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.
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.
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.
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
"I did NOT willfully download child pornography. My Windows operating system hijacked my computer, downloaded the material, and brought it up in Internet Explorer every day between 6 and 10 PM on weekdays, and between 7 AM and 10 PM on weekends, holidays, and days I had sick leave."
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
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.
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
Yeah it's utterly horrible that people would actually have to make sure that the evidence they are using against people is actually accurate and not being tainted by flaws in the equipment used or their methodologies. Oh the horrors of that!
while this is unquestionably true as a question of fact let me assure you that at least one court of law is more than capable of ignoring it - this exact thing (unpatched windoze box got p0wned) happened to my sister-in-law's brother back in '02 and he's currently on federal holiday in Mississippi (at least it's the "country club"/minimum-security kind) and facing a lifetime of being registered and presumed to be something he clearly isn't...
even if you don't care about the injustice of ruining the life of a (then) 19-yr-old you don't & likely never will know (I'd only met him 2x before that happened) you might want to consider the six-figure sum of you tax dollars that's been shoveled into the furnace prosecuting and imprisoning him but, hey, we got to "think of the children!!!", right?
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...