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.

Comments

Re:easy solution

[Wordsmith]

"Why does the defendant have a right to know how equipment used to obtain evidence works?"

Because a defendant, who may or may not be guilty, has a right to rebut and discredit the evidence - if the state or the company to which it contracts its breathalizers won't reveal that, the defendant is robbed of that right.

How do we know the third party is really impartial, thorough or accurate? The defendant gets a shot at evaluating the evidence too.

Re:Public Right to how it works

[Ann Elk]

IMHO, the right to "know how these devices work" is just as important as the right to "face your accuser".

Imagine this scenario:

• You go out to dinner with friends, and you drink exactly one class of wine with your meal.
• On the way home, you are pulled over by a police officer for driving 39 in a 35 zone.
• You are "asked" to take a breathalyzer test.

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.