for alcohol!!
With blood or urine these is ALWAYS physical evidence left behind that can be independently verified. This is not the case with these breath testing machines. They leave no evidence behind except for an accusation proclaiming ones guilt, which under the law will be consider correct unless the accused can prove otherwise. Under the law the accused must not only prove that they were not impaired (Drunk) but that the machine was wrong. Under the law the state is NOT obligated to prove that the machine has accurately determined a persons true BLOOD alcohol content. No the accused must prove it did not. This is the only place in our entire criminal justice system where the burden of proof automatically shifs from the state to the accused.
by trialjudge (858690) on Monday June 06, @12:15PM
The test in most jurisdictions is some form of "scientific reliability." If the test is generally accepted as reliable, by a preponderance of the scientific community, the results are admissible. This type of defense has been tried before, but has been rejected in most American jurisdictions. NORMALLY the Court would reject the Defendant's motion to dismiss, but allow Defendant to depose the corporate officials (at Defendant's expense.) The Defendant could then offer expert testimony as to why the Defendant felt the test was not reliable. If the Court continued to believe the test was scientifically reliable, and the issue of intoxication, including the technical evidence would be submitted as a question of fact for the jury. I can understand the corporation's reluctance. I suspect if a good technie knew all the details of the radar gun, it might be possible to craft a device to indicate 43 mph on the radar gun when the true speed was something approaching Warp Factor. The corporation might be compelled to testify, however the corporation could apply for a "protective order" prohibiting the use of the information beyond the criminal trial at issue. Tj
trialjudge ??? Your talking about the "Frye inquiry". Haven't you ever heard of Daubert??? At one time a preponderance of the "scientific community" said the earth was flat!!
Admissibility of scientific evidence
http://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1148/
Radar is an open book . H
Really? If these rights are so pwerful, how come it's so easy to violate them and take them away with nothing more than a punch to the face. Rights only come from the strength to enforce them. You have rights because you pay strong people or groups to protect them.
What?
Rights aren't powerful at all, just fundamental. Rights violations go on all the time, but that's just what they are: violations. Law enforcement is designed to prevent as many rights violations as possible, precisely because rights are widely accepted to be important and worthy of protection, but fragile and easily violated.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
The laws of physics are fundamental because it's impossible to violate them. That doesn't work with rights. Fundamental things are just that. They are imppossible to remove. The rights that we speak of are a human invention. A better word for us to use is liberty. Liberty can be taken away. A right implies inviolability(?), but they're violated all the time...by the same people who invented the concept!
What?
Pretty scary that you can go to jail just for refusing to take a breathalyzer/other test, even if you WIN the DUI case (in other words you weren't drunk in the first place). Looks like the _minimum_ penalty is to lose your license for one year (again even if you win the DUI case).
This is part of a sadly growing trend to sacrifice justice for expediancy through sophistry.
File it along with prosecutors who inflate jaywalking to murder 1 so the defendant will be greatful to plead guilty to disorderly conduct, "detectives" who think a positive match on some test (any test) automatically means guilty, a civil court system where winning is more expensive than settling and a big pile of other issues.
... but then he might have to live near ... POOR people!
That's exactly what makes some rights fundamental: they cannot be removed, they exist independently of the laws which enforce them, or whether or not you are in fact able to exercise them.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Another thing that makes a thing fundamental is universal recognition. It is universally recognized that the sky is blue the grass is green(if it's not dead). A rock will fall if you drop it. These things are as fundamental as it gets. There is no law that can change that. Our nukes aren't that powerful. Rights are subject to human opinion and whimsy. The fact that there is so much disagreement over what rights we have shows that they're not fundamental in any way. On the other hand we do have the fundamental right to do what ever we want, simply beacuse we might be capable of it. So, in that case, which rights do we give up to live comfortably in society? Who decides which rights we must give up? Personally, I give up some rights out of respect for the other person. I don't get upset until somebody tries to arbitrarily prohibit my actions. Proving the existance of rights is a little like trying to prove the existance of god. Also, can you give me an example of what rights we have despite what the law says? Are they absolute? If not, who decides what limits there are? If you accept some limits, and somebody else wants stronger limits, when are you going to decide that your rights are being violated?
What?
Proving the existence of rights is much easier than proving the existance of god, because it is much easier to make the necessary foundation. See one of my other posts regarding a constructionist viewpoint for the necessity of rights necessary to make arguing about rights possible. If there are no rights, then your arguing with me is meaningless and pointless. On the other hand, if there are rights, then my arguing with you might convince you.
To me, the most obvious right in contradiction of law is the right to freedom. Slaves everywhere have a right to be free, but in many cases, and not so long ago in the US, the law did not support that right.
If we give up the exercise of rights to participate in society in a specific way, that's all we do. We don't surrender rights, merely the choice to exercise them. Remember, rights cannot be taken away or given up, but you can of course choose not to exercise them, and you may be prevented from exercising them, but that is not the same as saying they do not exist.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Slaves everywhere have a right to be free...
Please, don't take this wrongly...but, free from/of/to do what? I know the is a silly question, but just how free is a person allowed to be? My personal answer is anything that doesn't cause harm to another. For me it's a nice absolute to work with. I suppose if this right was respected universally, everything would fall into place. I like the idea of rights, but we need a way to make them as inviolable as the laws of physics themselves to make it really mean anything. That would make me a lot more comfortable than a bunch of fancy, expensive philosophy.
What?
Free from threat and use of physical violence used to force them to do work for others. I completely agree with your next statement (anything that doesn't cause harm to others), and I think you'll find that that builds up a certain set of rights which would be great for us all to respect universally, and indeed, much of the world would be more pleasant if such a right were universally respected. I think law and law enforcement is essentially our collective effort to translate the fragile absolute rights into practical exercisable rights.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Down here DUI is an offense punishable with 2 years of hard jail. How would you feel if your brother was jailed for two years for driving after taking half a can of beer and driving?
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I see you have good intentions, but you are not thinking straight.
Suppose your brother took half a beer, and was in perfect conditions to drive. The breathalizer gave him 0.18. Bam! He goes to jail. His lawyer says: I want the State to prove that the breathalizer test is conclusive. The state says: I can't prove it. Your brother goes free.
Now suppose your brother took two gallons of beer. The rest of the story does not change, because the state do not have any other way to prove he was not in conditions to drive. Now, morally, your brother could confess or otherwise waive his right to a defense, but it's *his* moral problem.
When society interferes with the defense rights of people, you know what happens? A lot more innocent people end up in jail, and *not* a lot more guilty people end up in jail. And *that* is why the innocent-until-proven-guilty (beyond reasonable doubt) principle is so important.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
They are leaving Virginia at the end of the month, however! Good riddance!
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
DC law says the registered owner of the vehicle is responsible for red light cam and speeding cam violations. The owner can say he wasn't driving the car at the time, but he will be compelled to divulge who was actually driving.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
In some jurisdictions, if you start filing discovery it's a good way to get the charges dropped. It's a revenue drain for them to comply with all the discovery and it's easier for them to extract money from folks who just pay up.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
But brethalyzers are worthless for a number of reasons. If you ever get pulled over for DUI, insist on a blood test.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Can't believe you got a ticket for 60 in a 55 in VA, though. That really sucks. I've heard the cops are a pain in the ass here in VA, and I don't doubt it given the number I see on the roads every day. I prolly saw 6 or 7 on the way to work this morning. :-\
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
I know, I know. Not scientific. But also not beyond the realm of possibility.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent