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

Fishing expeditions

[Brian Gordon]

So essentially challenging evidence gathering methods is insufficient, but making colorful posters and waving around a PhD is fine?

Re:Fishing expeditions

[Bruce Perens]

At times I have been an expert witness. I look at the evidence, and make a reasoned finding which I explain what I think, in terms a layman can apprehend, to the court reporter. If I can't ethically testify in the customer's favor, I tell them so and end the engagement before there is a chance for me to testify.

My cases rarely have much to do with a judge, because civil cases tend to settle. And then get sealed, so you can't see them.

Re:Fishing expeditions

[Bruce Perens]

I've never found it very difficult to understand the lawyers and judge's case findings. Yes, they use a little Latin, but you can learn the 100 most used words and look up anything more that comes up on the web. And they cite cases, which you can look up too.

Are you talking about contracts?

Re:Fishing expeditions

[JustNiz]

I think the problem here is that the guy caught drunk-driving didn't pass the bar. He stopped and went in.

Re:These guys are no heroes

[houstonbofh]

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.

That's how science works

[mister_playboy]

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.

Re:That's how science works

[Bruce Perens]

I think you are allowed to refuse a breathalizer in some jurisdictions. If you do, they take you to get a blood draw immediately, and charge you based on the amount of alcohol measured in your blood. I don't know how they measure it.

Re:That's how science works

[ari_j]

In my state, and likely in many others, we have an "implied consent" law. What it says is that you implicitly consent, by signing your name to your driving license, to a breath alcohol test whenever you are stopped for a traffic violation. It also says that, if you revoke your implied consent by refusing a breath test, you automatically lose your license as an administrative matter between you and the department of transportation. Even if you are acquitted of the DUI, you have to take the DOT to court to get your license back, because you broke your agreement in getting it.

We also, as I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, don't convict you of DUI based on a breath test. The breath test (an SD-2 Breathalyzer machine in most cases) just gives enough evidence to take you in and do a blood draw. This avoids the source code problem, among others, by using well-known, old-fashioned, and I believe published lab methods to measure your blood alcohol content.

Of course, the SD-2 can be used to convict you of being a minor in consumption of alcohol, which makes sense because, whereas the DUI law punishes 0.08% or higher and an inaccurate measurement by the SD-2 can make or break the case, an MIC punishes anything greater than 0%, so an inaccurate measurement only matters if it finds alcohol where there is none, which is vastly less probable than inaccurately measuring the amount of alcohol where there is some.

Re:Hm.

[spun]

Wait, wait, wait. You're saying embedded code often stinks? Don't we use embedded code in voting machines? My God, has anyone checked them? This sounds like it could be a real problem, I think we need to notify the authorities.

Re:Hm.

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Mod parent up. His post is 100% correct. In the United States if you refuse a Breathalyzer you will be administered a blood test (not that this can take several hours in which you may or may not sober up...)." [Emphasis Added}

This is not a federal issue, and the procedures vary from state to state. In Pennsylvania you have to submit blood even if you take a breathalyzer and plead guilty or they take your license for a year. In Massachusetts you can take a breathalyzer or a blood test, but can only do the latter if you can afford to pay a personal physician to show up at the station and perform the test. (Read: Aren't poor and/or ignorant)

So you see, different states abuse citizens right in different ways ;-)

Re:These guys are no heroes

[DarkOx]

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.

Re:Hm.

[d'fim]

Correction:
You have to refuse the breathalyzer and the blood test for the penalty to kick in.