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."
I'm sorry, but if a company is making it impossible for DUI prosecutions to be done fairly, the company officers should be sitting in jail whilst we wait to find out if they can get the source code together or not.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
I work as a law clerk in Minnesota, and while (being a clerk and all) I haven't "ordered" per se the source code be turned over, I've written many orders doing so -- until the Minnesota Supreme Court created a very high hurdle to getting it and no one has since requested. As stated by the attorney in the article, CMI won't turn the code over. Period. They simply will not obey court orders to do so. Minnesota is currently suing CMI in federal court, and we'll see how that turns out. But barring a federal court order, I assume they will simply continue to refuse to turn the code over. The result? Hundreds of DUIs being thrown out in Minnesota alone. Nice to see that the company cares more about their IP than the safety of our roads.
Then there needs to be a way to prove that the source code provided matches the binary code being executed. But if they can't provide the source code, then there's no reason at all to believe that it's honest.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
If the witness in my case is a human, do I have a constitutional right to know how the human works?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Convicted of a DWI.
What I found most intellectually troubling is that, in AZ (among toughest DUI laws in the country), the violations schedule awards the most "points" for potential crimes - actions that are crimes because of their potential to cause harm, property damage or death. The next "rung" down on the "ladder" includes crimes that result in harm, property damage or death.
I know I was wrong, and I no longer drink at all. Drunk driving is a serious problem, that should be addressed.
However, the way in which DUIs laws are written, there is little room for a judge's interpretation of circumstances. In AZ, you are LIKELY to be convicted if you have ANY amount of alcohol in your system and take a Breathalyzer test - under "impaired to the slightest degree."
What that conviction would get you typically sentenced to is: 90-day revocation of your driver's license, (30-days complete restriction, 60 allowed of work/school restricted), 30 days incarceration (29 suspended), $500-1500 in fines, 6-10 weeks of alcohol education, 1 year of driving with an ignition interlock (a breathalyzer to start your car), 20 hours of community service, and possibly, 2 years of probation. Your insurance goes up 30-50%.
This is mandatory minimum sentencing, and the judge has little power to affect the outcome except to change a few numbers on the jail term (more), fines, education and probation.
Also, 'probable cause" is not necessary to even make the original traffic stop. The term used now is "reasonable suspicion," and does not require you to commit any other violations: You might be driving just after the bars close at 2am. You might be in an area know for its' nightlife, and happen upon a roadblock - in short, your civil rights are intrinsically limited whenever you get in a car.
BTW- atorneys anecdotally say that the Intoxalyzers' readings often can be off by as much as 20%.
In NYC the police using their breathalyzers (might be a different model) could trigger an intoxicated reading just by keying their radios nearby. The needle would jump higher and they could use that to lock you away for hours until a much slower blood test refused to confirm the reading. It is well known that they used this "ability" to harass and lock away people who annoyed them with no justification. There are all kinds of "tricks" that can be played with these machines and the defense is right to be very leery of any "evidence" provided by them.
And I know Pima county well enough to know not to rely on what their attorneys say as the final word on anything.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I work in the State of Florida as a police officer, and I arrest and charge people with DUI on a regular basis.
In my opinion, this ruling was exactly on the money, and far too long in coming. If a company refuses to disclose evidence, the State should immediately stop using their product to obtain evidence.
As a certified expert witness, I am able to testify to the impairment of a subject without the need of a breath analysis to verify. About 20-30% of the cases I testify in have no breath results because the defendant refuses to provide a breath sample. We only forcefully obtain samples (of blood, not breath) when a traffic homicide is involved.
If the evidence is faulty, I *need* to know. I can only uphold my oath of office if I can testify in good faith that I am using proper methods of obtaining evidence. If this company is witholding vital information, they should not be allowed to sell their product to law enforcement.