Slashdot Mirror
MN Supreme Court Backs Reasoned Requests For Breathalyzer Source Code
viralMeme writes with news that the Minnesota Supreme Court has upheld the right of drunk-driving defendants to request the source code for the breathalyzer machines used as evidence against them, but only when the defendant provides sufficient arguments to suggest that a review of the code may have an impact on the case. In short: no fishing expeditions. The ruling involves two such requests (PDF), one of which we've been covering for some time. In that case, the defendant, Dale Underdahl simply argued that to challenge the validity of the charges, he had to "go after the testing method itself." The Supreme Court says this was not sufficient. Meanwhile, the other defendant, Timothy Brunner, "submitted a memorandum and nine exhibits to support his request for the source code," which included testimony from a computer science professor about the usefulness of source code in finding voting machine defects, and a report about a similar case in New Jersey where defects were found in the breathalyzer's source code. This was enough for the Supreme Court to acknowledge that an examination of the code could "relate to Brunner's guilt or innocence."
Does this mean that if a defendant presents a copy of Bruner's exhibits, he's likely to get the go-ahead in that state?
Bruce Perens.
So essentially challenging evidence gathering methods is insufficient, but making colorful posters and waving around a PhD is fine?
Install noscript and flashblock. This is assuming you run firefox, which you probably should. Slashdot still works with javascript disabled.
Bruce Perens.
I'd hate to see Slashdot supporting these wreckless drunks just because they claim to be l33t haX0rs.
That is the point. If the machine is faulty, they are not "drunks." Kinda like that printer wasn't really seeding Smells Like Teen Spirit. Only by examining the procedure for determining that state, can we know.
I assume breathalyzer evidence is given such great weight because it is "scientific evidence"? Then why shouldn't be subject to peer review... which is a central tenet of science? Without that, it's nothing more than a magical "black box, of unknown accuracy, and does not deserve to be considered "scientific proof"... throw away part of the valid process of science, and you debase the source of its supposed objectivity.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
My first attempt to run X-Windows was on a 386 with 16 megs of RAM, and it worked fine. We used VI in an xterm and that's the way we liked it! Web browsers, bah! Gopher still works, you know. Now get off my lawn.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
16 MEGS! What luxury. As an early Debian developer, I think I had 4 megs in my system. I remember working a month to make the install disk boot from one floppy.
Bruce Perens.
You're already modded as flamebait, so I probably shouldn't respond. Nevertheless, the whole point is that the machine can be FAULTY... thus they weren't drunk. Wouldn't YOU be pissed if you knew you weren't drunk and a magic machine with secret innards said you were?
Wouldn't YOU be pissed if you knew you weren't drunk
Paging Rene Descarte - Monsieur, we need you urgently....
Cheers,
Ian
That is the point. If the machine is faulty, they are not "drunks." Kinda like that printer wasn't really seeding Smells Like Teen Spirit. Only by examining the procedure for determining that state, can we know.
They are innocent until proven guilty. That said, I'd say the odds are rather large that these were driving under the influence and are now fishing for anything that potentially could be used. What about blood tests? Aren't those mandatory if the breathalyzer is positive?
Any code contains bugs. As the input to the process is unknown / contested, noone can prove that a specific path is correct/incorrect here. But in addition to normal software testing, devices like this are tested heavily in black box testing...
He could still be found guilty of DUI assuming other evidence was convincing; and for that matter, they could still cart people to a hospital for a blood test.
I'm glad that the courts allowed the defendant to view the source code (or at least get it analyzed). Software is not without its defects. It's my belief that any software that is used by the government to convict any of its citizens should be open for public review.
Now, the fact that he had to persuade the judge to allow the source code to be examined is upsetting but I think overall, its a positive move.
GP likely speaks American English.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
But . . . but . . . "pissed" IS "drunk" . . . and, umm, "grok" is "water" . . . and "Porky" es un cerdo . . . and, and . . . and if one thinks one's pissed, then therefore does one think one's "am"?
"Slashdot still works with javascript disabled."
Sort of.
For example, without Javascript and running Index2, you cannot delete messages from the system - all the delete anchors are of the form '<a href="#" onclick="stuff">' and so are useless.
And if you aren't running index2, you don't get notifications of responses and the like anymore - at least that has been my experience.
www.eFax.com are spammers
I'd hate to see slashdoters ignoring the basic principles of our justice system just to pursue some prejudice against accused drunk drivers.
Like it or not the foundation of out criminal justice system is based on the idea its better to let the guilty go free then the innocent be punished. It might be "PC" to "get tough on drunk driving," but this is a nation of laws or at least it used to be. The burden of evidence is supposed to be on the state. If the state is using equipment that must have its inner workings concealed as evidence. I think in the name of justice we must assume that without other pretty damning evidence its not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt guilt.
If you can't show me how it works or show that it does work in a double blind test with a sufficient sample size, it would not be a good enough argument for me serving on a jury to convict.
The state is much more powerful than and individual the burden of proof is supposed to be on them. A few numbers on an LED display connected to some box you blow in does not cut it, unless you can tell me a lot about what those numbers mean, how they are determined, if its accurate.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
If the machine is faulty, they are not "drunks."
Um. Wrong. Are you saying there were no drunk drivers before breath machines? Whether or not someone was drunk driving doesn't depend on the machine. Blood tests, failing FSTs, officer observations of your behavior and smell... any of these things are sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "beyond a shadow of a doubt." A possible or hypothetical doubt you have because you don't have a machine reading, or fingerprints, or a DNA sample isn't reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one based on reason and the facts in evidence.
If the prosecution has addressed each element of the crime, and for each element you have no reason to doubt it, then conviction is proper.
the whole point is that the machine can be FAULTY... thus they weren't drunk
God, I hope you never write software for me or any company I come into contact with.
"Well you see, the print notification daemon that lets us know when the print job succeeded crashed... so none of those confidential documents got printed. Don't worry, your employee who is walking to the printer now won't find the private email/dirty pictures/termination letter draft/whatever."
The breathalyzer doesn't MAKE someone drunk. Alcohol does. A person who has had too much alcohol is drunk, no matter what a machine says. What the machine says is meaningless, especially if the machine is faulty.
No intelligent person could possibly think X is false, just because the thing that said X was true was faulty.
But try telling that to kids these days, they mod you offtopic. I've half a mind to shake my cane at them.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I'd hate to see Slashdot supporting these wreckless drunks just because they claim to be l33t haX0rs.
Well, if they haven't been in an actual car accident it does seem that they shouldn't be as vilified as you're implying...
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
Thought I would share this, and before a bunch of you start posting BS about the claim of who wrote what, that is not the point. The point is the evolution of MN DWI law and technology.
My father as a prosecutor in Minneapolis in the 60's and 70's started prosecuting drunk drivers for things like felony manslaughter and such. At the time it was just misdemeanor, and often the police would just give someone a ride home. The State legislators and several lobby groups caught wind of it and asked him to write the laws. Those became the first felony laws for DWI in MN, and later where used as a model for other States around the country. Obviously they have been super modified since then, but the fundamental principle that DWI is something serious is still there.
My father went on in private practice as defense attorney in the 80's. Almost all of his acquittals on DWI came down to discrediting the probable cause (i.e. the officer) for the arrest in the first place. Typically the officer's judgment was always front and center (e.g. did he really see him cross the center line on an ice covered road). It got progressively harder as they started adding video cameras and other technology to get someone off on a DWI charge, as the officer's judgment became less important.
I suspect since my father's time, the only thing left to really attack is the validity of the technology itself that measures the crime.
Living in Chile
Will the same thing also be for red light cameras / speed cameras / video toll systems and more?
If I get red light ticket should I ask for the light timing tables? the camera timing tables? When the last time the light was tested as well testing the camera system? how it is tied into the light part of the main controller or is it a add on to the controller. Was the railroad system working right if it is a light with a railroad crossing part of it?
There have been cases for yellow times being to short for speed limit of the road and tickets have to be voided and some times the cameras triggering on yellow.
You may end up getting a red light ticket from a quick green to red at a light with a railroad crossing at it. Then if that where me I would want to have the logs and setting for all parts of the light like The pre-emptive / interconnected rail gates to light settings / The light timing settings / mini clear time / time be telling the camera system that the light is red after turning red / yellow time / camera system wait time and other times as well. Maybe even the code but like just the timings and how things are linked will do in that case.
I don't like the idea of a cheap hack like hooking to red light power bus other then a link to the cpu / data bus / network bus that interconnected rail / lights liked to other lights use.
Well since he said they were wreckless, not reckless, I think he was inadvertently not vilifying anyone.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
I actually really like the idea that the court system is allowing defendants to view the source code of the breathalyzer. In today's time drunk driving is a very serious offense that could affect the rest of a person's life if convicted. It would be wrong to convict a person of drunk driving if there was an error in the way the breathalyzer was functioning.
Blood tests, failing FSTs, officer observations of your behavior and smell... any of these things are sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
While you're not quite right about what it takes to convict in a DUI case, you are right in saying that you don't necessarily need breathalyzer results. Hence the ruling: no source code unless it is going to bear on the outcome of the case. If the test results aren't vital to determining guilt, then there is no issue. In many cases, however, they are. In such cases, it's important to know how the test works, and if there is some fundamental problem with its reliability. It's absurd to say that you don't need to know if the test is good or not, since there's other evidence. If that were true, there would be no need for the test in the first place.
Suse vivo vixi victum reduco is ea id creatura absit decessus a facultas Linux! Dev root, dev root!
If you can't show me how it works or show that it does work in a double blind test with a sufficient sample size, it would not be a good enough argument for me serving on a jury to convict.
In a statistical test, we would also have to apply a pretty strong definition of "it does work". If it works correctly 99% of the time, that means it's falsely accusing innocents 1% of the time.
Just as one can't prove a negative, it would be impossible to produce a breath analyzer that works 100% of the time under every imaginable condition (temperature, humidity, chemicals in the air ...), but we do need to set strong enough standards that our conscience can deal with the small fraction of innocents accused and "proven" guilty by the machine.
Or we could stop relying on a machine for our justice system and require multiple corroborating evidences (for one, sobriety tests, which should yield fairly good indicator whether someone is too drunk to drive, especially in conjunction with breath analyzer results) before anyone is accused or convicted of drunk driving.
Regardless of the laws, BAC should probably be as close to zero-tolerance as is feasible due to non-drink products that contain trace amounts of alcohol, so I'd be less than pleased if they got off because they might have been as low as 0.075 BAC instead of the 0.08 the hardware tested them at.
Defects in the source code IMO constitute reasonable doubt just as if you were given a speeding ticket based upon an improperly calibrated speed gun (kangaroo nature of traffic court notwithstanding)
Additionally, if the source code is suspect enough to invite a challenge to probable cause, then that endangers any subsequent blood tests based on "fruit of a poisoned tree", particularly if the state knew about defects.
for one, sobriety tests, which should yield fairly good indicator...
There is a test - it is called a blood test. Since the legal limit is set in terms of the amount of alcohol in your blood this is the only completely accurate way to determine whether you are over the limit.
Just as one can't prove a negative
Not this crap again...
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=can't+prove+a+negative
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
At least not in any jurisdiction I'm aware of, but you can demand one. This is the way to go too, have them take blood, and demand a sample be taken for your attorney as well. The reason is that the only way to accurately measure blood alcohol content is to, well, measure the amount of alcohol in the blood.
The reason the breathalyzer manufacturers are so scared to have their units inspected isn't because there's something evil in the source, but because they know it is a flawed system. They are things that can be accurate, but only if the assumptions they make are correct, and they aren't for all people. As such you can't guarantee an accurate result. If this gets widely shown in court, well then their devices are likely to lose use with law enforcement.
More or less their method for measuring BAC could be compared to measuring the current running through a circuit by measuring the intensity of the light bulb on that circuit. Such a thing can work and give accurate results, but only if you make correct assumptions. You need to know the efficiency of the bulb, the voltage of the circuit, and if there is resistance anywhere else in there. So if your system was designed for incandescent bulbs but your were measuring a florescent, you'd get the wrong result. Same deal if you were designed for a 120v line and it was a 240v bulb.
This is why the breathalyzer companies have flat out refused to hand over their source in various cases. They know that their market is going to vastly shrink if they do.
So as I said: Always demand a blood sample, and another for your lawyer so it can be independently tested. This, of course, won't do any good if you are actually driving drunk but my advice in that situation is don't. However it will do a good job of keeping you from falsely being charged/convicted.
In many jurisdictions, a breathalyzer is already not sufficient to prove guilt without other evidence. But I can damned well guarantee that, even without having the source code examined, it more than clears the hurdle for probable cause leading to the arrest.
I'm afraid you're joking to the lawn with this one.
The problem with blood tests is that they are not taken directly at the scene. Which means it can be anywhere from a half hour to 2 hours from when they were stopped. This mean that their BAC may have changed, higher or lower depending on when they first drink was and their food intake prior to drinking.
I believe what he is saying is that if the machine is faulty, the defendant may well be falsely accused.
If they're wreckless, what's the problem? I'd rather get the wreckfull drivers off the road.
I think enough of us who are older have known people to be killed by drunk drivers and I honestly have no idea why drunk drivers are even allowed to live after they kill someone.
So go kill the drunks that killed your friends. Be the vigilante.
Or allow that due process of law should trump personal feelings in these matters.
The bottom line is, if someone is getting pulled over for DUI, its because they were already obviously driving smashed.
People drive poorly for all sorts of reasons apart from intoxication. Being tired, or distracted, or suffering from a condition that causes poor night vision all too frequently lead to accidents.
And not everyone who gets pulled over is guilty of something. Cops make mistakes too...
So you're saying that it should be possible for anyone to be hauled in for drunk driving if the cops don't like the smell of their breath?
I sure hope the police in your area don't have any reason to dislike you...
No. But if you are followed out of a bar, and you're swerving in and out of your lane, and your breath smells like alcohol, and you throw up in the police cruiser, and you're dehydrated and sensitive to light the next day, the jury will probably convict you. And they would be right to.
"Slashdot still works with javascript disabled."
Sort of.
For example, without Javascript and running Index2, you cannot delete messages from the system - all the delete anchors are of the form '<a href="#" onclick="stuff">' and so are useless.
And if you aren't running index2, you don't get notifications of responses and the like anymore - at least that has been my experience.
Just allow slashdot.org, not the other stuff. Comments clicks nicely expand the thread without a full redraw and cut off.
Defects in the source code IMO constitute reasonable doubt
Show me defect-free source code, please and thank you very much.
And by the time they pull you over, they probably already have probable cause (or close). By the time you're asked to take a PBT, there's almost assuredly probable cause for a blood warrant.
Sorry dude, but you don't seem to have a realistic grasp of programming OR the law.
Treading water in North Africa (deep in de Nile). Simply not drinking and driving avoids such unpleasant circumstances. After all those years, I'm actually happy, joyous, and free not to do that anymore. Good luck, and don't kill my kids, please.
Keep Doing Good.
That thing is a black box. Blow goes in and a number comes out. The State fights attempts to determine what happens in between.
This is good news. Get yourself a software expert (IF YOU'RE DAMN RICH), then evaluate the software.
Way to go Minnesota.
This is going to be a field day for experts ($). The States had better timely respond to this!!
Breath test machines are a fantastic use of open source software. Transparency.
This is HUGE its gonna spread and it's going to really affect lots of things, especially time for trial timelines.
This is going to be the new DWI defense lawyer fad.
you're not quite right about what it takes to convict in a DUI case...
I strongly disagree. If you honestly think differently, give me citations to cases from each of the 50 state supreme courts, or a citation to a U.S. Supreme Court case, stating either (a) that no reasonable jury could convict based on blood tests; or (b) that no reasonable jury could convict based on any combination of field sobriety tests and observed behavior.
Try to do it without an ad hominem this time (you've been belligerent and abusive in prior exchanges, notably the EFF article).
Wouldn't YOU be pissed if you knew you weren't drunk
If I knew I weren't drunk, how could I be pissed (i.e. drunk)?
Except that if states KNOW their breathalyzers are suspect, that knowledge can be imputed to the police, and probable cause evaporates.
But you sound like a troll, so I'm not feeding you anymore.
Actually, in the preeminint case on the subject, the expert witness reported that 2.3% of the time, breathalyzers report blood alcohol levels higher than actual blood alcohol levels. Unfortunately, for the defendant, the expert witness had a problem with his math - higher than actual results according to his research happen 23% of the time.
97.7% is a far cry from 99%. 77% is a travesty. That's nearly 1 in 4 people failing breath tests that should pass them.
I'm not advocating drunk driving, but I firmly believe that breath tests are inaccurate to the point that you can't logically consider them when determining somebody's guilt.
A recent cigarette or mouthwash will cause a failure on many breath tests. That's just wrong.
>
The bottom line is, if someone is getting pulled over for DUI, its because they were already obviously driving smashed. You can see them when you drive - weaving, going slow, forgot to put the headlights on, maybe stopping too soon or too often... and for what? Really, for what do people do this?
I hope you are never the cop who pulls someone over in diabetic keto acidosis... Looks like a drunk, smells like a drunk, acts like a drunk... And if you just dump them in the drunk tank, they will die and you will be on trial.
Show me defect-free source code, please and thank you very much.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hello+world+source+code
And by the time they pull you over, they probably already have probable cause (or close). By the time you're asked to take a PBT, there's almost assuredly probable cause for a blood warrant.
DUI checkpoints.
Sorry dude, but you don't seem to have a realistic grasp of programming OR the law.
Are you sure that you do?
No. But if you are followed out of a bar, and you're swerving in and out of your lane, and your breath smells like alcohol, and you throw up in the police cruiser, and you're dehydrated and sensitive to light the next day, the jury will probably convict you. And they would be right to.
And the breathalyser evidence would not even be needed, so discrediting it would be moot.
From one of the links .. (SysTest being the company hired by the Breathalyzer company to review the source code and Base One being the company hired by the accused)
> SysTest only looked for "mal-ware", not for functioning of the code.
>
> Base One, however, did an extensive evaluation, finding 19,400 potential errors in the code.
How can you find "mal-ware" when you don't consider the purpose of the code.
And here is their algorithm to average n = 4 readings ... "When the software takes a series of readings, it first averages the first two readings. Then, it averages the third reading with the average just computed. Then the fourth reading is averaged with the new average ... which would cause the first reading to have more weight ... Nonetheless, the comments say that the values should be averaged, and they are not."
I hope you are never the cop who pulls someone over in diabetic keto acidosis... Looks like a drunk, smells like a drunk, acts like a drunk... And if you just dump them in the drunk tank, they will die and you will be on trial.
What if the diabetic keto acidosis guy goes and kills someone. Do you really want that person on the road? If they are driving impaired, they are driving impaired, you know. Or should it be legal to hit people because they have diabetes.
This is my sig.
I hope you are never the cop who pulls someone over in diabetic keto acidosis... Looks like a drunk, smells like a drunk, acts like a drunk... And if you just dump them in the drunk tank, they will die and you will be on trial.
What if the diabetic keto acidosis guy goes and kills someone. Do you really want that person on the road? If they are driving impaired, they are driving impaired, you know. Or should it be legal to hit people because they have diabetes.
Is it really so hard to look it up before you comment on it?
I don't mind wreckless drunks. It's the ones who wreck that I have a problem with.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. My point is not that one can never obtain a DUI conviction without a breath test, as I plainly said. Rather, I was saying that your assessment of what it takes to convict isn't quite right. You said that any of the things you listed (odor, fst results, behavior) were proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and enough to secure a conviction, thus making breath results unnecessary. While in certain cases a combination of those things might be enough evidence, the way you portray the situation is not accurate. Without physical evidence of any kind, the chances of a successful conviction drop severely. This is especially true given a competent defense attorney who would introduce evidence of the extreme unreliability of the various field sobriety tests, attack officer reliability and memory, etc. If one has a breath test, at least in my state, nothing else is needed (barring any problems with the results, of course). My point was that breath testing is important to successful prosecution, and ignoring that fact is silly. As you correctly point out, all the prosecution needs to do is prove the case. In many cases, however, breath tests are an important part of that proof. Were that not the case, there would be no discussion about the issue. If you read my post, I think you'll understand what I mean.
I want to assure you that I'm not targeting you in any way- I didn't even realize it was you that I had replied to before. I do find it interesting that on both occasions you've failed to respond substantively to what I posted. I looked back at my reply to you in the EFF discussion, and I really don't think you can begin to call that abuse. I abused the idiot of an AC that replied to me a little, but he was pretty belligerent and abusive himself. (I assume that wasn't you trying to dodge a karma hit) In either case, my arguments never rested in any way on ad hominems. Also, if you want to get picky about logic, I don't need a citation from every state supreme court showing that your assertion is incorrect. The burden lies with you to show evidence supporting your argument. Further, you asked me to disprove points stronger than those you were originally making.
Suse vivo vixi victum reduco is ea id creatura absit decessus a facultas Linux! Dev root, dev root!
I'm trying to figure out your point. The GP is pointing out that it's important to distinguish between drunks and people in a medical crisis. You responded by saying that people in medical crisis can be dangerous behind the wheel. I fail to see where you could possibly be heading with this.
Suse vivo vixi victum reduco is ea id creatura absit decessus a facultas Linux! Dev root, dev root!
"officer observations of your behavior and smell... [is] sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt." (emphasis added)
I never said odor was sufficient in and of itself. To clear up the confusion that may exist, lemme rewrite in lawyerese ;-) :
Any of the following may be sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt: (a) blood tests showing a Blood Alcohol Content above statutory limits; (b) failing a properly-administered battery of Field Sobriety Tests; or (c) officer observations of (i) behavior; and (ii) smell.
The chances of conviction drop, yes, but the evidence is nevertheless (as a matter of law) sufficient. Since the discussion was about what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means, and not about prosecutor/defense tactics, I think it's safe to say that my portrayal was not in fact how you read it. Also, while some FSTs really suck, I believe some jurisdictions have legislative findings concerning others. In such states, for example, a horizontal gaze nystagmus test, administered by an officer with a brief training course in optical observation, is admissible and - combined with other FST behavior - sufficient for conviction. Now, if I were a defense attorney I would of course try to discredit the officer -- have him act out in the well how he administered the test, point out if he holds the light too close or too far away, and so on -- but that doesn't change the fact that a properly-administered one is good evidence as a matter of law, and a jury verdict based on that and not much else is unlikely to be overturned.
Also, a minor point I'd like to address just to preempt it from becoming an issue: most jurisdictions now have different kinds of drunk-driving crimes. For example, in my state, OWI (operating while intoxicated) means you were operating with a BAC above 0.08, while DWI (driving while impaired) means you were drunk enough to have noticeably worse driving skill. For purposes of this discussion, I'm referring to the whole drunk-driving statutory regime as "DUI" -- what code number the prosecutor charges under is mostly irrelevant to the standard of proof.
Regardless of the AC's tone in the EFF article, his(/her?) position was mine, and you suggested that only a paralegal without a college education could agree with that position. Besides, even abuse shouldn't beget abuse.
Unless there are foods which cause false increases in the BAC, what your comment means is: it's possible that they weren't drunk yet when they had the accident, but they had previously drunk enough alcohol to later be impaired if they hadn't had the accident and had continued to drive. Somehow, I'm not convinced that justice wouldn't be served anyway by overlooking this bit of pendantry.
imputed?
;)
I purport that I smell a lawyer in our midst
Even if they get the source code for the program, they now have a valid reason to also ask for the source code to the compiler - as this may also have bugs.
In fact, if the program or compiler have had ANY revisions due to bug fixes, then one could argue that the current version of either also could have bugs.
The bottom line is, if someone is getting pulled over for DUI, its because they were already obviously driving smashed...
...or drove through a checkpoint, or the cop was profiling, or bored, or the driver was a cute blond and he wanted to flirt.
All of these happen. And, frankly, everything you listed--weaving, going slow, forgot to put the headlights on, maybe stopping too soon or too often--happens with dead-sober drivers, too. And, again, that's assuming it actually happened: cops use these as pretexts all the time to stop drivers whether there's a legitimate reason or not. Go Google "testilying." The whole point of having a trial is to ensure that only people who are actually guilty are convicted.
I'm not defending drunk driving, I'm saying we need to make sure we're only locking up actual drunk drivers, not just casting a wide net and jailing whomever gets tangled in it.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
I agree with getting the exact source code of a product in use to support a claim. That professor that got code for the voting machine however is a criminal. He obtained the code illegally, and that company did not prosecute him.
Yes, it is. And like every other prejudice it's ignorant, emotional and shameful. You're why victims of crimes should never have any say in sentencing or lawmaking in topics relevant to said crime. You lose all rational thought and become ruled by base emotion.
It would be like a police officer that pulls you over for speeding after *both* tagging you with a radar gun, then pulling out and pacing you. If the radar gun is faulty, it wouldn't matter since the officer still paced you and you were speeding. The court isn't going to waste time allowing you to go down a path that cannot possibly affect the outcome of the case, factually or legally.
I hope this isn't too hard to understand for a 1L that seems to be in way over his head. The "fruit of a poisoned tree" reference is cute, but has no bearing whatsoever here. Hit the books before you fail.
Technically speaking, that does not prove guilt either, unless the blood sample is taken very close to the time the defendant is driving (i.e. not a half hour later).
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Actually, it should be involuntary manslaughter. Drunk driving in the usual circumstance does not fit with the mens rea required for murder, unless you're talking about the kind of drunk where you deliberately drive up a crowded foot path to see what you can hit.
Death is neither the certain or even the most likely outcome of drunk driving. The large majority of drunk drivers get home without ever hitting anyone or everything. This make it hard to tie malice aforethought to just being a drunk driver.
Many jurisdictions (especially outside of the US) have a specific charge of "reckless driving causing injury or death" that applies to drunk driving, drugged driving and illegal drag racing. This seems like a good way to deal with the problem, as it allows a specific deterrent to *all* motor vehicular stupidity that can cause death.
You can't settle criminal cases easily
In which country? In the United States, most criminal defendants settle with a guilty plea to a lesser charge rather than let the matter go to a jury.
What the MN supreme court said is that you cant just say "I want to look at the code because there might, possibly, be something wrong with it", you have to give some idea of *what* you think might be wrong with it.
I think the algorithm that the device uses to translate signals from a silica sensor into an estimate of blood alcohol has flaws. A relevant one is failure to correct for alcohol in the mouth but not in the bloodstream, such as recent drinking, recent use of mouthwash, or belching. Other problems with breath alcohol measurement in general include failure to correct for hematocrit, failure to correct for breathing pattern, failure to correct for temperature, failure to remind the user to recalibrate against a control, and failure to correct for ketones common in the breath of people with diabetes and low-carb dieters.
I'd hate to see slashdotters ignoring the basic principles of our justice system even if it were the only way successfully to pursue actual drunk drivers. Having principles means that there are effective actions that you won't take because the actions themselves can cause harm.
"better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" --William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, c. 1760
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
If you drink, don't drive. Period.
gee... who'ld've thunk it...
Don't drink and drive.
Don't drink, then drive.
If you drink, lose your keys.
I for one, like the idea of this.
Have you had a drink tonight?
just 1 beer.
Thank you, you're license has beenr revoked for life, and your car will be crushed into a cube and planted in your front yard. Have a nice day!
If you take it 30 minutes later and it is still over the limit it certainly does prove guilt. Any delay will only lower the alcohol in the suspects blood (unless they are still guzzling alcohol when pulled over in which case they deserve what they get) and so it is a 'safe' test since it can only err on the side of finding the guilty innocent.
Actually, sometimes alcohol can take a significant amount of time to be absorbed, particularly with food involved.
See:
http://www.forcon.ca/learning/alcohol.html
And it can be longer (up to 2 hours, according to the link).
If someone is close to the limit, absorption rate might be a factor -- and might (quite reasonably) put an innocent person in jail.
Now, you could argue that the person still shouldn't be driving, etc. But this will usually be a factor close to the limit, and the limit is already quite conservative (i.e. if a typical person has about 3 drinks, then drives, they could go to jail and pay thousands in fines).
I would be in favor of using a graduated scale where it started out by just enhancing other infractions. In other words, maybe 0.08 is just a ticket (lets say you were pulled over for a broken tail light), but 0.08 and speeding gets something a little worse, and save the harshest penalties for people that are actually drunk and driving recklessly.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.