Slashdot Mirror
Breathalyzer Source Code Revealed
Nonillion writes "New Jersey attorney Evan M. Levow was finally able to get an order from the Supreme Court of New Jersey forcing the manufacturer of the popular Draeger AlcoTest 7110 to reveal the source code. Levow turned the code over to experts, Base One Technologies, to analyze. Initially, Base One found that, contrary to Draeger's protestations that the code was proprietary, the code consisted mostly of general algorithms: 'That is, the code is not really unique or proprietary.' In other words, the 'trade secrets' claim which manufacturers were hiding behind was completely without merit." Following up an earlier discussion here, the state of Minnesota has (without explanation) missed a deadline to turn over the code for a different breathalyzer.
You must first blow into this tube before your Slashdot post is accepted.
Processing... Processing... Done! (31 errors ignored)
Sorry, your blood alcohol is over the limit for Slashdot first-posting. Please try again later.
I didn't know SCO made breathalizers.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
You mean, the creator of an intellectual work thinks it's more creative than it really is? That very rarely happens.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
if ( drunk ) {
goto JAIL;
}
I've been thinking about DUI laws in the US and how the laws are just the second coming of prohibition of liquor. Why else would they take two legal activities like drinking alcohol and driving, and make it criminal. Yes, I understand people get hurt by drivers under influence. But lets be real and compare it to teens getting into accidents, senior citizens getting into accidents, sleep deprived individuals getting into accidents, etc. Think about it... You don't see people being tested for reaction speeds when taking driver tests!! You don't see people being tested for intelligence when taking driver tests!! You don't see people being tested for decision making ability when taking driver tests!! If people had to pass these types of tests we wouldn't have so many traffics jams. Think about it, why have some states in the US that use whisky plates (plates for cars owned by individuals convicted of a DUI) run out and had to expand the letters used.
PS People who drink and get into accidents should be prosecuted as if they had reckless intent.
Sorry, your blood alcohol is under the limit for Slashdot first-posting. Please try again later.
There. Fixed it for you =]
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
You don't seem to have read the "article", but then again this is /.
Even in such a simple case there are many things it should be testing. Is the A/D output sane? Does it take 3 quick samples while someone is blowing and average them or just take it once (which could be wrong for some reason)?
According to the article, it doesn't look like it does. It calibrates the wind sensor, but doesn't check that the calibration is sane. It doesn't report errors unless they happen 32 times in a row. It disables the watchdog timer. It disables the interrupt for illegal instructions. It doesn't meet any coding standards. It contains code with things like "this is temporary for now" in it.
There is an obvious reason why they didn't want the code released.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
- Several sections are marked as "temporary, for now"
- Converters will substitute arbitrary, favorable readings for the measured device if the measurement is out of range
- The software takes an airflow measurement at power-up, and presumes this value is the "zero line" or baseline measurement for subsequent calculations. No quality check or reasonableness test is done on this measurement
- It would fail software standards for the (FAA) and (FDA), as well as commercial standards used in devices for public safety
What is this thing, alpha?The reason why no source code has been released in MN is that the manufacturer of the breathalyzer in that case, CMI, refuses to hand it over to anyone. They are asserting that it is a trade secret, and are resting on the fact that there is little a court in MN can do to force them, a Kentucky corporation, to hand it over.
I represent three clients in Phoenix, AZ, who have been trying to get the code from CMI for the same reasons, and have been met with nothing but frustration. Fortunately, a couple judges here have agreed with the defense that examination of the code is necessary to mount a defense, under due process grounds. We (myself and a number of other attorneys) have had dismissals in a total of about 11 cases in the City of Phoenix, all of which are being appealed. There are a few cases in superior court that will be appealed shortly as well. It's been a busy time in the world of DUI litigation.
Unfortunately, many judges here do not see the relevance. Further, they have enacted legislation to prevent the preclusion of breathalyzer results, despite the inability to examine the "schematics or source code" of the machines.
Believe me when I tell you - these machines are unreliable, and subject to many errors, most glaringly the result of RFI screwing up the results. I've read the findings of the independent lab on the NJ case, and it does raise many concerns. My biggest problem is that law enforcement can essentially hide behind a foreign corporation, and a jury never hears about many of the problems at hand.
My guess is that 99% of proprietary code contains a big trade secret: The secret of just how crappy the source code really is.
If they were expecting their code to be opened to the public, they would have taken the effort to fix up "spaghetticode.inc" which contains the single comment "//This works though i'm not sure why... clean up l8r!!!!".
Well, it's not as if the article was Slashdotted at the time. :) I think it's fair to gripe about hand-waving dismissals if their rebuttal is already in the very article being dismissed.
DNA just wants to be free...
The article states that the opposite is what occurs.y zer-software-finally-revealed/ - 10. Error Detection Logic: The software design detects measurement errors, but ignores these errors unless they occur a consecutive total number of times. For example, in the airflow measuring logic, if a flow measurement is above the prescribed maximum value, it is called an error, but this error must occur 32 consecutive times for the error to be handled and displayed. This means that the error could occur 31 times, then appear within range once, then appear 31 times, etc., and never be reported...
. So yes, they did look over the source code, they had a judge approved expert witness (aka someone who works with this stuff as their job)
from http://www.duiblog.com/2007/09/04/secret-breathal
It's a device intended to nab as many people as possible. The more people it "saves" from being killed by drunk driving the better. Accuracy doesn't matter, legal limits don't matter. ZOMG ALCOHOL!!! = Jail. Fines. Moral superiority. If police departments actually intended to serve the public, they'd come up with a more reliable system subject to completely public scrutiny and be glad to instill public trust in their methods by doing so.
Flip it to another tool used for criminal convictions: if DNA were a public, proprietary process through only two or three companies nationwide and they refused to show anyone how it worked, would you trust them? Absolutely not.
1. The Alcotest Software Would Not Pass U.S. Industry Standards for Software Development and Testing
2. Readings are Not Averaged Correctly: When the software takes a series of readings, it first averages the first two readings.
3. Results Limited to Small, Discrete Values: The A/D converters measuring the IR readings and the fuel cell readings can produce values between 0 and 4095.
4. Catastrophic Error Detection Is Disabled: An interrupt that detects that the microprocessor is trying to execute an illegal instruction is disabled
5. Implemented Design Lacks Positive Feedback: The software controls electrical lines, which switch devices on and off, such as an air pump, infrared source, etc. The design does not provide a monitoring sensory line (loop back) for the software to detect that the device state actually changed. This means that the software assumes the change in state is always correct, but it cannot verify the action.
6. Diagnostics Adjust/Substitute Data Readings: The diagnostic routines for the Analog to Digital (A/D) Converters will substitute arbitrary, favorable readings for the measured device if the measurement is out of range, either too high or too low.
7. Flow Measurements Adjusted/Substitute d: The software takes an airflow measurement at power-up, and presumes this value is the "zero line" or baseline measurement for subsequent calculations.
8. Range Limits Are Substituted for Incorrect Average Measurements: In a manner similar to the diagnostics, voltage values are read and averaged into a value.
9. Code Does Not Detect Data Variations
10. Error Detection Logic: The software design detects measurement errors, but ignores these errors unless they occur a consecutive total number of times
11. Timing Problems: The design of the code is to run in timed units of 8.192 milliseconds, by means of an interrupt signal to a handler, which then signals the main program control that it can continue to the next segment.
12. Defects In Three Out Of Five Lines Of Code: A universal tool in the open-source community, called Lint, was used to analyze the source code written in C. This program uncovers a range of problems from minor to serious problems that can halt or cripple the program operation.
Sorry if this is redundant, I didn't see it listed anywhere that I could tell up front. If you note that list is pretty serious. They picked a "top 5" type thing for the other link, but this one is pretty accurate. Note these guys were called in as expert witnesses and their information on their website shows they have extensive experience working with government. If these guys find flaws that is definitely pretty serious.
The unfortunate reality that the laws are trying to deal with, though, is that it is essentially impossible for law enforcement to spot all the drunks on the road, and deliver you home as you suggest (imagine the logistics of that: you could put all the police in this country on that duty full time!, and still not have enough cops).
Worse, it won't even be near to possible for them to indentify all of the sufficiently impaired so as to protect the rest of us from their idiocy.
What drunk driving laws do is create an incentive for everyone to voluntarily police themselves, and to act more responsibly. If you know you run a risk of a long incarceration just for drunk driving, you may not take my life into your hands by getting behind the wheel and driving the same roads as I do. If you (or most of these drunk idiots) know that the only penalty for getting caught is being taken home, then you'll be much more encouraged to just take your chances with my life, rather than deal with the inconvenience and cost of a taxi ride.
Drunk driving laws disencentivize behaviors on an individual basis that normally have unfortunate incentives on an individual basis, but have an extremely high average cost for the rest of society. This is also why no-sleepy-driving and no-cellphone-driving laws are a similarly good idea.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Have you looked carefully at your code to see what happens if you're not drunk? Personally, I'd like to see an exit(0); in that else section.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"7. Flow Measurements Adjusted/Substituted: The software takes an airflow measurement at power-up, and presumes this value is the "zero line" or baseline measurement for subsequent calculations. No quality check or reasonableness test is done on this measurement..."
So, if I blow into the device as soon as it boots, I will always be tested negative??
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
It's even worse than that. The A/D converter is hooked up to a chamber, which at one time held a known amount of air. An infrared light source is at one end of the chamber, a photovoltaic cell at the other. The A/D converter reads the photovoltaic, they multiply it by the magic 2100 number (which is truly a magic number- it's based on an average and can really range from 1300 to 3000) and spit out the answer.
This is why it's always vitally important to get a true blood test, and to preserve a sample for your attorney.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
That they don't have any funky algorithms does not mean that the firmware is not a trade secret.
Then what DOES make something a trade secret? The mere fact the software is compiled and/or programmed onto a chip? An EULA? An"anti-circumvention device" as defined by the DMCA? Seriously, where should we draw the line with "trade secrets" when it comes to protective legislation? The only "trade secret" revealed here is the fact that the manufacturer in question embedded alpha-quality software in a product released to production. That sort of a "trade secret" is generally considered willful negligence or fraud.
It still takes significant engineering/test/validation effort to get to a working device.
It is apparent that little to no such QA was done on this particular device, which to me sounds like a grave mistake considering the device is trusted to keep drunk drivers off the road. Keep in mind that this device is theoretically able to report just as many false negatives as false positives, do not only would it be possible for a sober driver to be falsely charged with a DUI (as this lawyer claims) it is also possible that countless drunk drivers falsely blew UNDER the limit and were allowed to continue on their way and put others in harms way. That could be considered criminal negligence on the part of those who engineered this device.
Just because it takes effort (in time and money) "to get a working device" even when there is nothing novel in its functionality does not mean that those putting forth the effort should be able to hide from scrutiny behind a "trade secret". The systems I work on are sometimes involve safety interlocks. My employer subjects their software division's development practices to audits from government agencies. Our clients often stipulate that they must have access to source code (though since we are a closed-source shop we never grant redistribution rights). Even if there are novel implementations or "trade secrets" there are legal instruments to accommodate for them and still remain accountable.
These "breathalyzer" devices used in the field are far from trade secrets--I remember plans for one in Radio Electronics years ago that was said to be quite reliable as a preliminary measurement device (didn't report a specific value, but had a "traffic-light-interface" of 3 LEDs). The "trade secret" excuse is flimsy and shameful. It is worse than the whole Diebold voting machine debacle because it can directly affect a person's safety and well-being.
Take 3 readings, say 1 2 3 for the sake of argument. The text says the first two are averaged, so:
(1+2)/2 = 1.5
Now this average is averaged with the third reading
(1.5+3)/2 = 2.25
or in full
((1 + 2)
Note the 3rd point is weighted twice that of the first 2 (i.e, its divided by 2, the first two points are divided by 4).
The real average should be:
(1+2+3) / 3 = 2
but the last point is being weighted more in the incorrect version so the average was given as 2.25
If the first point was weighted more you would expect the average to be less than 2. It's basically using a mean instead of an average. mean and average are the same thing. What this means is each reading could increase or decrease the score, as opposed to being consistant. If you take 3-4 tests each one could show you as "more drunk" when you might have started at
Without measures like this, police brethalyser selection is distorted by powerful confirmation biases.
Given an honest belief that suspects that are given the brethalyser test are intoxicated, the natural selection bias is towards machines that read positive more often. Even without a single thought of "we need a machine that convicts regardless of guilt", that's what they will tend to get.
Allowing the defense to face the actual witness (the brethalyser) so to speak provides the needed negative feedback to drive selection back towards accurate impartial instruments even if only to make DUI charges stick in court.
More to the point, it can drive machine selection towards those that meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. If trials are going to favor the readout on a brethalyser, the machine should (for example) always round towards a lower reading when measuring or computing. For example, if there is any noise in a reading, the lowers is beyond reasonable doubt, the average is vaguely justifiable (though it is probably closer to a preponderance than it is beyond reasonable doubt) and the highest is just plain trying to get convictions regardless of merit. Otherwise it has the potential to accuse someone of DUI (to the extent that a machine can accuse) even if in fact componant tolerances may mean the difference between just over the limit vs. just under. After all, the machine is not suceptable to a jury judging if it seems unsure or knew it was close to the edge based on testimony.
A surprising number of measurement devices meant for scientific and medical purposes (as well as law enforcement) do NOT correctly handle significant digits, error bars, or rounding. Many programmers do not understand the importance of different rounding rules, and even think that add .5 then truncate is always correct.
I think it's great the source code is getting out, and that we'll find out which devices are crappy and which are better.
But in the end, I don't think any of this matters. Drunk drivers are not prosecuted based on roadside breathalyzer tests. They are prosecuted based on tests done back at the police station using either a blood test or a much better lab-quality breathalyzer. These instruments are regularly tested in a way that makes it easy to convince a jury of the validity of the results. I've seen some of the corresponding tests on a roadside breathalyzer, and they convinced me not to trust the device.
So, it's good advice to decline the roadside tests.
I've posted this type info before...on other stories, but, depending on the state you are in, if you know you're gonna blow over the limit....refuse ALL tests...don't blow anything, don't give blood....and for God's sake...don't get out and try the field sobriety tests. All those do, is let the cops collect evidence to be used against you. According to my atty....he said you know you're going to jail no matter what...don't help them gather evidence from you. Just don't say anything, and put your hands out for the cuffs. And call the lawyer immediately....
I know if varies from state to state...but, in many (maybe most) you probably will lose your license automatically for a year, but, can often get a hardship license for getting to work, food, etc. You may get a reckless driving...but, at least it isn't a DWI. That can hurt your credit, and job possibilities in this day of the MADD witchhunt. The new ridiculously low BAC forced by the feds (0.08) can get you nailed even if you are fine to drive.
Anyway, if you like to have a drink out at all...you should know the laws of your state...and be prepared...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
To prove the photo was legit...not double exposed maybe (taken when yellow, but, redlight shown), to make sure the yellow light was sufficiently long (there have been cases showing that yellow lights were shortened on purpose to generate more fine revenue)....things along that line.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
As much as I hate to agree with the gp, there is a valid point there, even if calling prosecution of drunk driving modern prohibition is absurd. The valid point is that there are plenty of things that make drivers unsafe and the tests to determine competency are arbitrary. Blood alcohol content doesn't measure competency, it just measures a risk factor, of which there are many including age, rest and mood which are ignored. On any given day, despite the fact that I don't ever drive drunk, there is some reason to question my competency. It might be my eyesight or my mood, or just that I'm giving half of my conscious attention to a programming problem, but the issue is that my focus is rarely completely solely on the task of driving my car. Certainly the level varies between those times when I'm in heavy traffic and the times when I'm alone on the road, but I think it is fair to question whether our society's emphasis on one risk factor is a realistic reflection of the true dangers of the road.
I'm sorry to say that I don't really have a better solution than the standard of hoping that the watchful eyes of law enforcement will pick up on those who endanger the lives of others in the road, at least not a socially acceptable one. If I'm getting to make free suggestions though, I recommend that persons who have exhibited stability, sanity and a tendency to be the safest drivers be issued a permit to shoot up to one bad driver a year. Should such an absurdity come to pass, I just hope that I'm one of the gun toting vigalities rather than one of the careless and dead. Come to think of it, I'd probably get a job where I could use public transportation or bicycle to work if I had to take the risk, so it would be good for the environment too. See, guns do make things better!
Posting from Texas, the only state where "he needed killin" might convince a jury.
Back in my day when we chiseled our bits into stone and sent them by mule train from village to village...
Like calling a taxi or getting a designated driver?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Or just think ahead and don't drink if you're planning on navigating a massive structure weighing thousands of pounds down a highway with fellow human beings. Have a designated driver. Walk home. Take a cab. Driving isn't your only option.
Rather than making this an exercise in what you can get away with within the law, make it an exercise in personal responsibility in regards to your fellow man.
I have an even more important question: Does the friggin' device work? I agree that reading through the observations, the code doesn't instill confidence. But the real important question is whether or not it works. There must be some requirement as to how many false positives/negatives are allowed because no matter how good your code, nothing is infallible. So what is the requirement in terms of acceptable false positives and/or false negatives, and does the device meet that requirement?
Is there is a real and legitimate belief that this device doesn't work? Or is this just some escapade launched by an attorney to free a guilty drunk driver?
Consider, for instance, if radar guns reported "91mph" any time they detected too high a value (say, above 200mph). You could be driving by at 75mph, some malfunction could cause the gun to detect 600mph, it would report "91mph", and you'd be screwed. If it reported 600mph and you got pulled over based on it, you'd probably win in court because your car can't do 600mph.
Actually, the breathalyzer is a painfully simple device, none of it is a trade secret. It's basically a pair of heated-wire anerometers in parallel, where both have a gas sample travelling at the same velocity, at the same temperature run through an anerometer.
A heated-wire anerometer works by running a current through a wire and measuring the voltage drop through the wire. The resistance will change with the speed and specific heat of the substance you're passing across the wire, because the substance will cool the heated wire based on a number of factors. A breathalyzer simply eliminates the speed measurement, and the other measurements, and what remains is the specific heat of the substance passing through the device. They simply run a reference gas in the opposite anerometer, and take the differential, and the alcohol will give a certain value.
Not a trade secret, unless something being common knowledge for all instrument engineers taught in the past 40 years is a trade secret.
It's been a long time.
My WITTY COMEBACK was killed by a drunk driver!
It's been a long time.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I am still licensed to be a medical technologist, I spent a lot of time working in hospital chemistry labs with computerized equipment, and that software fails all kinds of reasonable criteria for calibrating and operating any equipment.
There's plenty of studies showing that talking on the phone impairs drivers more than a 0.08 BAC. If we accept the premise that drivers should be criminally liable for driving while impaired that means one of two things: a) the laws for driving while phoning are too lenient or b) the legal limit of blood alcohol content is too low.
I pull imapired drivers over all the time. Yeah I'm frequently called a dickhead for charging a cellphone user with failure to control or assured clear distance, but so be it. "Ma'am, I stopped you because you appear to be impaired. You've put your entire car over the line at least seven times since I've been following you in the last mile and a half. Is everything OK?" "Oh yeah, just fine, I haven't been drinking or anything, I'm just talking on my phone." (More than half the time the driver is still on the phone when you approach the vehicle).
Do I think it sucks that a person pulled over for DUI faces significantly higher penalties even if they don't cause an accident versus someone simply not paying attention? Yeah, but I don't write the laws. Now, there is a difference between distracted driving and driving drunk. A distracted driver who is on the phone, putting on makeup, etc, can turn it off and become 100% focused on driving again. A drunk can't do this. They're impaired until the alcohol wears off. Thus the exposure time for a drunk driver is 100% of the time that they're behind the wheel. If traffic gets hairy or the weather turns bad, a distracted driver can hang up and drive. Am I implying that all distracted drivers do this when the situation requires more attention or am I saying that when traffic is light you're free to goof off? Absolutely not, but at least the ability to focus again is there while drunks don't have the option. My policy is if you're driving like you're impaired you probably are and I will make contact to determine what the issue is.
Personally I like non-DUI impaired driving cases. It's much easier to write someone a citation or a warning and send them on their way than to have to go through the rigmarole associated with a full-blown DUI arrest. In my mind both groups are equally dangerous on the road, but the former is much easier to deal with and get back to patrol. A drunk might take two hours from violation to calling 10-8 (back in service).
I'm sorry, but this is no joking matter! It's estimated that over 10,000 points of karma are lost a year to drink-/.-posting. Ordinary, everyday nerds like you have lost face with their peers. They feel inadequate as their karma drops from Excellent to Good in the face of all the other Excellent nerds. It's been known for some particularly disgraced nerds to quit /. and start posting regularly on digg. That's right, it's not so funny now, is it?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Yes, but how many karma points are *gained* by drunken slashdot posting? I'd say it's probably an order of magnitude greater than the points lost =]
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
If the law says 0.05 is fine then we should hold ourselves to it. If we wanted 0.00 then write the law as such. Why is carrying out the law properly even an issue?
>Does the friggin' device work?
Of course, by the time they actually bring out the breathalyzer, they've probably already decided to arrest you based on the Nystagmus test. Most of the procedure is just misdirection to keep the suspect calm, thinking he still has a chance to avoid arrest, even though it's already a foregone conclusion. It gives the DUI suspect a chance to dig a deeper grave for himself... The breathalyzer result is more valuable for getting confessions in the field, rather than for evidence in court. They don't actually *need* mechanical sobriety tests, since HGN, one-leg-stand, walk-and-turn tests and the like, stand up just fine in court.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The crazy shit won't stick in court? Where the hell do you live? I have lived in Jersey, Georgia, Tennessee and a bunch of other places while in college and in the Air Force and law enforcement officers at all levels are the same; they are a bunch of sleazy lying bastards. They will charge you with all sorts of crazy shit because they know that a judge will side with them on at least half the charges no matter how crazy of a story they make up or how good of an attorney you get to represent you.
In the US justice system today the average Joe Blow on the street is fucked before the case even gets to the court. If a cop pulls you over, pray he got laid that morning so that he'll be in a better mood...then you MAY have a chance to get away with only a ticket for a minor infraction instead of having to prepare for a serious ass fucking by some guy named Bubba who wants to make you his "wife". If the feds are investigating you...well you're just plain fucked, those bastards know how to play the courts like a fine Stradivarius violin so you might as well buy a case of KY to take with you to prison. And that shit about a jury of your "peers"??? Ya, right...In your dreams!!! I'll never understand how a bunch of housewives, gardeners, mechanics and other blue collar workers could ever be considered "peers" in cases involving white collar "crime" or highly technical issues. Think about it...we have morons who can barely balance a checkbook sitting in judgment of corporate accountants. We have fools who can barely run their own lives sitting in judgment of CEOs. We have idiots who have no idea what the sine or cosine of an angle means, but you will find them sitting on juries deciding cases involving engineering failures. The eyes of these juries glaze over 10 seconds into expert testimony, and yet they are "peers" of the accused? If the prosecutor tells them 2 + 2 = 5, they'll just take his word for it and convict. Thats justice by a "jury of your peers." Peers my ass!
Justice in the US courts? That is a myth. Why should there be any justice when just about every penalty includes an opportunity for the government to seize money, property, or labor, i.e. community service, from the so-called "guilty" party? Hell some "crimes" permit seizure of property on just a suspicion, with no charges needing to be filed and with little or no recourse to get the seized property returned. After all who has tens of thousands of dollars to spend to go through the process to get seized property returned. No one I know.
Fucked...just plain fucked. That what you are once the "justice" system gets a hold of you.
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
I can tell you 100% this is true. I received a DUI for drinking 3 coronas in January in Washington state. I passed my field sobriety test with good marks, yet being a dumbass I volunterred to take a portable breathalyzer test yielding a .085% BAC.
.089% which was complete bullshit. How does 3 beers in 3 hours get someone to 0.089%!?!
...? HGN is supposed to last 20 seconds max as outlined in NHTSA recommendations. The patrolmen kept the HGN test going for over 60 seconds, then wrote that I was showing signs of attention deficit due to intoxication because I took my eyes off the pen to look at him in bewilderment and ask if we were done yet. Judge says state patrolmen don't have to follow NHTSA recommended practices for administering field sobriety tests and the WSP are trained to administer the tests as best they see fit.
/. seems to imply it doesn't even matter if you're right, you might get arrested anyway. WSP sucks, WA state corrections sucks, District of Clark County sucks. Disclaimers of course, IANAL, ymmv, don't drink & drive, bury the lawyers, etc.
When I got back to the station to take the real breathalyzer, I brought to the attention of the police officer that the breathalyzer I was being tested on had a 2 year old calibration sticker. He said, and I quote "oh don't worry these machines are accurate to 10%!". Long story short, it said my BAC was
The police will lie to your face so you think you're going home, write down what is necessary to create probable cause(1) and screw you while you smile. What do you expect from a state that pulls in $800k a month from DUI fees and I'm sure many times more than that in corrections fees?
1) I was pulled over for having a cracked tail light. I volunteered to do a field sobriety test including walk & turn, 1 leg stand, HGN. Walk & turn, I did flawlessy, state patrolmen even admitted it. One-leg stand, I made it to 45 seconds and only put my foot down once. The policeman wrote in his checksheet that I used my arms to balance myself and in the notes field wrote that I also kept my hands in my pockets because it was cold.
Long story short... If you get pulled over and you have had even 1 drink, say these works: "I respectfully decline to provide any type of field sobriety test to you at this time. If you desire, I can accompany you to the nearest station for a breathalyzer as agreed when I received my drivers license."
At that point, they must decide if their probable cause is worth the pain in the ass you are being. Although another recent story on
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Considering this is shipping code in a device that doesn't exactly do automatic updates over a wireless network, I'm not sure when, exactly, you're anticipating that this testing" code will be replaced with the "real thing". You'll forgive me for thinking you're taking a fairly blase attitude towards the obviously complete lack of coding standards, formal oversight, or rigorous vetting in code that can quite literally destroy someone's entire life based on the output.
Playing around with temporary hacks is fun for a shareware app, not an officially-sanctioned law enforcement device that decides whether you were the victim of an accident or the perpetrator of a felony.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
um, if you did the walking test flawlessly, why did the cop even ask you to do a breathalyser? The process for using one has to be documented, there are costs involved in replacing the breathing tube used, and more. For a 0.085, it's so close it's almost not worth it, and in most cases, by the time you got to the station and did another breathalyser, normally the number would go down not up. Cops know this, and also know that if they drag you in and you pass, there's typically hell to pay.
That said, some people can ping 0.080 after only 1 drink, about 40 minutes after finishing that drink. If you had just finished your 3rd beverage, got in the car and then got pulled, after 3 drinks you could easily have been 0.08+. That fact that a second Breathalyzer confirmed this means you were guilty. Also, start counting the 3 hours from a point about 15 minutes after finishing the first drink, not from the time you got to the place to start drinking... You might see a different picture entirely there.
If you have even a half-assed lawyer, and you bothered to get the ID numbers of both breathalyser used, and both had not been calibrated withing their required term (or failed calibration testing) then you would be let go without a fuss. My guess, at least one of the 2 units was within normal parameters or would pass calibration anyway, and thus be admissible in court.
Fact is, at 0.08, you're impaired enough for it to be easily detectable in visual and reaction simulators. In fact, many states are arguing, based on scientific evidence, that this should be lowered to 0.06 as there is noticeable impairment at even that level. 0.06 means if you have 1 drink, 90 minutes later you could still fail.
As for NHTSA recommendations on field testing, that's it, they're recommendations. Officers are expected to use their own best judgment on how to test a person. The NHTSA is more concerned with the type of test and teaching officers how to recognize signs of intoxication. On the other hand saying "Are we done yet?" probably just pissed him off...
If you have 1 drink, you're probably OK, more than 1, you're at serious risk for DUI. Also remember, Corona is slightly stronger than say Bud Light. A Guiness is nearly twice as potent. A glass of wine is supposed to be 4 ounces, and is measured at 10% abv, but find me a restaurant that doesn't pour at least 6 oz glasses with 11-15% wine...
Some foods can accelerate or slow the absorption as well. The first drink probably went right through you, but if you were eating food during the second and third rounds, both of them may have entered your system concurrently through digestion.
Lessons learned here: 1, don't drive with a cracked tail light (and always use turn signals). 2, accept the field test, but decline the breathalyser. If you did bad enough on the field test, you'll go to jail anyway for a breathalyser or blood test, but if you're clean, you're OK, unless you piss off the cop or have a bad day. At the station, refuse a breathalyser and respectfully request a blood test on the grounds that it is more accurate. (if you failed a street sobriety test already, this might buy you a night in jail while you wait for results, but again, if you're clean, there's no worry) 3, never say "are we done yet" to a cop. Be polite, never act like you're in a rush. (and know his rank! This goes a long way!!!) 4, don't drink and drive... (drink at home, it's cheaper!) 5, if the calibration sticker is out of date, refuse the test and demand to have a supervisor come to the roadside site (it's your right to do so, though he may choose to bring you to the supervisor instead. this also goes for speeding tickets if the radar was not calibrated immediately before you were clocked with a tuning fork displaying a matching serial number to the radar). The more you know about the requirements the officer must display in the courtroom, the less likely you are to get a ticket. 6, have all your paperwork (registration, insurance, etc) neatly file
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.