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
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:-)
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?
Although DUI is mentioned, it's really got next to nothing to do with the story in question. The story's got to do with being convicted of something/anything because of evidence provided by an unknown method. Nobody's trying to defend drinking and driving, exactly. It's about whether or not the method of producing evidence is sound. Which I would say is exactly why the poster of the story mentions other things such as radar guns...
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
Hmm, you sound like a well-balanced, liberal kind of chap.
So the possibility that someone may have a genuine concern over the reliability and accuracy of a police enforcement device doesn't enter into your world-view of human rights then?
Best not put too much vinegar on your chips tonight.
Powered by onion juice.
Perhaps that's true.
Oh look I've used my new guilt-o-meter and it says you committed 9 murders... Don't ask me how it works [and in turn determine if it actually works...] for that's proprietary.
Who knows, maybe he really wasn't drunk [or that drunk] and the device is buggy or mis-calibrated? That's why we have a DEFENSE in the first place.
If you're just going to trust whatever "magic happens here" box the police are using without actually investigating whether it works... then you might as well have summary convictions without appeal [or defense]. Then we could just walk up and down the street and write people up because our "guilt-o-meter" went off.
For every "asshole who got through a loophole" there are others who "got wrongly convicted" of an offense.
Maybe next time the cops purchase equipment they'll make sure they can be independently audited. It's not the defendents fault the cops are using [effective] defective equipment.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
But the difference, often the DNA scanner can be shown how it works. Then expert witnesses can argue that the method is correct. The article says that you cannot get the information on how breath scanners work, and therefore, it cannot be proven in court that the scanners actually work.
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!
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"
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?
If the scanning system is dodgy then YES HE BLOODY WELL SHOULD! How would you feel if falsely convicted for rape due to dodgy evidence?
Equally, given that traffic-related charges are a major source of income for police depts (certainly in Britain), how do we know the police didn't go for the breathalyser model that always flags each 20th suspect as being drunk? Sorry Granny, they caught you fair and square.
Without access to the system internals (in this case the source code) we just don't know. However unlikely tampering may seem, that uncertainty will still be there.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
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.
Technical evidence is being submitted without information about how it was gathered, leaving no way for a court to assess its reliability? I'd say that should be a pretty strong defence, actually, probably enough to instruct a jury to disregard that evidence entirely.
Indeed, the title is deeply misleading. A court requiring evidence about how software works is not the same as requiring the software to be Open Source, nor anything close to it.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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 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
There is no need to dispute video/audio recorders as devices. Experts can agree on their function and how they work is clearly documented everywhere. Biometrics are already challenged everyday in court.(How accurate is this finger print match? How many other people could this partial match?)
The main part of this case is that the law says you are drunk with a particular BAC. It is the defendents right to see how law enforcement calculates that number and challenge the process with his own expert if he wants. A bloodtest for example, can be invalidated if they use alcohol to sterilize the area before drawing the blood. For all we know the software in the test in question contains a rounding error that could invalidate it's tests.
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
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
"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.
" This sounds more like a worst case scenario of judges legislating from the bench"
No, this sounds like a best case scenario of judges UPHOLDING the LAW.
Specifically the right of the defendant to cross-examine his accusor.
If they will not allow inspection of, and verification of, their software/hardware, then they are unable to demonstrate the reliability/unbias of their results.
IT's no different than someone coming to a court saying you are a thief, but not able to prove how they know that.
"How much of the public are the judges willing to put at risk to stroke their own egos?"
How much of the public are these judges protecting from unlawful accusations? Again, if you cannot dispute/verify the method of finding a person drunk, how can it be said that they really ARE drunk? "Trust me?" BS! I don't trust ANYONE in power anymore. They prove their case like they should have from the beginning.
"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?"
The basis of "the right of the defendant to cross examin his accusor". It's part of LAW. All these judges are doing is upolding your right to confront your accusor.
If the manufacturer cannot/willnot demonstrate how his device works, then it cannot and SHOULD NOT be used to accuse people of anything.
NO SECRET TRIALS. This is America, not the U.S.S.R. or Nazi Germany!
"How can they not apply this to speeding tickets, parking meters, or are items of revenue enhancement strictly excluded from this test?"
Maybe it has? MAybe those manufacturers can easily demonstrate how their equipment works? After all, parking meters are simply a clock. Speeding tickets could be either from a radar gun, or a cop matching your speed and looking at his speedometer.
Quite frankly, while we all may abhor the idea of a criminal being let go "on a technicality", the fact that those "technicalities" exist is to protect YOUR rights. If you cannot understand this, then you seriously need to re-learn our justice system.
"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).
Uh oh... somebody doesn't like the way something goes in court and immediately calls it 'legislating' from the bench. I wonder how he (assumption) voted in '04.
In TFA the judge says "Florida cannot contract away the statutory rights of its citizens". See that word statutory? Ever wonder what that means? The use of that particular word denotes actual, codified law in the books somewhere that guarantees those charged with a crime something along the lines of the right to understand how evidence was gathered against them.
Refer back to that word statutory - it appears that the state does have a requirement of disclosure.
I'll bet it does apply. Q: How does a speed gun work? A: http://makeashorterlink.com/?E1ED3343B and has an accuracy of .x +/- mph Q: How does the parking meter keep track of time A: A mechanical or electronic timekeeper which is accurate to within .001 seconds/day
Compare this with Q: How does your test meter detect alcohol and what is the accuracy A: None of your business. Q: So you're saying that if my BAC is .05 your machine could overrepresent this and show .09? A: None of your business. Q: If I eat a tuna sandwich does your machine consistently give false positives? A: None of your business. Q: If I fart will your machine generate a false positive? A: None of your business.
Can you honestly say that you don't have a problem with this? Next time you're in court I will hook you up to a polygraph. You must accept the results without question. There's a red light and a green light on the top - if the red light illuminates then you're guilty and go to jail. No, you aren't allowed to know how it works. Trade secret. But you wouldn't have a problem with this, right? After all, any judge who excludes this is obviously legislating from the bench and needs to be sued if a murderer gets off. Right?
Perhaps allowing a judge to be personally held accountable if he lets somebody back on the street after a 4th or 5th OUI conviction but to punish a judge for dismissing the charges after one's rights were violated due to improper collection of evidence is out of line. If a judge convicts a guy 10 times for OUI but the bum gets parole every time and then goes out and kills somebody you'd be on to something.
Other than that I'd say you're blowing smoke. Better hope that the testing equipment doesn't register smoke as EOH fumes or you're gonna see some jail time. Or maybe just some serious probation.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
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.
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?
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
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.
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.
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.
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.
The only thing going through my mind watching that video was "She's a total fake." I've done a fair amount of first aid training, and one of the first things we're taught is "The more noisy the casuality, the less there is wrong with them."
If she'd been in enough pain to justify that much complaining, she'd have been incapacitated. She wasn't in agony, she was just throwing a tantrum.
No sympathy here.
So.. it has come to this
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 find that very Orwellian.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Let's see, she's talking on her mobile phone and speeding, with a suspended licence, which is both stupid and illegal.
The cop then asks her politely to get out of the car. She ignores him and carries on talking on her phone, which is stupid.
He asks her repeatedly to hang up and get out of the car, and she refuses. She could even get out of the car while still talking on the phone, which would at least show willing, but she doesn't. This is stupid, and (IIRC) tantamount to resisting arrest.
The cop then pulls a tazer on her, and threatens her with it twice. She hears and sees him ("he's got a gun - he's going to shoot me!"), and he clearly tells her it's a Taser, and states "If you don't get out of the car I am going to Tase you". She ignores him. This is monumentally stupid.
You can't actually see the next bit (she's still in the car), but the police officers mention later in the video that they Tazed her because she "took a swing" at one of them. Now, either she did or she didn't, but if she's driving around, speeding, with a suspended licence, and is then hostile and un-cooperative once pulled over, it's not that much of stretch to assume she did take a swing at them. At the very least, she (solely) created the tense situation where they were likely to mis-interpret any sudden movements (especially after she'd already repeatedly refused to move from the car). If she actually tried to throw a punch this is criminal, but either way it's so monumentally stupid she deserves a fucking Tazing right there.
Next she's actually Tazed. Now, I believe Tazing hurts (I've had a few big shocks from electrical projects going wrong before now, and it's highly liable to be worse), but she's moaning and whimpering in rather a theatrical manner for over five minutes, by the clock. She can also clearly walk by the end of it, and yet (off-camera) still gives the officers a hard time getting her into the car.
One of them can also be heard telling her "I told you multiple times to get out of the car and you refused to do it." She denies this (despite the fact we've just watched the whole thing). One officer also indicates they've both been Tazed before, and know she's overacting.
Now I'm as quick with the tinfoil hat as the next paranoid conspiracy-theorist, but this ain't evidence of jackbooted fascism.
This is an object lesson in why it's fucking stupid to:
I've heard and seen a lot of sketchy things done in the name of Law & Order, but she brought this one entirely on herself.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
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 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.
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
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.
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
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.