Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules Defense Can Get DUI Machine Source Code
pfleming alerts us to developments in Arizona on a subject we have frequently discussed (e.g. FL, MN, NJ): efforts in DUI cases to obtain source code to devices that analyze blood alcohol levels. On Friday a Pima County Superior Court judge ruled that the software that powers the Intoxilyzer 8000 must be revealed to defense lawyers. "Defense attorneys representing more than 20 people arrested on felony DUI charges agreed to consolidate their cases into one and to argue it before [Judge] Bernini ... The source codes are crucial because the Intoxilyzer 8000 sometimes gives 'weird' or inexplicable results ... Six other states have been battling CMI [maker of the Intoxilyzer] over the source code — Minnesota, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee and New Jersey... CMI has currently racked up over $1.2 million in fines in a civil contempt order for not disclosing the source code in Florida."
It doesn't require a prosecution. If the judge gets irritated enough regarding their civil contempt, he can jail them summarily until they comply. I think, however, that judges are often reluctant to do this.
I should imagine that there is a long list of well established procedures for handling contempt. While I think it's well within a judge's power to jail almost indefinitely for contempt until the contempt is remedied, I suspect that there are rules of jurisprudence that govern them otherwise to some degree.
The contempt charges can continue indefinitely by the way. They will have to reveal their code eventually or go bankrupt, and this still won't get them out of contempt. IOW, it's only a matter of time before they reveal, and they are being immensely stupid.
There is this story (urban legend?) that Larry Flint of Hustler fame was fined $10K per day for contempt once. He sent the fine in pennies. In response, the Judge said he liked pennies and would gladly accept $50K a day paid in pennies.
One should not baldly thwart the judge. Makes you wonder who their lawyers are.
C//
the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him;
In this case the withess is a machine, he has the constitutional right to know how that machine works
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.
This was a partial summary of another breathalyzer source code that was opened up in another case. This has nothing to do with open source this has to do with software that is half-ass'd but determines if someone has to go through years of court hearings, meetings, suspended license, and a whole waste of money because some company rushed their software engineer to write code that may be giving wrong results all together.
This code should be open to public discrimination, there would be no trade secrets if the law protects the code from someone else using it after its been opened to public discrimination because every company would have to disclose their software.
This has already happened with radar guns. If they are not calibrated frequently they will register a tree moving at twenty miles an hour.
That being said, in Florida, even if you are below the legal limit, you can still be charged with driving while impaired if it can be shown that your driving was impaired.
One of my closest friends is a Criminal Defense Attorney and he tells everyone he knows, "Don't drink a drop and drive". Also, you are within your legal rights in all fifty states to request a blood test instead of the breath test. You will be booked, but the results will be indisputable in court. So if you're sure you only drank one beer it will be dead on.