Slashdot Mirror
Breathalyzer Source Code Ruling Upheld
dfn_deux writes "In a follow up to a 2005 story where Florida judge Doug Henderson ruled that breathalyzer evidence in more than 100 drunk driving cases would be inadmissible as evidence at trial, the Second District Court of Appeal and Circuit Court has ruled on Tuesday to uphold the 2005 ruling requiring the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer 5000, Kentucky-based CMI Inc, to release source code for their breathalyzer equipment to be examined by witnesses for the defense of those standing trial with breathalyzer test result being used as evidence against them. '"The defendant's right to a fair trial outweighed the manufacturer's claim of a trade secret," Henderson said Tuesday. In response to the ruling defense attorney, Mark Lipinski, who represents seven defendants challenging the source codes, said the state likely will be forced to reduce charges — or drop the cases entirely.' ... What this really means is that outside corporations cannot sell equipment to the state of Florida and expect to hide the workings of their machine by saying they are trade secret. It means the state has to give full disclosure concerning important and critical aspects of the case."
Finally
Guess there are some judges out there that understand justice.
Someone is going to figure out how to file a defense involving the release of Microsoft Windows, I just know it.
Bearded Dragon
The courts got it right, this time. Yeah, sure, the whole argument is a no-brainer for anyone who thinks about it for more than 30 seconds, but the jurists weighing similar cases re. voting machine source-code seem to be struggling with it nonetheless.
Now if only 49 other states would follow suit.
There's a joke here about the importance of open-source breathalyzers vs. voting machines but I'm too full of outrage fatigue to make an effort at it.
As pesky as the Bill of Rights can be to swift justice and severe vengeance, I do remember something about the the accused having a right to face their accuser. If the Intoxilyzer uses buggy firmware that results in inaccurate readings, then the accused has every right to question it. The company that makes the Intoxilyzer must be held responsible for its actions as well. Someday, somewhere, some company will step up and say, "Yes, we knew our product was faulty. But we have shareholders who will sell our stock in a heartbeat if we miss our mark in any quarter."
Holding both the accuser and the accused responsible for their actions is what helps create a society based on the rule of law. Otherwise, we'd be a police state. As a practicing trial attorney I *much* prefer the former.
=Smidge=
Is it just my observation, or is eldavojohn an idiot?
I know the "related stories" says this too, but just to get the ball rolling:
What this really means is that outside corporations cannot sell equipment to the state of Florida and expect to hide the workings of their machine by saying they are trade secret. It means the state has to give full disclosure concerning important and critical aspects of the case."
So, will this mean voting machine source code will have to be disclosed?
Personally, I'm most surprised that:
a) Governments don't require source code disclosure, at least for purposes of review, when they ask for bids or shop for equipment/software,
b) It's so hard for them to find someone willing to meet a).
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
I am *so* looking forward to grepping all the comments out of the source that talk about how they implemented the breathalyzer software at a drinking party.
The thing I like about open source is that everyone can make the software better. Why a company wouldn't want to produce source code, is beyond me. I think they fear that they will be viewed as incompetent when several mistakes are found in their code, or that sneaky randomizer function call rears its ugly head.
In all seriousness, companies would do well to realize that open source increases revenues by enabling a larger FREE workforce to do your work for you. Put aside your griefs with secrecy, unless of course your code doesn't work, or you stole large chunks of the code, and fear the legal ramifications.
I'd hate to be in their position, either way.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
No. Did you bother reading the summary? The judge ruled the defendant in a criminal case has the right to review the source code of the machine that was used to convict him.. It's not like they ruled that CMI had to open source the thing. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
My blog
Wouldn't that be a shame if releasing their code, allowed a defense expert to find flaws in it and they then had to write better code?
I have never been in this situation (where is the wood) but I have to wonder: If an officer administers a breath test and it is positive (above legal limit) why don't they get a quick blood sample for lab analysis? But then again, given this ruling, could the defense then ask for the source-code for the laboratory equipment used to test the blood?
Conservative, mod down for violating
No. It means a bunch of drunk drivers will be on the streets free to run whoever they want over. Even if the prosecutors move to blood test, the defendants will require a medical doctor or lab technician to testify as to the nature of the exam and how the test works, and perhaps the manufacturer of the reagents used in the tests have to verify that they are what they are. Tons of money have to be spent by the DA's office, which means higher taxes. Meanwhile, prosecution of drunk driving will go down, and more drunk drivers will be on the streets.
Everyone wins!
But ask yourself: if a judge dismissed exculpatory DNA evidence because the defense didn't procure a geneticist/scientist to testify on the stand, what would you say?
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
I will bet money on one of three outcomes:
1. Breathalyzers cease to be used.
2. The source code will be released and showed to have MAJOR flaws or an algorithm that is not scientific at all.
3. The source code will be suddenly patched and every system will be required to be updated. The "new" source code will be released. Prosecution rates plummet, for some "unknown" reason.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
To date, CMI is facing more than $2 million in fines because of their refusal to release the source codes, Lipinski noted.
Looks like it's not over yet. Everybody knows breathalyzers are shit anyway.
If you're pulled over and suspected of DUI, then don't take the damn test, beacuse the accuracy of the breathalyzers are questionable. Plain and simple. Keep your mouth shut and let 'em take you to the station, but don't take the blood or the piss test(they can't legally make you) later because your results may be worse and the the only thing that matters is your BAC at the time you were driving, not later at the station, so that can be fought. Also keep in mind that some cops make overtime and/or seek promotion and actively seek to bust as many as possible to achieve their goal.
As much as I like hearing about cases of stickin' it to Da Man, I don't know that we should necessarily celebrate this decision quite so much...
All software contains bugs. The defense will find some, and even if they only affect accuracy at the 7th decimal point, the case will get thrown out by a jury based on reasonable doubt. And this doesn't apply just to the current case, but to nearly any legal case using machine-generated evidence. The court allows DNA evidence? How about the firmware in the sequencing machine? Drug test came back positive? Let's see how Agilent's HPLC code rounds in integration.
Now, in some cases (*cough* Diebold *cough*) we may have a valid gripe against a closed-source implementation. But in most cases... Not to make this a case of "for the children", but do you want drunks behind the wheel? Screw the children (calm down, Mr. Jackson, I didn't mean it like that), I don't want to DIAF because someone can't stop at two beers.
That is sage advice for those of us who live in states with implied consent laws.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Maybe this depends what state you are in... In California, you sign a contract to get your drivers license that says they can breathalyze or blood test you for BAC on reasonable suspicion of drunk driving and you waive the right to refuse.
Be aware that in some states (I think NC is one) failure to take the breathalyzer test will loose you your drivers licence. The penalties are the same as for drunk driving. Consult a lawyer in your state or country before taking slashdot advice. Kurt
I'm surprised that the company couldn't find a way around it. There are many tests admissible as evidence in court that don't have source code. They have to be proved accurate or in generally accepted by the scientific community.
Couldn't it have been proved accurate by using the Breathalyzer along with a blood test in X different situations with Y different people. If the company didn't already do that then it should be thrown out as evidence.
Also, why is a brethelyzer needed as evidence. Any test like that could be faulty. If someone fails a brethelyzer, why not bring them in for a blood test.
I did read the summary. I'm also not so naive and arrogant that I really believe the source will stay private once criminal defendants can access it. For one thing, they (at least some of them) are *criminals*.
I'll go down to Florida tonight, get smashed, walk up to the first cop I see and demand the test. Three short months later me and my chemistry degree have a competing product on the market.
I don't remember signing anything(who reads the eula anyway? ^_^ ) but I learned that information from a Californian defense lawyer published in a Californian publication.
If you're pulled over and suspected of DUI, then don't take the damn test
In many states, refusal to take a breathalyzer test is legally presumed an admission of guilt. You'll have a much harder time reversing a conviction based on a refusal to take the test (to wit: voluntary admission of guilt without evidence thereof) than challenging the accuracy of the instruments used.
Good luck with that.
(BTW: the whole "release the source code" thing is more a rasing-the-stakes legal tactic than a legitimate questioning of the equipment involved. Are you REALLY ready to expend considerable resources to find vindicating flaws in a commercial product? You have to convince the prosecutor you will do it, and succeed, before he'll drop charges in favor of keeping that revenue path flowing.)
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Not exactly. The fine print on my DL says "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law." You can insist on a bloodtest (and should -- breathalyzers are garbage. Unless you're going to try to sneak out on a source code exemption). You're correct that a test done an hour after the fact isn't going to be the same as it was at the time you were driving, but most states now have laws that presume it was the same.
1) Be legally forced to release source code in DUI trial
2) Have competitors "borrow" trade secrets and improve on them
3) ???
4) Profit!
Although I guess if those secrets were really borrowed, they'd be sitting in the other seat in the courtroom, ready to go RIAA on someone.
There's a difference between allowing a criminal to access it and allowing an independent analyst access it. I doubt most criminals would understand the code anyway.
Prosecutors must now decide whether to take the cases to trial without that evidence or reduce or dismiss the DUI charges.
The source code is not going to be released, the cases will likely be dropped. I live in Sarasota - I don't particularly like the idea of so many people that should be prosecuted for DUIs to be out on the road endangering my wife and myself. This is not justice, it is a get out of jail free technicality.
Don't even need all 49. Consider the California Emissions standard. Many companies produce ONLY Cali rated cars because it's cheaper than adjusting their assembly line and shipping procedures to make custom cars only for California.
Looking around on the internet, I only see something like 3 professional grade breathalyzers. At this moment, any company looking to do business in Florida has to disclose their source code*. If two companies don't, that leaves the remaining one with a monopoly in Florida - *ChaChing*.
They might do this in Florida, but what if you get three or four other states passing the same rules? The pressure mounts.
I'm all in favor of this measure. I'm strongly against DUI, but that's countered by my even stronger desire for accuracy and accountability in government, especially criminal matters. Of course, I'm also for NOT counting it as a DUI unless you're actually, driving. Sleeping in the backseat of a dead-cold car in the bar's parking lot with the keys in your jacket isn't DUI.
*Well, they don't strictly have to, but Florida departments would be idiots to buy machines from companies that won't, as they're inadmissable as evidence.
I don't read AC A human right
The real secret is to keep a sealed bottle of liquor in your car. If your a dumb ass and drive drunk and you get pulled over, pull out the bottle and wait for the officer to come up to your window. When the officer can see you, open the bottle and take a few swigs.
At that point you'll have a good chance of getting away with an open container charge since they'll be unable to prove your BAC when you were actually driving.
If you're pulled over and suspected of DUI, then don't take the damn test, beacuse the accuracy of the breathalyzers are questionable. Plain and simple.
Worst. Advice. Ever. Let me qualify that, if you're a first offender, it's the worst advice ever. First off, depending on what state you're pulled over in, the consequences of refusing the test are worse than your first dui arrest. Second, prosecutors are now using the fact that you refused the test against you as proof that you were intoxicated. If you have no had prior DUI arrests, you should almost always take the test. You can always fight it later on, but you'll almost surely loose your license if you refuse.
You'll have that sometimes...
but don't take the blood or the piss test(they can't legally make you)
In most states, if you refuse an on-the-spot breathalyzer test, that is an admission of guilt which automatically triggers penalties. Every state has its own laws regarding what happens if someone refuses with most states now revoking your license, fining you and giving you points on your license (which increases your insurance rates).
Here's a breakdown of PA's DUI laws.
But please, let's not get drunk drivers off the road. We need as many as possible out and about to cull the herd.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
they'd do the same with voting machines....
Then again, code is too complex. Those electronic voting machines should never be used in the first place. The process should be simple to understand by ANYBODY who would cast a vote.
In this situation either you are actually drunk while driving, in which case you are a complete jerk and deserve to be locked up, or you are not drunk, in which case you'd save yourself a lot of unnecessary hassle if you just take the test. So your advice is only useful to the guilty trying to evade justice. Therefore, you are a TERRORIST!
Seriously though, I'm sure there is a small probability of a breathalyzer malfunction but that applies to everything else in the world, and there is a way of dealing with that if it happens (as in this case, challenging the evidence and perhaps getting it dismissed in court, requesting a blood test etc) In any case if that is your concern, how do you explain refusing to take the blood test etc. Also, the whole thing about police trying to "bust as many as possible" doesn't make sense, unless you mean to actually catch as many drunk drivers as possible? Isn't that a good thing? Or do you mean the cops somehow rig breathalyzers to show alcohol levels that aren't there?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
169A.52 Sub 3: Test refusal; license revocation. (a) Upon certification by the peace officer that there existed probable cause to believe the person had been driving, operating, or in physical control of a motor vehicle in violation of section 169A.20 (driving while impaired), and that the person refused to submit to a test, the commissioner shall revoke the person's license or permit to drive, or nonresident operating privilege, for a period of one year even if a test was obtained pursuant to this section after the person refused to submit to testing.
Yeah, I've got nothing...
If I am ever stopped, I'll ask for a Breathalyzer test, over a roadside sobriety test, any day of the week. I would much rather have a carefully designed, well calibrated machine prove in seconds that I'm sober, than give a cop the opportunity to make a subjective judgment about me.
To me, this looks like a case of a bunch of guys who got nailed over the limit, who are attacking the one plank of evidence against them. OK, so it may not be 100% accurate, it may only be 96% accurate, or 90% accurate, but that means if you were convicted with a BAC over .09, you were STILL over .08 regardless. I bet a lot of these people are convinced they were less lubed up than they actually were.
Yeah because I'm sure there will be no NDA agreements or some legal ruling in place to stop you from using this as an excuse to steal people's source code. Are you really that stupid?
www.myspace.com/an_anti_hero
This is america, so i'll use my freedom of speech, Fuck all these people, these criminals, these murders, stupid israel, stupid america, america is collapsing around us, oh god, oh shit, we're so fucking done for and doomed its pathetic oh god help us oahhha shit were doomed
One wonders what CMI has to hide. The software shouldn't be that complicated. The thing uses a Z80, after all. It's not like they have Windows CE in there. Yet CMI has accepted over $2 million in fines rather than disclose the source code.
Somebody should buy one, read out the ROM, and disassemble the code.
What this really means is that outside corporations cannot sell equipment to the state of Florida and expect to hide the workings of their machine by saying they are trade secret
No, what it means is that corporations that sell equipment THAT PRODUCE EVIDENCE TO BE USED IN CRIMINAL CASES can't hide behind trade secret laws. It's a very narrow set of circumstances. If the machine isn't used to produce criminal evidence, it isn't affected. Things like radar guns and red light cameras could be affected by this ruling. General consumer products are not.
The breathalyzer is effectively acting as a witness against the defendant in a DUI case. The defendant has a CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED right to cross-examine witnesses and challenge their credibility and accuracy. In the case of a machine, this can include subjecting the machine's design to scrutiny by a defense expert.
Seems pretty open & shut to me: if they don't disclose the engineering data necessary to validate the accuracy of the machine, then the evidence produced by the machine is inadmissible.
Since DUI is based on specific blood alcohol levels, they would have to drop those charges and settle for something where they could get a conviction based solely on the arresting officer's eyewitness testimony (EG reckless driving or other specific moving violations).
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
I agree. After all, polygraph tests aren't admissible, either.
I have a bad feeling about this...
As stated less forcefully in other replies, if you refuse a breathalyzer test in Virginia, you _will_ lose your driving privilege. I think you can require them to take a blood test, but that's _in addition_ to the breathalyzer, not instead of it.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
If you did a comparison of the BAC/breathalyzer under different scenarios, you'd find the breathalyzer gave a lot of false positive. Burp and the results will be wrong. Gargle with mouthwash and the results will be wrong. vomit and the results will be wrong.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
What I want to know is why CMI has been allowed to be in contempt of court for so long. There have been past court orders demanding the source code, which they have ignored without consequences. They should have been raided by Federal agents with search warrants empowering them to execute the earlier court orders.
People are convicted of DUI in Florida without blood tests. My father got nailed by a faulty reading, saying he was double the legal limit with only a beer and a half in his system over a 5 hour period.
The breathalyzer results are enough for a conviction in almost all instances.
Learn something new.
What about providing proof that it was the version of the source code that was made available for review that was running on the machine at the time the test was administered?
Nice to see my home state in a story that doesn't involve politicians or voters being retarded.
There is a war going on for your mind.
So not only do you do jail time for your company's benefit, but your company gets sued into oblivion too for IP violations. Yeah, good plan.
http://www.mhall119.com
Breathalyzers in active use for prosecutions are actually calibrated and tested all of the time with known samples. If the test is more than %5 off, the machine is taken off duty.
You do not have the right to refuse the test, but you do have the right to insist on them taking a blood test rather than a urine or breathalyzer test, and you do have the right to refuse the roadside ballet they try to make you do. I don't drink, but if I did, I'd insist on a blood test for two good reasons: It is going to be the most accurate thing, and arranging for it takes longer, giving your liver more time to reduce your BAC.
If only this was decided back in 1995. In Canada. Manitoba, Canada specifically...
Ah well, learned my lesson. It was almost legal back then. Better a fine and loss of a license for 3 months over hurting or killing someone.
Trolling is a art,
Also keep in mind that some cops make overtime and/or seek promotion and actively seek to bust as many as possible to achieve their goal.
Yes, how horrible that they try to bust drunk drivers....
That is sage advice for those of us who live in states with implied consent laws.
Either way you are going to lose your license. The question is would you rather lose it through a civil process at DMV or would you rather lose it through the courts and get the added "bonus" of a criminal conviction? The best solution is obviously not to drive drunk but every lawyer I've ever talked to says to refuse the breath test if you've been drinking.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
In California, you sign a contract to get your drivers license that says they can breathalyze or blood test you for BAC on reasonable suspicion of drunk driving and you waive the right to refuse.
AFAIK you can't sign away your constitutional rights that easily. If you refuse to take the breath test you are going to be in violation of the aforementioned contract and will lose your license as a result -- but that's going to happen anyway so why give the state evidence to use against you in a future criminal proceeding?
I'd rather have a driving record that contained "criminal test refusal" on it than a driving record that contained "DWI conviction" and a criminal conviction under my belt.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I hope you appreciate the irony of making posts in a discussion about DWIs, given your choice of nicknames ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
some people have posted that is it reasonable for someone to be able to audit the source code looking for flaws?
Depending on the language, it would be trivial to use tools like lint, pmd, and findbugs to do some static analysis of the source code. ANY code base that wasn't built with those tools is likely to find a zillion bounds problems, swallwed exceptions, resource allocation problems, and other common boneheaded mistakes. A good developer could apply those tools in less than a day.
they might not find a particular 'smoking gun' problem, but if they find a *bunch* of problems, that would be enough to imply substandard quality and be a factor in the judgement of the case.
If I were a commercial company that built such tools, I would be seeking out this defendant for a chance to use them. Bound to be a huge publicity coup.
minnesota is actually involved in a similar case with the same company: http://wcco.com/crime/breathalyzer.lawsuit.minnesota.2.669505.html. the only difference is that in our case, the state dept of public safety claims that its part of the contract that the source code be made available to the state and cmi is still refusing to provide source.
So any device that produces forensic data for the state of Florida is going to be open to this kind of thing? Does this mean in the future it would be best for the state to prequalify these items? This could be a black mark that will keep some of the top forensic equipment producers from dealing with Florida in the near future.
Not that they sell shoddy goods but who would want to have to do this? They'll essentially be forced to prove their products worth without any compensation. I don't know how cut throat the business is but this could eat into profits in a bad way if this becomes a national trend.
Maybe this is a new business that can be put in place, a developer's shop of precertification of forensics equipment. You could probably name your price to show up at trials to certify the data's integrity as an expert witness.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
You can always fight it later on, but you'll almost surely loose your license if you refuse.
If you've been pulled over while drinking losing your license should be the last thing you worry about. A criminal record is going to haunt you a lot more than a suspended license. Why give them evidence that will be used to help secure a conviction that leads to that criminal record?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
As stated less forcefully in other replies, if you refuse a breathalyzer test in Virginia, you _will_ lose your driving privilege. I think you can require them to take a blood test, but that's _in addition_ to the breathalyzer, not instead of it.
Losing your license != being convicted of a criminal charge.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Do I hear the words
Radar-Gun-Firmware...
I'll go down to Florida tonight, get smashed, walk up to the first cop I see and demand the test. Three short months later me and my chemistry degree have a competing product on the market.
If you walk up to a cop and he arrests you for DUI, you may have a decent false arrest case on your hands - Forget engineering a breathalyzer.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Good thinking. But how do you do that, exactly? Compile the source and compare MD5 sums with the binary code on the Breathalyzer? I mean, some people put build ID strings in their binaries, but that wouldn't seem like conclusive proof that source A machines binary B.
My blog
If you're pulled over and suspected of DUI, then don't take the damn test, beacuse the accuracy of the breathalyzers are questionable. Plain and simple. Keep your mouth shut and let 'em take you to the station, but don't take the blood or the piss test(they can't legally make you) later because your results may be worse and the the only thing that matters is your BAC at the time you were driving, not later at the station, so that can be fought. Also keep in mind that some cops make overtime and/or seek promotion and actively seek to bust as many as possible to achieve their goal.
The only better advice I could offer than the above is: never follow legal advice on Slashdot. Especially not on DUI issues from a bloke whose handle is "Ethanol-fueled."
Understood, but refusing a breathalyzer test is _not_ always the best course of action as was claimed in the parent comment.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
s/machines/matches
My blog
Talk about a sudden outbreak of common sense. I mean, gee, maybe a functioning system of justice is more important than turning a profit?
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
Honestly, it would probably be easier just to write it yourself. It's not some super-top-secret bit of magic code that no one else could reproduce. Have you ever tried working with someone else's code, with know knowledge or insight into the project?
It's not pretty. And this isn't an open source project with a wiki and people contributing to documentation etc. It might have been this one guy who worked there 5 years ago and never made a single code comment.
The code that does the actual work (the calculations) is probably very small. Most of it is probably written to interface with the device. And unless you are getting their exact device -- or one with identical specifications -- then you're going to have to rewrite that anyway. And I suspect they DO have a patent on the device, even if you did somehow get the code.
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
The man is always trampringling on the rig...rig...tights of the mens in this country an...an...I..what was a saying? Ah fuck it.
If you're using a breathalyzer as definitive proof of intoxication, it's not good enough to "prove" the accuracy by demonstrating concurrence with blood tests... especially since breathe and blood tests taken simultaneously have been shown to not agree 100%.
As soon as you have 1% failure, it means that the evidence cannot be considered definitive proof... what is to say any particular defendant wasn't the 1-in-a-100 where the breathalyzer was inaccurate?
IANAL, etc, but it seems to me that concurrence with blood tests would have to be 100%, which it's not.
Because blood tests are intrusive? I don't want to live in a society where I can be forced to submit to a blood test just because some potentially-rigged machine says I'm under the influence. I say it's potentially rigged because we can't see the source, which is what this is all about.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
And while you're at it, put a line of coke on you dashboard and fire up that spliff! It's a friekin' party, man! Go down in style!
If you have no had prior DUI arrests, you should almost always take the test. You can always fight it later on, but you'll almost surely loose your license if you refuse.
In Texas, first time offenders are given jail time. Loosing your driving license is the least worry.
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
in my state you can refuse - but if you do you automaticly lose your license for 6 months.. no you don't get the DUI/DWI on your record just the lose of license - what you can do how ever is refuse a breathalizer on the basis that it is not acurate to what definds drunk driving which is blood achol level - and then say you are willing to go to the ER and have an actual blood test for it. as long as you offer to take you blood test you can deny the breath test without penatly - although if when they do the blood test you are over the limit you are screwed because there is no question in it's acuracy
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
In this situation either you are actually drunk while driving, in which case you are a complete jerk and deserve to be locked up, or you are not drunk, in which case you'd save yourself a lot of unnecessary hassle if you just take the test. So your advice is only useful to the guilty trying to evade justice. Therefore, you are a TERRORIST!
I think you are over generalizing. There could easily be a case where you are over the legal limit and able to drive perfectly fine, but not drunk. Plus, you could easily be found guilty even if you haven't had a drop. My brother got pulled over and he hadn't drank a drop. He was in Chicago and was near Soldier Field when the game let out. He made a left hand turn where a cop didn't want him to (they were moving traffic in a specific direction), to go home and they gave him a road-side test. He was supposed to walk some line and follow the officers hand without blinking and standing on one foot while in -20 degree temperatures and high winds. Even a normal person might have blinked or gotten a little wobbly. Luckily they let him go.
The penalties are most definitely *not* the same. You DO lose your driver's license. You do NOT have a DUI on your criminal record, probation, fines, etc.
Always refuse.
I don't know much about breathalyzers besides what they do. Is the source code really the limiting factor to you making a competing line of breathalyzers? I would think the sensor that measures the alchohol on your breath would be the most expensive and most difficult to manufacture part of the whole thing. Perhaps wrongly I would have assumed the source code would be the third easiest thing to make, behind the case for the thing and the hose you breathe into. In other words, I would have assumed that the source code would have been nothing too secret, while the actual sensor was what they spent a lot of money developing.
Of course, if the source code were very simple, I guess the company probably would have released it rather than facing the 2 mil fines. Or maybe that's just typical corporate arrogance.
Can someone explain this to me (hopefully keeping in mind that I have no background in coding)?
I would love to see this expand beyond Florida and beyond criminal cases. Truly, before evidence presented by "device" can be verified and trusted and accurate, defense and plaintiffs need to know everything about evidence presented by either side. "Because the machine said so" should never be admissible in court or in cases of other public government activities... not EVER. And this goes for VOTING MACHINES as well.
Is there any truth to this? I've heard it several times before.
I suspect there are a number of other minor infractions that could be piled on including the various "refusal to obey a lawful order" b.s. when the officer orders you to put down the bottle before you've had a chance to drink. Worse still, the officer could "mistake" it for a weapon with the ensuing hilarity of a ride to the hospital while they try to keep all your fluids inside you.
All in all, I think it's a pretty bad idea.
man, I feel like mold.
Understood, but refusing a breathalyzer test is _not_ always the best course of action as was claimed in the parent comment.
It is if you aren't 200% sure that you aren't over the legal limit. I say 200% because they aren't known for accuracy and it's quite possible for them to register you >0.08 even if that isn't actually the case.
Given my weight I would agree to one if I had two drinks or less. This should put me around 0.046 according to most calculators that I've played with. That's a nice margin of error for the inaccuracy of the machine. Three drinks would leave me at 0.076 and now you are into territory where the inaccuracy of the machine might come into play. Of course you'll have to adjust these figures based on your own weight/sex and the time that's elapsed since you've been drinking but hopefully you see my point.
A better solution is to just not drive if you've been drinking. If you must then you'd best not be a dumbass about it. I've probably driven on the wrong side of 0.08 before but I've never gotten pulled over. Driving down the street with the radio blaring and your lights turned off at 3am isn't usually the best course of action if you wish to avoid the inconvenience of a traffic stop.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
If anyone has experience with:
- embedded systems
- sensors required for a breathalyzer
- breathalyzer supplies
- low cost manufacturing
and is interested in working on the foundation of an open source breathalyzer, please contact me by email.
There's no claim that refusing a breathalyzer will get you off scottfree. Simply that you won't have evidence against you that you were drunk. Less evidence means, in theory, less chance of being convicted. Your license is going to be suspended unless you pass the, possibly faulty, test.
That said, the only people likely to avail themselves of the refusal option are those who either know they are drunk, or have enough prior convictions to make fighting it a more attractive option.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
You mean just like all those EULAs stop people from stealing software right?
Cops have been busted doing exactly that.
Busting people with a 0.0 BAC for drunk driving and then getting commended for it.
actually, you're not obligated to participate in any field tests (at least in my state). you should agree to take a proper test at the station, which should both avoid the accuracy problems associated with the field test breathalyzers and give you an extra few minutes to sober up. cheers.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
i hope he got jail time for wasting 1/2 of his beer
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Simply put, this is another example of the lawyers polluting their own land. There are stats used to test and validate the devices meet specifications without need of the source code, but apparently the tests and references themselves are now called into question. This is pissing in the same chair that you sit in for the lawyers. This will come back to haunt them.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
Write the code in APL2! Nobody will ever understand it.
But please, let's not get drunk drivers off the road. We need as many as possible out and about to cull the herd.
OK, screw the "insensitive clod" thing, you heartless trolling fuck. My sister, a PhD chemist, was killed on her way to work when some ass-hole, shit-faced drunk before 8 AM, crossed the median and demolished her car with his F150. My brother-in-law, at 29, became a single father of 2 in the early hours the next morning. The fuck driving the truck recovered just fine. "Culling the herd" my ass.
Breathalyzers may be crap, I know very little about them and no longer drink, but there is no excuse for allowing drunk drivers on the road.
It does make sense--with a lot of the models out there, a cop can force you to blow substantially higher than your actual BAC by 'faulting' the test and causing you to hyperventilate by ordering you to blow in it again and again--threatening arrest if you stop to gasp for air. It's pretty well documented that there's a higher concentration at the bottom of your lungs, which is what they're trying to get to... And just try *not* getting a bit nervous with somebody threatening arrest if you try to breath. Of course, if you pass out or get faint from exertion after being ordered to exhale forcibly for 20 seconds--that's also evidence you're drunk. And that's just social problems with poor testing procedure.
They're machines--and like anything that's engineered, they have not only a margin of error--but operational parameters. When the parameters get violated--their failure mode is not necessarily well defined. There's some very well documented incidents of phlebotomists (sp?) being handed cards explaining the procedure they use to them before DWI trials by the prosecution. There's also somewhat more anecdotal evidence of police in some counties forcing drivers to take the test multiple times until they blow higher (sooner or later it'll bump upwards).
Don't even get me started on the case of a man who started fermenting meals in his large intestine after some sort of GI surgery...
In the state I live in, you are presumed guilty if you don't take the field breathalyzer.
I do remember back in high school in drivers ed class, the instructor always told us "Refuse the field breathalyzer, but accept the blood test."
His thinking along that line is, by the time the police take you from the station to the hospital, your body would have had some time to process the alcohol, so that should help to lower your BAC.
Of course, this was over a decade ago....
To me, the source code for the breathalyzer machines would be quite useless. You'd have to not only be able to understand the code but understand the chemistry behind it, and I doubt many lawyers can do both. What are they going to do with the source code? Try to find a programming error that overestimates BAC? Good luck with that. The summary claims that the charges against the defendants will likely be lowered, but why? Why, just because the source code is being released, are they suddenly having the charges reduced? Is this really fair?
All this does is force a company to do something it doesn't want to do for people who don't even particularly want them to do it anyway; those lawyers just want their clients to get off scot-free.
At least in florida, there isn't any specific requirement for a positive result from breathalyzer. The testimony of the officer, the veracity of which will be improved by your actions, actually is enough.
All you will have done is ensure that you are going to get arrested and charged with having an open container. You could even be charged with tampering with evidence/obstruction, if they can show what your intention was and it is going to be very unlikely that you will receive any leniency from the court or prosecutor.
That's probably a bad idea.
The source code likely includes some tables & equations for analyzing the sensor values. Those are probably pretty proprietary, and required a good amount of research & development to get right.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
This is the important point, The breathalyser is a measuring device, the software is only a relatively small part of the total systm. I suspect it is just a legal red herring.
What is important is the overall details of the calibration and qualification procedures used to check the device. (Probably an ANSI standard or similar)
Much as we'd all like software to be open source, the legal desire to pick through the code, find an irrelevant bug or questionable programming practice, and get some drunk back on the road is not a cause we should be fighting.
if a judge dismissed exculpatory DNA evidence because the defense didn't procure a geneticist/scientist to testify
What you describe is not at all like the situation at hand. The question is: What if the prosecution wouldn't say how they matched the DNA, saying that was a secret.
What's to stop them from taking a sample of your DNA, putting it in a black box, and declaring that the device has fond you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? You can't look at the box, how can you defend yourself from what they say it says?
You can't take the sky from me...
In PA, in addition to being an admission, it also triggers the charges to be based on the assumption of being in the "highest BAC" category.
The parties are not the ones who get to see confidential business information. Their attorneys and experts do. For example, I just worked on a case where both sides had to produce competition-sensitive documents to the other side in discovery. These documents were clearly marked "CBI," and I would have been in very serious trouble if I had sent these to my client. If I had done so on purpose, I could possibly have been disbarred. So no, the criminals probably won't get to see this source code. Their attorneys will give it to their experts, and if they find something really useful, they will ask the judge if they can pretty please use it in open court after stripping away anything superfluous to the reason for which it is being used. That will not be enough for their clients to make a competing product.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
...or it is designed to calculate a higher BAC than actually present in order to increase DUI revenue.
I'm not not licking toads.
Due to driving being considered a privilege in our culture*, by getting a driver's license you automatically waive certain rights. The right to have a lawyer present, with the obvious purpose of getting your body to reduce your BAC to 0 before administering a blood/breathalyzer test, is one of those waived rights.
Alternatively and to the same end: police - having detained you for reasonable suspicion per "Terry stop" rules - are granted the power to search for and acquire evidence ASAP. In this case, the evidence is your BAC. Subsequent to acquring the evidence - you breathing into the breathalyzer - you may then have your lawyer argue that the instrumentation used in prosecution was faulty. The reasonable acquisition of evidence is well-established in criminal law.
The OP's issue regards challenging the interpretation of evidence, not the acquisition thereof. For multiple reasons, you can't inhibit police from acquiring your BAC if they can articulate a reason why they think you were DWI.
* - surely our Founding Fathers would have included "right to vehicular travel" in the Bill Of Rights if they had any inkling such an obvious natural right would be infringed so much as it is.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
All of this information is useless without knowing where you live.
No test of this nature is 100% accurate. But you don't need it to be. An accuracy of 99% doesn't mean that 1% of the time it says you are drunk. In this case, it means that the detected value is with in 1% of the actual.
No single point of evidence is used to convict. Before you would be forced to take a blood test (which is more accurate than a breathalyzer so would be more prone to vindicate you than falsely accuse you) you would have to be:
1) pulled over by a cop (speeding of swerving)
2) who would then have to suspect you of being intoxicated
3) you would then have to fail a breathalyzer
And if you suspect the breathalyzer is rigged, then you should keep your own on you to provide counter evidence and a video camera in your car to show the court you were not acting suspiciously.
The code is probably a bit more costly than you give it credit for. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if it were the single biggest barrier to entry an upstart breathalyzer manufacturer would have to face.
But that doesn't mean it holds any trade secret value. Even if there is a reasonable amount of code, I'm guessing it's all pretty straightforward. Most of it probably deals with interfacing between different hardware components, and if your breathalyzer isn't using exactly the same hardware, the source isn't really going to help you.
I suspect the real reason the company wants to keep the source code secret is that if a bug were found, it would be seriously bad publicity.
We don't want drunks behind the wheel. That's why we need to see the source code to the breathalyzer. It could also be that drunk drivers are getting off the hook because the machine malfunctions and indicates a lower BAC than actual. Software bugs work both ways.
I, for one, am not comfortable trusting something like a DUI conviction to a few dollars of electronics. If the device cannot be independently verified to work correctly, then it shouldn't be used for legal matters. A DUI conviction can ruin a person's life, and is not something to be taken lightly.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I have one DUI, but no conviction. When I got it in 2006, I basically complied with everything, I was guilty and knew it. After about $7,500 I have no record of a DUI, I got 18 months court supervision, which has since passed and the criminal part was dropped from my record. My insurance rates didn't even increase. I would say, if you are a first time offender, comply with everything they want you to do and get a lawyer.
The sensor isn't really anything special anymore. Alcohol gas sensors are commodity item and easily had on the parts market. Typically they just output some analog voltage that varies according to the level of alcohol detected. That voltage is subject to calibration and then runs through an ADC to the actual code that maps voltage directly to some magic BAC number. Up until the voltage output, it's all easily tested. The calibration instructions I'll assume are also easily provided by the manufacturer since they [hopefully] perform calibration or provide instructions on how police should calibrate it. After calibrations, all bets are off. After all, it's the BAC number the device spits out, not the voltage of a discrete sensor, that the law is written around.
Analysis of the source needs to confirm that the scale of the sensor matches the scale in the source code used to generate that magic number. Imagine if one of them was logarithmic and the other was linear... there would be a lot of innocent people falsely convinced (and, depending on which one, a lot of guilty people could have gotten off).
Can't wait until configuration files for Red Light camera settings get examined...
I wonder how long until someone demands the source code for the cop's radar detector. There's gotta be at least a little bit of assembly code in those.
You see here Judge, that the company is using the improper register d0 when they should have pushed d9 onto the stack and did a bshd9 2 (bitshift register d9) to multiply the input radar signal level by 2.
I have the feeling a few lines of code is not the real difficult part about making the things.
It's materials handling of a chemical sensory process.
A process that is well known, and easy to replicate, but hard to make reliable in a machine some pig carries around in his trunk.
This will have little or no impact on any case (they will clean up and fix the code on the next model) and little or no impact on any other manufacturers as the code is not the core difficulty in the things.
Nobody will even need to get drunk to get the code, it will be available in the first court case documents where it is reviewed, and those are public for mundane shit like DUI. So rivals will simply have to wait.
Plus, given a week or two in China the code would be in the hands of any competitors anyway. So worrying about it is stupid.
Why you idiots think the code being secret is the path to justice I don't know. Justice is both blind, and transparent or it isn't justice.
Go back to your MADD lobbying you stupid prohibitionist. (You are, only 'tards like that are willing to take away a bunch of other rights to get what they want.)
that etc including the massive increase in your insurance for a very long time
Better yet, keep your mouth shut as much as possible. There are only a few identity related questions you must answer (IIRC: social, name, provide license/insurance/registration), and be sure not to slur them. DUI units have dashcams, so if you are recorded sounding/looking drunk, that can be used as evidence.
As a side note, officers without cameras or breathalyzers use an eye tracking tests for field testing sobriety. Jumpy eye movements while tracking an object are a sign of alcohol/drug intoxication.
The best solution is obviously not to drive drunk but every lawyer I've ever talked to says to refuse the breath test if you've been drinking.
And if we haven't?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If you want to argue that you have some fancy scientific test that shows you're not guilty, then yeah, you'll need an expert witness to back it up. Paying for such witnesses has always been a burden on the defense.
As for the other arguments, absolutely. If Dexter's gonna argue that the blood splatter evidence points to me as the killer, then I want Dexter to be able to explain from first principles why this is so.
I certainly don't want to hear Dexter respond that his blood tests are porprietary and not to be questioned...
"Tons of money have to be spent by the DA's office, which means higher taxes."
Surely you're not arguing it's just more cost-effective to throw more people in jail?! We should gladly pay whatever amount of money is needed to ensure justice is done. We've bought justice at the price of blood in this country. Surely you're not arguing we should toss it out because we don't wanna pay the lab and witness fees...
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
"Required by law" does not mean "required by an officer," it means whatever sobriety tests are required by the laws in your state governing implied consent. For example, in most states "field sobriety tests" such as the one-leg-stand are completely voluntary.
Citation?
but if you do you automaticly lose your license... just the lose of license... is not acurate to what definds drunk driving which is blood achol level
Good thing typing while intoxicated isn't illegal. ;)
In all seriousness though, losing your license for 6 months without actually being unequivocally guilty of anything is pretty harsh.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
Drunk in public is still an arrestable offense (assuming the same applies for Florida). Even so, a chemistry major so able to produce a competing product should be able to put out such a product anyway, it's not like it's a complicated principle. Getting the financial backing to start a company, produce units, and actually compete is another story.
Just because details on how a specific breathalyzer works gets out there doesn't mean products will be made, and just because another breathalyzer does happen to go on the market doesn't mean it's going to steal the state contract or impact the original company's sales in any way.
First off, depending on what state you're pulled over in, the consequences of refusing the test are worse than your first dui arrest.
Again, this may vary by state, but in my state the only breathalizer that counts is the one at the police station.
But yes, it is a more severe crime to avoid the police station test. I know, because I didn't blow in it, and got two nice charges.
Back to the cop/scene of the "crime", you are not required to do any of the song and dance that the police officer asks. You may get more flac from the policeman, but you are under no obligation to walk the line or blow in a breathalizer. Somewhere, I signed an implied consent form with my license that says I have to do the one at the station. Odds are, you signed that one too.
And if we haven't?
If you haven't then why is the cop asking you to take one? Stories of police abuse notwithstanding I think you'll find that most members of the police are fairly reasonable and not given to randomly asking people who don't smell like booze to submit to breath tests.
IANAL but if they asked me to take a test and I hadn't been drinking I would submit to it. If it comes back with a false positive then demand a blood test. They aren't known for being highly accurate devices but how likely is it that it's going to register >0.08 if the actual BAC is 0?
Incidentally the only time I've ever been pulled over while drinking the officer didn't even ask for a breath test. He asked if I had been drinking, I told him "Yes, I just had two beers with some friends". He said "Only two?", I said "Yes, only two". Then he ran me for wants/warrants and sent me on my way. Didn't even write a ticket for the original reason (failure to signal) he pulled me over. YMMV of course.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I agree that the software will tell part of the story on whether or not the device is accurate, but I'd be interested in examining the hardware too. It is easy to imagine that varying conditions (temp, humidity, altitude, exhaust, smoker lung, etc) could alter the operation of the hardware even before the software comes into play. How have these variables been neutralized? Casting doubt on the device would be easy.
Casting doubt is what the defense is interested in, but what the public should really be interested in is the test data (from an independent third party). Have they conducted appropriate tests across sufficient body types and environmental conditions? Lets see the results.
Regardless of the merits of the case, am I the only who thinks that this is just a ploy from some people who want a "get out of jail free" card to avoid a conviction and penalites that they rightfully deserved? I mean, you were drunk, you drove, you got caught. Live with it. Reminds of an ex-colleague who tried to get out of a parking ticket because the "5" of his license plate on the hand-written ticket could have been confused for a "6" (i.e. "how can I know this ticket if for my car, you honor"). Shut up and pay. If I were a judge, I would take these people in for perjury and contempt.
Plus you need proof that the sensor wasn't malfunctioning. And proof that the operator was using it correctly. Honestly, I find it pretty appalling that the output of this sort of device can be used as evidence at all.
It should be very difficult to accept a simple true/false value from a computer as evidence in court. The device must instead produce some sort of verifiable physical/chemical evidence.
"What this really means is that outside corporations cannot sell equipment to the state of Florida and expect to hide the workings of their machine by saying they are trade secret."
I wonder what this will mean to people contesting electronic voting machine ballot totals in future elections.
I fully support the idea that some of this stuff should be open source - but i wonder if this will actually increase court costs in the long run - anyone who chooses to fight any of this based on the source code would ultimately need expert witnesses to testify on the source code - this would end up costing both sides of the court (defense and prosecution) extra dollars everytime someone thinks the code is "part of the problem"
If there is a problem with it - open source of course would get more eyes on it - but then you could also get 100 different ideas from 100 different programmers on how it could be done differently. That could open a real can of worms trial wise.
I recommend everyone at least determine beforehand how they will react when pulled over by police for suspicion of drunk driving. On the spot decisions are hard to make when an Officer is shining his flashlight in your face. State law varies, but check out "The Criminal Law Handbook" 10th ed., p. 536, under What Will Happen to me if I refuse to take a blood alcohol test. Amazon Page Link.
Some relevant snippets (typing by hand.. forgive my snipping and mistakes. Emphasis is mine):
Myself, I think, for a first offense, I'd probably just insist on a blood test. Your average ER is so backed up, who knows how long it would take them to give you a blood test for DUI when people in the waiting room are literally dying. IANAL and this is not legal advice.
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
It seems likely to me that you would just be charged with both the DUI and the open container violation. The Breathalyzer is but one of the pieces of evidence submitted in a DUI case. To be honest, your suggestion sounds like first-year law student/fratboy advice. Something that sounds like it would work on paper, but is in fact a completely boneheaded thing to do in real life. It will probably work just about as well as those guys who sue the state every year claiming that taxes are illegal.
I read the internet for the articles.
Let me help you out: the source code for devices that will be used for evidentiary purposes at trial must be made available to defense parties. This does not mean you have to license the source code to anyone for use in their own device, and I somehow doubt the source being available for inspection is going to cause a landslide of "copycat" devices. These things cost real money to certify and manufacture.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
What that "contract" actually means is that if you refuse to take the test, they revoke your license. It's like that almost everywhere. They can't force you to testify against yourself and that includes taking any form of test.
I'm a graduate student in a research lab that does research on solid state sensors for volatile organic compounds, which is essentially what breathalyzers are. I also do the programming of the instruments acquiring data (in Labview). I would find it pretty unlikely that the source code itself is especially hard to write, unless there is something unusual going on. Either the company is just stonewalling because they can, or the code either: A. Reveals some proprietary method of detection through the calculations performed or B. The corrections that must be gone through are so involved that they are actually worried that their sensor may be invalidated.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was B, as there is a reason that breathalyzers have to be recalibrated relatively frequently. It is pretty difficult to make a sensor that doesn't degrade over time, and correcting for this degradation can be quite complicated.
If you walk up to a cop and he arrests you for DUI, you may have a decent false arrest case on your hands
I don't know. These days you can get a DUI for driving a lawn mower, bicycle, horse or wheel chair and even for not driving your car by sleeping in it while drunk. How long can it be before the MADD morons get sneakers included.
Who is John Galt?
This is kind of bogus, from a scientific point of view. There is no reason for anyone to need to see the source code for the device in order to determine if the device is accurate. This can be determined by black box testing of the device.
Indeed. Or inappropriately sensitive to other legal chemicals in your breath, like listerine, nyquil, whatever?
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Yes, but wouldn't that "research" just involve getting drunk and blowing into a tube? Hell, I could do that this weekend!
(Kidding of course, I realize you would have to actually measure BAC to make a standard and do other costly things)
No, more like rulings handed down by a judge that you violate put you in extreme risks of getting your ass sued for tons of money. Seriously, your scheme is about the stupidest thing a company could do especially in light of how obvious it would to see that you were violating relevant copyright and other IP laws. Only someone completely brain dead, apparently someone like you, would do this.
Drunk drivers got convicted before there were breathalyzers. They still get convicted when the breath tests are excluded: my wife was on a jury which did just that.
The only change here is that people can't get convicted on the say-so of a black box. Which isn't even a change, because the legal system has always insisted on quality control for evidence.
A black box machine for convicting people makes as little sense as a black box voting machine.
Anecdote != Data
Fuck you.
Nobody allows drunk drivers on the road.
I was responding to a post that said, "let's not get drunk drivers off the road".
And the person you responded to was joking.
Yes, I realize that it was a joke. Thanks. But referring to the death of innocent people who, as often as not, are in no way responsible for the accident as "culling the herd" isn't funny. Making a joke about somebody 'Darwinning' himself doing something stupid? OK. Even if it was something a little sicker about a kid wandering into the street and being hit by a car improving the gene pool, there's at least some element of sick humor. Referring to the deaths of innocent people at the hands of drunk drivers is in no way funny. It's just sick and incredibly insensitive.
Get counseling, you seem to need it.
Because I wanted to illustrate to wombat that he was being insensitive and that drunk driving victims are, in fact, real people? Or because it's obvious that losing my sister has resulted in a bit of a grudge against drunk drivers? Perhaps a therapist can help me get past that and I can just accept them as wacky road hazards and laugh at jokes about innocent people being killed.
Go find a mother with a mentally disabled child and start telling her retard jokes. I hope she kicks you in the balls for me.
Or even worse, if some trick were found that would allow a conviction-happy examiner in-the-know to produce a falsely high result. Or a booze-happy serial drunk driver in-the-know to produce a falsely low result.
Or both!
To make an analogy where the stakes are not life and death of the innocent and imprisonment of the innocent, but just a few bucks out of your own pocket, would you want to gamble on a slot machine where the manufacturer was unwilling to let the Nevada Gaming Commission (or similar body) examine the slot machine's source code?
This company's years long battle to keep their code secret is very, very suspicious.
I don't want to seem cold hearted to anyone whose love ones have been murdered by drunks on the road. But insisting on accuracy is not pro-drunk. Accuracy is a good and necessary ally. Inaccuracy is not.
Hide all sigs: Click HELP+Prefs (top), VIEWING (last on right), DISABLE SIGS (3rd on left) and SAVE (hidden at bottom).
What do you mean, could?
Tests for that are fairly standard, It's probably not that costly.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
>No one is legally drunk after one drink unless you are drinking something crazy. Even a 100 lbs woman will only be .06 after one drink. See here.
My nerd license requires me to nitpick absolute statements even if the nitpick is almost never relevant, preferably by mentioning some obscure corner case.
Therefore, I point out that the limit in Iceland is .05, which means that a woman at .06 would in fact be legally drunk.
You now have a new useless fact to clutter your mind.
Did you read the bit about being able to opt for the blood test?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If you haven't then why is the cop asking you to take one?
Boy, that's dangerously close to "If you're not guilty of a crime, why is the government putting you on trial?" False accusations happen. An elderly teetotaling landlord of mine once got tested because he swerved to avoid some potholes.
Most cops won't go out of their way to harass you, unless you give them reason, but the profession does attract more than its fair share of assholes.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
...unless you live in iowa, where (thanks to a new law) if you refuse the breath test, you get automatically arrested. the govt put a breath test submission clause into the licensing procedure that, by signing your name to get your license, you also agree to submit to the breath test if asked.
In Soviet Canada (Manitoba), you can be criminally charged with "Refusing to Provide a Breath or Blood Sample to Police upon Request".
So your theory is just fucking brilliant for people here...aviod the DUI criminal record by getting a Failure to Provide criminal record.
As well, refusing a breathalyser will receive the same penalties as if you were convicted of impared driving (fines/prison/etc)
As well, your license will be suspended...and the suspensions are HIGHER for failing to provide than for the full impaired. (2yr/7yr/10yr/lifetime for failure to provide vs 1yr/5yr/10yr/lifetime for impaired)
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Bullshit. It doesn't teleport instantly from your stomach into your blood, so your BAC can rise for some time after your last drink before it starts to fall again.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
In this situation either you are actually drunk while driving, in which case you are a complete jerk and deserve to be locked up
You know I'm perpetually amazed at the propaganda job pulled off the MADD and associates. It's perfectly alright to drive like an idiot, flaunt the traffics laws and kill someone but if you've had 2 beers and are driving perfectly you should be thrown in jail for life. It's not drunk drivers that are the problem. It's irresponsible drivers whether drunk or sober. People drive like idiots and violate traffic laws with impunity. That's why there is such carnage on our roads. If everyone obeyed traffic laws and drove in a safe responsible manner it would be habit and they would drive that way even after they had a few beers. In the vast majority of drunk driving collisions the primary culprit is not the alcohol but the idiotic, unsafe driving habits of the driver. Start actually enforcing traffic and driving safety laws and you would not only greatly reduce the minority of collisions that are claimed to be caused by someone having a few beers but the majority of collisions that are caused by 100% sober people who drive like idiots.
Who is John Galt?
There are many factors that could alter the reading on a breathalyser. Our bodies get rid of alcohol in many different ways and at varying rates. Some people will naturally blow higher ratings than others. In Australia, after a breathalyzer is used to detect potential drunk drivers, the driver is taken into a "booze bus" or the nearest police station where a blood sample is taken and tested to give the true result. The breathalyzer result should NEVER used in court.
No, Fuck you.
People like you use appeals to emotion to turn the US into a nanny state. It is people like you and MADD who have made it impossible for politicians to show any spine and say "the penalties are harsh enough." Nothing short of prohibition or a 0 BAC makes you types happy. These implied consent laws and "refusal of taking the breathalyzer admits guilt" are violations of Habeus Corpus and the fifth amendment.
You want a real solution to the problem? Require that a breathalyzer be standard equipment on all cars in the US. Oh wait, that would take away your martyrdom wouldn't it? Take your sob story and shove it up your ass, I want no part of your Police state.
Do you have some sort of evidence to support the idea that people who drive while intoxicated are more likely to infringe copyrights than people who don't drive while intoxicated?
Have you driven a fnord... lately?
You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
For any device used by the police the manufacturer should have to prove that the device has a failure rate of zero. If the device gives any false positives then how can it be trusted, somebody is going to be convicted who shouldn't have been. Has anybody heard of the story of a speed gun measuring a wall traveling at 40MPH?
0.81 BAC according to the breathalyzer and w/o a slick attorney you were going to be convicted.
A 0.810 reading would easily bring reasonable doubt: if the accused was alive at the time, the device was malfunctioning. A 0.081 reading, on the other hand, might need a little more creative defense. One of the best I've found is that the law talks about "blood alcohol", not "breath alcohol". In many states, license suspension happens only if the accused declines both a breath test and a blood test, so ask for the blood test.
So a different reading in one case out of a hundred means the entire mechanism is invalid?
How different? Did it measure 0% alcohol when the person was so pickled they were practically inflammable? Or vice versa?
Thought not. You're talking shite.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What happens when they look at the source code and find no problems?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
LOL, I know... hence why I had to post what the Drivers Ed instructor was telling students for years...
Forcing a company to disclose how a device operates does not automatically open source the code. Even if you had the source code, you couldn't use it otherwise you would face conviction. Just because a judge orders the source to be disseminated doesn't allow everyone to use it. It is still propriatary technology and is likely protected by patients. I don't see them GPL'ing the source for the product, or licensing it for use in any way. So great, you know how someone built the breathalizer, and have seen the source, but now because you were part of the team evaluating the source for it, you'll never be able to work on one yourself because it will forever be scrutinized for containing competitors ideas.
First, how the fuck is my blood not a part of me, and therefore not protected by the Fifth Amendment?
Second, some states now authorize police officers to unconstitutionally force you to bear witness against yourself. That is, the policeman can now take a suspect's blood, with minimal training. Even forcefully if the suspect refuses.
The horse and sleeping in the car shouldn't qualify!
Sleeping in the car is not dangerous and the horse has its own brains.
Of course I'm assuming that the guy didn't bother to get the horse drunk.
What do you mean, could?
The tube blowing is the part that won't definitely be happening.
Tests for that are fairly standard, It's probably not that costly.
Still too rich for my blood.
You want a real solution to the problem? Require that a breathalyzer be standard equipment on all cars in the US. Oh wait, that would take away your martyrdom wouldn't it? Take your sob story and shove it up your ass, I want no part of your Police state.
The flaw in that is that still only encourages the responsible drinkers to be responsible. It does nothing for the irresponsible drinkers as they just get someone else to blow in the breathalyzer.
The sensor just returns some numbers. The software is used to convert that to a BAC value. Depending on how the software is written, different BAC values may be outputted. For example, the unit could be programmed to use the average value of 10 readings, the maximum, the minimum, or something else (perhaps the software doesn't even read the sensor data correctly).
Having a good input does not mean getting good output. Similarly, the simplicity of the programming problem does not mean that it was actually done right
I guess my point is that even if the breathalyzer is over 0.08, a blood test (which is more accurate) may show that you're really 0.05 or whatever.
Re: your advice: I totally agree that not drinking and driving is the best course of action. I choose not to drink at all since I seem to have trouble with that "moderation" thing.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
>Go find a mother with a mentally disabled child and start telling her retard jokes
That's a waste of time - it's not likely that the retard will understand them.
>I hope she kicks you in the balls for me.
I'm a girl, you insensitive clod!
I can't help but imagine which part of a breathlizer software could be a "trade secret"
<trade secret>
/* #attention if this code falls in the wrong hands, we are doomed! */
reset_sensor();
turn_green_light_on()
/* wait for sensor to make the reading */
sleep(2);
turn_green_light_off();
sensor_reading = get_alcoolhol_sensor_value();
beep();
drunken_value = sensor_reading * CALIBRATION_CONSTANT;
display(drunken_value);
if (drunken_value > 0.5)
{ turn_Red_light_on();
beep_insanely();
}
else
{beep();
flash_green_light();
}
</trade secret>
Hah. I hope they have a patent on that, so they can be able to defend their valuable IP assets!!
-><- no
Straw-man argument. Did I say anything like that? .08 BAC is just fine. You've got to draw the line somewhere and that works for me. Breathalizer on all cars? That's taking straw-man to a new level.
All I said was joking that killing people in DUI accidents is about as funny as joking that "At least 9/11 got rid of all those New Yorkers!"
You have to sign a similar paper in Florida as well. Yet even if you sign it, they still don't have the ability to take away your legal rights. Questioning the device's accuracy is is not the same as refusing to take the test.
They are tested often and must be re-certified every so often. Just because you can't see the source code doesn't mean you can't check the results against a known value.
I had a speeding ticket thrown out once because the radar gun failed a calibration test later that day, as did every other driver that officer ticketed that day. Same goes for breathalyzers.
Gone!
Are you serious!?!? The worst thing they can really do is revoke your license. Big fucking deal. If you take the test, they then have the means to convict you of a crime rather than simply revoke your license. Big difference on your permanent record. It's really hard to convict someone without concrete evidence, and I can refuse to take the test on religious grounds so that won't work for them either.
Never testify against yourself. Period.
Unless you're innocent?
The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
1. Print out enough blank pages to form a square on the floor large enough for all of the dancers to gather around.
2. Specific body parts are named, and these are then sequentially put into the ring, taken out of the ring, and finally wiggled around maniacally inside the ring.
3. After this is done one raises one's hands up to the side of the head, wiggles them, and turns around in place until the next sequence begins, with a new named body part.
It's very much like the Hokey Pokey, only with a square!
Disclaimer:#'s 2 and 3 were plagiarized verbatim from the above wiki link.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
My physics teacher got pulled over after having two scotches. He fails the breathalyzer and asks for a blood test. An hour later he is under the legal limit. The lesson: if you know you are close always stall and then demand a blood test.
Boy, that's dangerously close to "If you're not guilty of a crime, why is the government putting you on trial?"
No, it was just a question. Why is he testing you if you haven't been drinking? It could mean that he's being a power-hungry dick or it could mean that you did something to piss him off.
Most cops won't go out of their way to harass you, unless you give them reason, but the profession does attract more than its fair share of assholes.
I've seen both kinds. Around these parts the State Troopers generally seem to be the "by the book" assholes with an axe to grind. The local Sheriff's Deputies on the other hand are generally pretty nice to deal with. I've been pulled over by them three times (one of which was the aforementioned story) and each time I've left with a warning even though I was completely in the wrong.
On the other hand I had a State Trooper ask me to step out of the car, frisk me and eventually write me a goddamn ticket for 71 in a 65 and a seat belt violation in spite of the fact that I was wearing my seat belt. I took it off after he pulled me over so I could reach my wallet and the SOB claimed I was never wearing it. I didn't argue it with him though -- nothing to gain from doing so and besides, I knew the the guy in the DA's office who would be dealing with it ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
/********** /*Our competitors are still using fixed point representation. This "float" technology is our key advantage over them*/
TRADE SECRET!
Whatever you do, do NOT let this get out!
**********/
int main(){
float num1=getAlcoholLevel();
if(lessThan(num1,0.8)){
goodBeep();
}
else{
badBeep();
}
printf(num1);
return 0;}
It's not just the code that does the calculation. It's the firmware that gathers the analog data from the sensors and converts it to digital. It's the software that is used to perform the calibration. It's the display software that interprets the results and puts them onscreen. Heck, it's even the control menus that the cops use to identify the test they want to perform.
There are multiple possible points of failure in the breathalyzer that could affect the displayed reading, and given the typical QC of most software projects, it wouldn't surprise me if the defense finds at least one software defect that can give false positives under certain conditions.
We are the 198 proof..
On the other hand, if you actually ARE drunk it might be pretty hard for you to restrain yourself from yakking away.
We are the 198 proof..
Actually, if they are running a sobriety checkpoint where they pull over every nth driver (or whatever the legal standard is), there's a fair chance they will be giving random breathalyzer tests to the "participants".
We are the 198 proof..
My brother-in-law, at 29, became a single father of 2 in the early hours the next morning
She may have still had some residual heat, did he get a last shot in?
"At least 9/11 got rid of all those New Yorkers!"
Well... it did, didn't it?
Only a guilty company would have something to hide--if they were innocent/righteous, they'd consent to being searched, wouldn't they?
At least, that's what the police keep telling me.
The essence is that the state cannot prove you were intoxicated while driving. They can obviously present other evidence, such as you swerving all over the road. But if they try to pursue a DUI conviction, they may lose if you can convince the jurors of "reasonable doubt."
So I'd imagine they'd try to settle out of court or go for a lesser charge.
The amount of ignorance here is simply **astounding**. The breath alcohol measurement instrument is not a witness. The instrument is a thoroughly tested and vetted measurement device. Do you have the right to subpoena the source code to the radar gun that busted you? Do you have the right so subpoena the source code to the gas chromatograph that shows you were doping? If a MRI system from Siemens shows a bullet within a corpse used as evidence in your murder case, can you subpoena Siemens for their source code? These sorts of challenges are called FRIVOLOUS FISHING EXPIDITIONS. The testimony of hired guns spewing weak opinion as fact about programming metholodgies, interrupt driven event handlers, and whatever other techno babble they can come up with is typically meaningless, prejudicial to jurors and more often than not amounts to made up versions reality. If the program that performs this analysis runs under Mac OS 10, do you have the right to subpoena the source code for the Apple Operating system go before a jury and make claims that an alleged security flaw you found render the breath result invalid? Hogwash. A chemical reaction within a fuel cell produces a voltage. Integrate the voltage over time produced by a fuel cell converting a sample of ethanol to electricity and the integrand is proportional to the volume of ethanol that existed in the fixed sample. The relationship between blood alcohol content and breath alcohol content is based upon the scientific method. The linearity of the measurement device is by design and the result CAN be affected by temperature, pressure, smoke, certain interferants, radio frequency interference, etc., etc. etc. That's why the device, its testing procedures and environment are carefully set up, monitored and documented, its calibration regularly checked and the instrument gets the hell tested out of it across a huge range of conditions to prove its immunity within acceptable operating conditions. Expert testimony can fill in details of the methodologies, technologies and algorithms implemented. But if the instrument is a "witness" then the defense's right to have the source code for the measurement instrument is as strong as their right to know the synaptic bond strengths of every neuron within the brain of the officer that witnessed and testified that the defendant drove into oncoming traffic. There is no such right.
The herd has been culled, sounds like.
Few hundred more years of this, and we might just select for precognition.
Don't quote me on this but I have been led to beleive that in my country (NZL) breathalysers are not admissable in court anyway. They have been shown to be unreliable -measuring breath in itself, the machine, the software- and are only used as a method of seeing who is worth bloodtesting. I was lead to believe that you can only be convicted on the strength of a blood test that shows your blood alcohol is outside of legal limits. This is why the cops in NZ actually have big busses at breathtesting checkpoints with blood test equipment in them, so they can do it straight away and don't have to let you sober up for the half hour ride to the station.
Despite these stringent rules for proof we manage to convict large numbers of drunk drivers. This verdict is obviously just in this particular legal question but I think another important question is "should a failed breathtest be grounds for conviction at all?"
Yes, but wouldn't that "research" just involve getting drunk and blowing into a tube? Hell, I could do that this weekend!
Of course, you'd need to test against a wide range of premium single malt whiskies to validate the test.
Why does everyone distrust police equipment?
Doesn't it usually rely on a blood test for the court evidence? I'm fairly sure the breathalyzer is just used to indicate that they've got someone who has drunk some alcohol, cough medicine, mouthwash, etc, and to send them to a hospital to get bloodtested.
And if we haven't?
If you haven't then why is the cop asking you to take one?
Because it's at a RBT (random breath test) station. They set up at the side of the road and often pull over a stream of cars and test. Quite random. You can refuse the test, and get hit by an assumed DUI.
have a cry faggot, having PHD somehow makes her worth more than anyone else? or because she was your sister? eat a dick you hypocrite.
In Canada, if they get a search warrant for a blood test (pretty close to automatic if you're in an accident, unconscious and there is suspicion of alcohol) they have to take two samples and you have the right to ask for one and have it independently tested.
Also the Doctor (or technician) can refuse to take your blood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
In Canada it is criminal offence to refuse to blow and the penalties are harsher
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
You're kidding. Cops taking your blood?
Here in Canada they need a warrant to take your blood, a willing Doctor or qualified technician and have to take two samples so you can request one to get independently tested.
The warrant is easy for them to get though, phone the magistrate or JP and get it faxed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Wow, that guy sure stepped on a lot of you drunk drivers' toes. Maybe you negligent wastes of air should do the world a favor and cull yourselves from the herd.
The only better advice I could offer than the above is: never follow legal advice on Slashdot
I agree completely.
IANAL, but my foolproof Slashdot legal advice for today:
Always take the opposite of any action suggested in legal advice on Slashdot. If you aren't careful, you might inadvertently mirror a Slashdot legal suggestion. Behavior in the case of multiple conflicting suggestions (though this will probably never, ever happen) is implementation dependent.
"Strangers have the best candy" -Me
I'm sorry for your loss.
These people aren't getting what they deserve, and I can assure you that it's not only a problem in the USA (not that that's supposed to make you feel better).
That makes sense, or you'd never be able to convict drunk drivers.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Given a series of readings taken some time apart, it is possible to work out what it was.
Sorry, it looked to me like you believed him - plenty do, look around this thread. I guess if he was a lawyer or a biochemist he wouldn't be a driver's ed teacher, would he?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
well here in NC they view driving (and i agree with this) as a prevliage not a right.. if you are completely uncoaprative in ensuring safty on the roads then you lose the prevliage.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
I don't drink, but if I did, I'd insist on a blood test for two good reasons: It is going to be the most accurate thing, and arranging for it takes longer, giving your liver more time to reduce your BAC.
Actually, your BAC increases in that ride over to the hospital. You'll see California Highway Patrol or regular police officers in no rush getting you to that room with the nurse and the needle. After all, most people who get pulled over for a suspected DUI were drinking just prior to the event and their BAC level hasn't peaked yet. You are better off sleeping in your car with your keys in the trunk (easier to say you had no intention of driving) or calling a cab or a friend to take you home.
I don't know. These days you can get a DUI for driving a lawn mower, bicycle, horse or wheel chair and even for not driving your car by sleeping in it while drunk. How long can it be before the MADD morons get sneakers included.
The logic for DUI when sleeping in our car is: "how did your car get to where it is parked when the officer finds you sleeping in it?" If you are in the parking lot of the bar where you got drunk, I am pretty sure they would have trouble convicting you of DUI. If you can provide good evidence that you met your friends where your car is parked and they drove you to the bar to get drunk and then drove you back, I think there is a good chance that you could get off. Otherwise, it is a valid assumption that you were driving drunk at some point.
Personally, I think that if the person is sleeping in their car within a short distance of the bar they got drunk at, the cops should ignore the DUI (we can debate what represents a short distance).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
This is a good point.
Especially if the source code has definitions that can be set at compile time:
#ifdef SCREWYOU
RandomResult()
#else
RealTest()
#endif
But just because you don't take the test, doesn't mean you won't get convicted.
You'll have that sometimes...
Nope...Most all DUI convictions are based solely on the breathalyzer output.
Loosing your driving license is the least worry.
Sorry, hate to be a grammar nazi but I'm seeing this too often now, three times in this discussion...It's LOSE not LOOSE. It drives me nuts!
One time I had a gig in L.A. and was staying in Pasadena.
I did Tequila shots in L.A. all night and had to find my way back to Pasadena at 3 a.m. and was getting lost. I drifted through a stop sign and got pulled over.
I slipped a folded $100 bill with my license when he asked for it. My breathalyzer blew 0.00 that night.
Then he told me to go get some coffee at a convenience store, and gave me directions to my hotel.
I'm a satanic clam.
You're evidently not familiar with the American motto: give'm a fair trial, then string'em up!
Yes. Yes, you do.
My blog
Here in the UK these roadside devices aren't used as evidence, they are only cause for arrest. They get a urine or blood sample from you at the police station which they can get a reading from straight away and that gets used as evidence. No arguing with that!
Nick
Of course I'm assuming that the guy didn't bother to get the horse drunk.
I couldn't find anything illegal about getting a horse drunk. However, getting a moose in Alaska drunk is a different matter.
"When I am king, you will be first against the wall..."
In my case, since I don't drink (it's not that I'm recovering or religious - I just don't like it), any accusation of DUI would be bogus. Thus, I'd want to be damn sure to get the most accurate test possible.
I would have to counter your argument with the assumption that any closed source system is of a much higher risk of bugs and malformed logical analysis and therefore these convictions are screwed, no matter which way you look at it.
Next time, release a breathalyzer with open source code that has the rubber stamp of the OSS community, and you'll be far better off.
Continue to do so, and we're convicting DWI people instead of people who used some mouthwash before driving into work.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
oh a PhD chemist...
It's a scary world we live in. Don't trust the Constitution (e.g. 5th amendment guarantee against self-incrimination) to be interpreted in anything resembling a sane manner by modern courts. Unfortunately, all you can do is educate yourself and be prepared for the inevitable travesty of justice you'll encounter if you ever have the misfortune of being entwined in criminal proceedings.
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
Terrible idea.
Although you do not have the right to refuse a BAC test, in California or any other state, you can of course refuse it nonetheless. However, there is nothing to gain and plenty to lose by refusing to take a chemical BAC test.
* If you refuse to take the test you will be charged with a separate and additional offence to DUI or DWI known as a âoerefusal enhancement.â
* You will incur severe penalty enhancements for refusing to take the BAC test. Penalty enhancements vary from state to state. In California they include automatic suspension of your license for at least a year.
* These penalty enhancements will be incurred even if you are NOT later convicted of DUI or DWI.
* They will be incurred even if you change your mind and agree to take the test, or are forced to take it. (Yes, officers can and often do perform forced blood draws for the BAC test.)
* You will not have the right to consult with an attorney until you have either taken the test or definitely refused it.
* Your refusal to take the BAC test will be admissible in court and may be used against you as evidence of âoeconsciousness of guilt.â