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."

Comments

Re:These guys are no heroes

[teg]

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...

Re:That's how science works

[Swaffs]

The point is that these instruments have been thoroughly tested and shown to be accurate. That's where the peer review lies. What difference does it make then in how it does it? I can't possibly believe that a source-code audit of one of these instruments will reveal a bona fide error. Its either a stalling tactic or they're looking to launch a Chewbacca defence by introducing confusing arguments about computer code.

Re:That's how science works

[mvdwege]

So, how about a cite of those many studies? Because, so far, I haven't heard of a study in a respected journal yet that contradicts the current medical opinion that BAC directly correlates with driving impairment.

The rest of your post is sound and fury. Nice ranting, but it proves nothing. Give me cites from peer-reviewed sources that back up your ranting, and I may take you seriously.

Mart