Slashdot Mirror


Minnesota Supreme Court Rejects DUI Challenges Based On Buggy Software

bzzfzz writes "In a case with parallels to the Diebold Voting Machine fiasco, Minnesota's Supreme Court upheld the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN breath testing machine on a narrow 4-3 vote. Source code analysis during the six-year legal battle revealed a number of bugs that could potentially affect test results. Several thousand DUI cases that were waiting on the results of this appeal will now proceed. The ruling is one in a series of DUI-related court victories for police and prosecutors. Other recent cases upheld a conviction of a person with no evidence that the vehicle had been driven and convictions based solely on urine samples that may only show impairment hours before driving. The Intoxilyzer 5000EN is now considered obsolete, and replacement devices are being rolled out, with the last jurisdictions in the state scheduled to retire their 5000ENs by the end of the year."

10 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Cost/Benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hopefully, one day, you'll be incorrectly lumped in with a majority accused of a crime and someone in a position of power won't give a damn about your rights or freedoms.

  2. Probably guilty? by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a minnesotan, I don't necessarily approve, but I would expect that the majority of those covicted with this equipment truely were drunk.

    So your argument is that someone should be wrongly convicted because a bunch of other people probably were guilty? I pray you never become a judge.

  3. Re:I for one... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They did not throw out these convictions only to save on paperwork.

    More likely...they didn't want to throw them out because of revenue loss.

    They're not interested in making the roads safer, they're wanting to protect their revenue stream.

    I'd be willing to bet, that if you took all the revenue from driving infractions, and pooled them, and maybe gave it all back to the citizens that did NOT incur any infractions...rather than give it to the cops, you'd see a huge drop in the vigor and ferocity of our 'safety' officials in setting up all these traps, and the system not caring much about how realistic, accurate and fair they are....

    It is always a bad idea to allow those that can impose power over you, directly benefit monetarily from said actions.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  4. Re:Too Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Alcohol affects people in different ways, what may be fine for you isn't fine for me.

    Yes... and the solution is not your proposal of any alcohol means no driving. The solution is being responsible for your damn self and knowing how the shit affects you. If you can't drive after even one drink, then fucking don't. If I can without any issues of safety or decreased driving ability (especially when had with a big meal that the alcohol hasn't even had time to absorb into my system fast enough, because it hasn't been sucked out of the food that it was absorbed into yet), then let me drive and get the fuck off my lawn. And if some fuck abuses that responsibility and kills someone, then said person needs to take responsibility and take the consequences or find a new life where he can forget that it ever happened.

  5. Re:On what planet? by alen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    no, it was proved the software has bugs. all software has bugs. all software has always had bugs. airplane software has bugs. my honda CR-V was just patched for a transmission software bug. i was still able to drive it safely and airplanes don't fall out of the sky daily because of software bugs.

    it was up to the defense to prove that the bugs in question return invalid results or increase the margin of error so much as to make the results useless

    too bad, all the idiots who choose to drive after drinking more than they should deserve to go to jail. i'll drive a few hours after i have one drink. maybe one and a half. these idiots got drunk and drove a car

  6. Re:Cost/Benefit by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whatever happened to the idea that it's better to let ten guilty men go free than to wrongly imprison one innocent man that this country's justice system was once based on?

  7. Follow the Power by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More likely...they didn't want to throw them out because of revenue loss.

    If it were that easy, it'd be mere corruption.

    But consider that those with the libido dominandi seek money, sex, and power - in that order.

    We all know that speed limit laws are often set capriciously, foolishly, and dangerously. But it's the law - and you'll obey.

    It's like the marijuana debate. It doesn't matter that there's plenty of scientific evidence to show that alcohol is more dangerous, that legalizing marijuana reduces deaths and crime, etc. That's been known for at least decades. Yet the policies continue - why?

    Sure, there's some financial emolument to certain players by having these laws, but there's way more benefit for the power structure. The point of these policies is to enforce the power structure. They dictate, you obey, logic and reason need not apply. Repeat until you understand who's in charge, what your position is, and how free you really are.

    So then we get Supreme Court decisions like this one which takes a reasoned argument, throws it out, and that sets the new precedent. We must all obey these precedents, because that's what the system decided. We're taught that the system operates for our benefit, but primarily (literal sense) it operates for its own perpetuation. There's even SCOTUS precedent for decisions which basically say, "the defendant's claim has merit, but finding for him would threaten the system, so we find for the State."

    "Follow the money" is good in business, but in politics, do that and also "follow the power".

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  8. Re:Too Bad by mark-t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they didn't want people to drink and drive home, then they'd NOT have all those nice large parking lots outside of the bars.

    Presumably, you are with somebody who *CAN* drive you home... and the next time you are there, it'll be your turn to drive.

    The excuse that they have parking lots in bars should be an excuse to drive home after drinking is about as lame as "she was dressed like a prostitute" is an excuse to commit rape. And before anybody brings it up, I'm not comparing the severity of the two actions (drinking and driving to rape)... only the feebleness of the excuse, and all it shows is an immature reluctance to assume responsibility and accountability for one's own choices.

  9. Re:Too Bad by Grygus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Zero tolerance is a very easy and popular way to reach judgment with no effort. That's how he got modded up; nobody stopped and thought about it.

  10. Re:Careful there by PatDev · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Often I fear for the future of this world, seeing the kind of people our socio/economic/educational climate is generating these days... Part of me feels that I'm just getting to the point where I no longer understand what it's like to be young, dumb, and full of reproductive fluids

    CanHasDIY, 2012

    I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly disrespectful and impatient of restraint"

    Hesiod, 8th century BC